The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have been thinking about this for a long time, and after various heated debates with friends, i have come to a conclusion. Humans will always be better then robots. The reason being, that no matter how well programmed,
designed, or marketed, robots will never be truly sentient. Oh, they may one day seem sentient, and even the greatest biologists may not be able to tell the difference, but they will have 'bugs' something humans dont have.For example, take BOT's (basically robots with no body, used in games as opponents) When playing bots AND humans on perfect dark, I notice several key differences. No matter how good aim, speed or weapons human players always manage to trick the bots with carefully placed explosives, teamwork and tricks like getting behind a door and using a farsight to shoot through it as soon as the bots try to open it.
Bots also tend to walk into doors and get stuck. I often have to put them out of their misery, so they can regenerate and try again. The reason they walk into the wall, against all rationality, is because they are being told to by a faulty routine in their program. They have no free will to change that program. I know PD simulants and robots are quite different, but the fundamentals are the same. ROBOTS HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD. they cannot 'break' programming. They cannot choose.
Can a bullet become a pacifist in mid air and stop? Can a wrench choose where it is used? No. Tools have no choice how, when and where they are used. People always do. Humans learn and adapt. Robots can only do this as long as their programs alow them to. They cannot improvise.
If the programmer forgot to insert the movement program, even Data would have been a cripple dragging himself along the floor like an idiot. Robots may be stronger and quicker, but they will never be smarter.
designed, or marketed, robots will never be truly sentient. Oh, they may one day seem sentient, and even the greatest biologists may not be able to tell the difference, but they will have 'bugs' something humans dont have.For example, take BOT's (basically robots with no body, used in games as opponents) When playing bots AND humans on perfect dark, I notice several key differences. No matter how good aim, speed or weapons human players always manage to trick the bots with carefully placed explosives, teamwork and tricks like getting behind a door and using a farsight to shoot through it as soon as the bots try to open it.
Bots also tend to walk into doors and get stuck. I often have to put them out of their misery, so they can regenerate and try again. The reason they walk into the wall, against all rationality, is because they are being told to by a faulty routine in their program. They have no free will to change that program. I know PD simulants and robots are quite different, but the fundamentals are the same. ROBOTS HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD. they cannot 'break' programming. They cannot choose.
Can a bullet become a pacifist in mid air and stop? Can a wrench choose where it is used? No. Tools have no choice how, when and where they are used. People always do. Humans learn and adapt. Robots can only do this as long as their programs alow them to. They cannot improvise.
If the programmer forgot to insert the movement program, even Data would have been a cripple dragging himself along the floor like an idiot. Robots may be stronger and quicker, but they will never be smarter.
Page:
The word robot means - Any automated machine programed to perform specfic mechanical functions in teh manner of a human.
So this means that they can never be better than us, unless they arent robots! If it was a cyborg on the other hand. They could be better than us, because they can have our brain (that we only use about 10% of) then they can have an improved body that can be quicker and stronger than us!
So this means that they can never be better than us, unless they arent robots! If it was a cyborg on the other hand. They could be better than us, because they can have our brain (that we only use about 10% of) then they can have an improved body that can be quicker and stronger than us!
yeay, humor is ok, but this forum have gone to 100 posts without spam. Id like to keep it that way. If u wanna put a jk in, make it a big, good joke.
Humour is much appreciated in these forums (Not the black bile kind, though)
Ahem
This is a semi-serious forum.
Please refrain from spam.
This is a semi-serious forum.
Please refrain from spam.
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but I have a sentient robot right here.
Its made out of a pedal bin and blue sticky tape and does what it likes regardless of what you tell it.
It also has no conscience. Why on the first day I got it I was cleaning it, I turn my back for two minutes and its run off to find some old geezer it claims to belong to. Thing is, I went after it and the old bloke told me that he didn't recall ever having owned a robot.
So, not only did it run off, but it lied to me. Do I get one word of an apology? No!
Still, we've had some fun times me and that robot. Once we went to Degobah to find this Jedi master chap, and the thing only went and got itself swallowed by a local beast.
This all happened a long time ago, you understand, in a place far far away.
Its made out of a pedal bin and blue sticky tape and does what it likes regardless of what you tell it.
