The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Edwin25 wrote:
> Well, my cat tryed to eat her first kitten. That was one of her race, and she
> had no reason 2.
Lots of animals eat their young. Cannibalism isn't the same as killing for no reason, or for the 'thrill' as many humans claim to do.
As existence coming down to on and off i dont think it
> is.
when u got a small green board made up of resistors junctions and etc it
> seems a little lacking.
Looks can be decieveing. 50 years ago you wouldn't have thought that little green circuit board could do what it does today.
Remeber, we dont use 90% of our brains, and we arn't
> even sure what that 90% does. You cant say we are just a collection of neuron
> firings when u dont even know what your brain REALLY does. The nerons could just
> be our subconcious, which is very robotic.
Excellent point - I had to do a little research on this one.
Firstly, here's a quote regarding the 10% brain use theory:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/10_percent_of_brain.html
"...