It also has no conscience. Why on the first day I got it I was cleaning it, I turn my back for two minutes and its run off to find some old geezer it claims to belong to. Thing is, I went after it and the old bloke told me that he didn't recall ever having owned a robot.
So, not only did it run off, but it lied to me. Do I get one word of an apology? No!
Still, we've had some fun times me and that robot. Once we went to Degobah to find this Jedi master chap, and the thing only went and got itself swallowed by a local beast.
This all happened a long time ago, you understand, in a place far far away.
Your Honour wrote:
> Edwin25 wrote:
I> was takin an estimated guess. 3000 words is still quite
> limited.
You should really say stuff as fact, when it's only a
> guess.
Eh, How can i say stuff i guess is fact without lying? please explain, i think you missed out a word or phrase by accident.
Also, you
> said:
Well, come on i odnt work for the
> government so
> you got an unfair advantge there matey.
I don't work for
> the government, I work for a company that does a little work for the
> MoD.
Well technically you are working for the government. Your stuff helps them, and the money the give the company gets to you partially.
Maybe, or
> mabybe a barrier will be reached, which we cant
> pass.
Unlikely. After the 20Gig chips are made, they reckon there will be a
> barrier, but designs are already underway for 3D chips, which in theory, could
> have ridiculously fast clock speeds like several hundred Gig Hz.
I SAID MAYBE. We will have to see.
And again, bring on the future of quake!
Yeah, but
> it
> would either have to learn the maths model, or get it fed in by us.
> Either way
> it would be almost impossible to get the correct data in,
> unless it was a skynet
> or hal 9000 type mega computer.
Well,
> considering that there is a computer the size of two basketball courts, with
> some 9000 chips in modelling Nuclear Explosisons in the US (Nuclear Expolisions
> are quite possibly THE most complex thing due to all the Brownian Motion of
> every single particle needed to be calculated), I reckon in a few years one'll
> be powerful enough to model the real world.
Very likely. But will humans bother to program all that data in?
And as for the size? Well, when
> computers were first made they were the size of whole rooms. Now we have laptops
> that are several hundred (if not thousand) times faster.
No what i meant was hal and skynet had sophisticated
sensors, all around the world/ship.
An android wouldnt have acess to such senses, so it would find it very difficult to take all the nessary info.
Humans work on a
> very basic 'whoops try again' style of natural
> self improvement.
Robots
> will gain our benefit of hindsight, so of course
> their evolution will be
> faster. IF it will be better is the point in> question.
Of course it will
> be better. IT will have the advantage of looking at the mistakes humans made
> during evolution, and put it right.
Ok we agree.
But what do you mean by 'put right' Human evolution is over. Most scientist will agree, as there is no need for futher human genetic change pysically, culture is what evolution is all about now.
Robots wont 'evolve' techniocally, as they wont need to procreate in the same fashion as humans. They wont have a time limit like we do.
I hope so to. Then we can
> meet
> up and finsih this argument once and for all.
Well, I'll be 100 by then, so I
> probably won't be about.
Cmon, you know as well as i do medicine is advancing extremely quickly these days (at what cost? an argument for another day) so by the time your 50, they will probably have drugs that will extend your life by a hundred years.
If you can't agree
> with
> that, then there
> is no point continuing this
> discussion.
HALELUJAH! ive been sayin no
> one coulod win this for days
> now.
Yet you continue to argue your point,
> even though you know you can't win? Strange....
I'm not arguing my original point anymore . Im responding to what u put on as i think one lot of work deserves a reply.
Also, you didn't say that you
> agreed with my point either....
I agree with the 'we cant win' argument yes, but i was the first to say it, so technically you should be agreeing with me. Anywho...
> Edwin25 wrote:
I> was takin an estimated guess. 3000 words is still quite
> limited.
You should really say stuff as fact, when it's only a
> guess.
Eh, How can i say stuff i guess is fact without lying? please explain, i think you missed out a word or phrase by accident.
Also, you
> said:
Well, come on i odnt work for the
> government so
> you got an unfair advantge there matey.
I don't work for
> the government, I work for a company that does a little work for the
> MoD.
Well technically you are working for the government. Your stuff helps them, and the money the give the company gets to you partially.
Maybe, or
> mabybe a barrier will be reached, which we cant
> pass.
Unlikely. After the 20Gig chips are made, they reckon there will be a
> barrier, but designs are already underway for 3D chips, which in theory, could
> have ridiculously fast clock speeds like several hundred Gig Hz.
I SAID MAYBE. We will have to see.
And again, bring on the future of quake!
Yeah, but
> it
> would either have to learn the maths model, or get it fed in by us.
> Either way
> it would be almost impossible to get the correct data in,
> unless it was a skynet
> or hal 9000 type mega computer.
Well,
> considering that there is a computer the size of two basketball courts, with
> some 9000 chips in modelling Nuclear Explosisons in the US (Nuclear Expolisions
> are quite possibly THE most complex thing due to all the Brownian Motion of
> every single particle needed to be calculated), I reckon in a few years one'll
> be powerful enough to model the real world.
Very likely. But will humans bother to program all that data in?
And as for the size? Well, when
> computers were first made they were the size of whole rooms. Now we have laptops
> that are several hundred (if not thousand) times faster.
No what i meant was hal and skynet had sophisticated
sensors, all around the world/ship.
An android wouldnt have acess to such senses, so it would find it very difficult to take all the nessary info.
Humans work on a
> very basic 'whoops try again' style of natural
> self improvement.
Robots
> will gain our benefit of hindsight, so of course
> their evolution will be
> faster. IF it will be better is the point in> question.
Of course it will
> be better. IT will have the advantage of looking at the mistakes humans made
> during evolution, and put it right.
Ok we agree.
But what do you mean by 'put right' Human evolution is over. Most scientist will agree, as there is no need for futher human genetic change pysically, culture is what evolution is all about now.
Robots wont 'evolve' techniocally, as they wont need to procreate in the same fashion as humans. They wont have a time limit like we do.
I hope so to. Then we can
> meet
> up and finsih this argument once and for all.
Well, I'll be 100 by then, so I
> probably won't be about.
Cmon, you know as well as i do medicine is advancing extremely quickly these days (at what cost? an argument for another day) so by the time your 50, they will probably have drugs that will extend your life by a hundred years.
If you can't agree
> with
> that, then there
> is no point continuing this
> discussion.
HALELUJAH! ive been sayin no
> one coulod win this for days
> now.
Yet you continue to argue your point,
> even though you know you can't win? Strange....
I'm not arguing my original point anymore . Im responding to what u put on as i think one lot of work deserves a reply.
Also, you didn't say that you
> agreed with my point either....
I agree with the 'we cant win' argument yes, but i was the first to say it, so technically you should be agreeing with me. Anywho...
Edwin25 wrote:
I> was takin an estimated guess. 3000 words is still quite limited.
You should really say stuff as fact, when it's only a guess.
Also, you
> said:
Well, come on i odnt work for the government so
> you got an unfair advantge there matey.
I don't work for the government, I work for a company that does a little work for the MoD.
Maybe, or
> mabybe a barrier will be reached, which we cant pass.
Unlikely. After the 20Gig chips are made, they reckon there will be a barrier, but designs are already underway for 3D chips, which in theory, could have ridiculously fast clock speeds like several hundred Gig Hz.
Yeah, but it
> would either have to learn the maths model, or get it fed in by us. Either way
> it would be almost impossible to get the correct data in, unless it was a skynet
> or hal 9000 type mega computer.
Well, considering that there is a computer the size of two basketball courts, with some 9000 chips in modelling Nuclear Explosisons in the US (Nuclear Expolisions are quite possibly THE most complex thing due to all the Brownian Motion of every single particle needed to be calculated), I reckon in a few years one'll be powerful enough to model the real world.
And as for the size? Well, when computers were first made they were the size of whole rooms. Now we have laptops that are several hundred (if not thousand) times faster.
Humans work on a very basic 'whoops try again' style of natural
> self improvement.
Robots will gain our benefit of hindsight, so of course
> their evolution will be faster. IF it will be better is the point in> question.
Of course it will be better. IT will have the advantage of looking at the mistakes humans made during evolution, and put it right.
I hope so to. Then we can
> meet up and finsih this argument once and for all.
Well, I'll be 100 by then, so I probably won't be about.
If you can't agree
> with
> that, then there is no point continuing this
> discussion.
HALELUJAH! ive been sayin no one coulod win this for days
> now.
Yet you continue to argue your point, even though you know you can't win? Strange....
Also, you didn't say that you agreed with my point either....
I> was takin an estimated guess. 3000 words is still quite limited.
You should really say stuff as fact, when it's only a guess.
Also, you
> said:
Well, come on i odnt work for the government so
> you got an unfair advantge there matey.
I don't work for the government, I work for a company that does a little work for the MoD.
Maybe, or
> mabybe a barrier will be reached, which we cant pass.
Unlikely. After the 20Gig chips are made, they reckon there will be a barrier, but designs are already underway for 3D chips, which in theory, could have ridiculously fast clock speeds like several hundred Gig Hz.
Yeah, but it
> would either have to learn the maths model, or get it fed in by us. Either way
> it would be almost impossible to get the correct data in, unless it was a skynet
> or hal 9000 type mega computer.
Well, considering that there is a computer the size of two basketball courts, with some 9000 chips in modelling Nuclear Explosisons in the US (Nuclear Expolisions are quite possibly THE most complex thing due to all the Brownian Motion of every single particle needed to be calculated), I reckon in a few years one'll be powerful enough to model the real world.
And as for the size? Well, when computers were first made they were the size of whole rooms. Now we have laptops that are several hundred (if not thousand) times faster.
Humans work on a very basic 'whoops try again' style of natural
> self improvement.
Robots will gain our benefit of hindsight, so of course
> their evolution will be faster. IF it will be better is the point in> question.
Of course it will be better. IT will have the advantage of looking at the mistakes humans made during evolution, and put it right.
I hope so to. Then we can
> meet up and finsih this argument once and for all.
Well, I'll be 100 by then, so I probably won't be about.
If you can't agree
> with
> that, then there is no point continuing this
> discussion.
HALELUJAH! ive been sayin no one coulod win this for days
> now.
Yet you continue to argue your point, even though you know you can't win? Strange....
Also, you didn't say that you agreed with my point either....
Your Honour wrote:
> Well, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Some voice
> recongition middleware has been developed for the PS2, it has a vocabulary of
> 3000 words and a 93% accuracy as well.
I was takin an estimated guess. 3000 words is still quite limited.
Also, you said:
"It only
> roughly doubles because we get old technology the goverment(s) had about 3 years
> after them. This is why computers suddenly get better in about a month every
> year."
That is also untrue. The company I work for does some MoD work,
> and, without revealing too much, what you've said is wrong.
Well, come on i odnt work for the government so you got an unfair advantge there matey.
The new chips the
> Intel and AMD and Solaris, and SUN produce are put on sale to the normal
> customer at the same time as they are on sale to the government. The only reason
> the government may be one step ahead is due to the costs involved.
Intel have
> released a document stating that with the current growth (doubling of processor
> speed every 18 months) we will have 20Gig chips by 2007.
Cool. Time for realistic quake 5........
Compare that to the
> 2Gig chips we have now, and you can see that's an increase of 10 times, in 6
> years. Compare what PC's can do now to what they could do 6 years ago and you
> can see the possibilities for the future are endless.
Maybe, or mabybe a barrier will be reached, which we cant pass.
You also
> said:
"Well, in the confines of a virtual world where the same cpu
> controlls the pet and the world it lives in isnt quite the same as a real robot
> living out here in a world that is extremely complicated and variable. The
> program knows what will happen in the game, it wouldnt know what could happen
> out here.
Yes, the real world is complex, I'm not arguing with that, but no
> matter HOW complicated it is, it can be represented by a mathematical model. If
> it can be represented by maths, it can by used in a program in a computer or in
> a robot.
Yeah, but it would either have to learn the maths model, or get it fed in by us. Either way it would be almost impossible to get the correct data in, unless it was a skynet or hal 9000 type mega computer.
You said:
"A computer game is very basic compared to a
> robot. Even now, we have only JUST taught a robot how to walk. "
Yes, a
> computer game is basic compared to a robot, but look how young the computer
> industry is, about 50 years. Look how long humans ave had to evolve - thousands
> fo years. Imagine what the technology will be like in a thousand years time. Are
> you telling me that in 1000 years, we won't have a robot with a brain and a
> concience? (Whether we actaully WANT a robot with a concience is another matter
> - one we won't go into here ).
Humans work on a very basic 'whoops try again' style of natural self improvement.
Robots will gain our benefit of hindsight, so of course their evolution will be faster. IF it will be better is the point in question.
It seems to me that neither of us can win this
> argument. You have to admit though, that with all I've said, all the points I've
> put forward, it is very UNLIKELY, we WON'T see a proper robot, with concience
> etc, with 500 years (IMHO it'll be about 80 years).
I hope so to. Then we can meet up and finsih this argument once and for all.
If you can't agree with
> that, then there is no point continuing this discussion.
HALELUJAH! ive been sayin no one coulod win this for days now.
Lets agree to disagree. Hopefully some PC archelogist will find this discussion far in the future, and will be able to find an answer. Until then, its stale-mate.
> Well, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Some voice
> recongition middleware has been developed for the PS2, it has a vocabulary of
> 3000 words and a 93% accuracy as well.
I was takin an estimated guess. 3000 words is still quite limited.
Also, you said:
"It only
> roughly doubles because we get old technology the goverment(s) had about 3 years
> after them. This is why computers suddenly get better in about a month every
> year."
That is also untrue. The company I work for does some MoD work,
> and, without revealing too much, what you've said is wrong.
Well, come on i odnt work for the government so you got an unfair advantge there matey.
The new chips the
> Intel and AMD and Solaris, and SUN produce are put on sale to the normal
> customer at the same time as they are on sale to the government. The only reason
> the government may be one step ahead is due to the costs involved.
Intel have
> released a document stating that with the current growth (doubling of processor
> speed every 18 months) we will have 20Gig chips by 2007.
Cool. Time for realistic quake 5........
Compare that to the
> 2Gig chips we have now, and you can see that's an increase of 10 times, in 6
> years. Compare what PC's can do now to what they could do 6 years ago and you
> can see the possibilities for the future are endless.
Maybe, or mabybe a barrier will be reached, which we cant pass.
You also
> said:
"Well, in the confines of a virtual world where the same cpu
> controlls the pet and the world it lives in isnt quite the same as a real robot
> living out here in a world that is extremely complicated and variable. The
> program knows what will happen in the game, it wouldnt know what could happen
> out here.
Yes, the real world is complex, I'm not arguing with that, but no
> matter HOW complicated it is, it can be represented by a mathematical model. If
> it can be represented by maths, it can by used in a program in a computer or in
> a robot.
Yeah, but it would either have to learn the maths model, or get it fed in by us. Either way it would be almost impossible to get the correct data in, unless it was a skynet or hal 9000 type mega computer.
You said:
"A computer game is very basic compared to a
> robot. Even now, we have only JUST taught a robot how to walk. "
Yes, a
> computer game is basic compared to a robot, but look how young the computer
> industry is, about 50 years. Look how long humans ave had to evolve - thousands
> fo years. Imagine what the technology will be like in a thousand years time. Are
> you telling me that in 1000 years, we won't have a robot with a brain and a
> concience? (Whether we actaully WANT a robot with a concience is another matter
> - one we won't go into here ).
Humans work on a very basic 'whoops try again' style of natural self improvement.
Robots will gain our benefit of hindsight, so of course their evolution will be faster. IF it will be better is the point in question.
It seems to me that neither of us can win this
> argument. You have to admit though, that with all I've said, all the points I've
> put forward, it is very UNLIKELY, we WON'T see a proper robot, with concience
> etc, with 500 years (IMHO it'll be about 80 years).
I hope so to. Then we can meet up and finsih this argument once and for all.
If you can't agree with
> that, then there is no point continuing this discussion.
HALELUJAH! ive been sayin no one coulod win this for days now.
Lets agree to disagree. Hopefully some PC archelogist will find this discussion far in the future, and will be able to find an answer. Until then, its stale-mate.
Page: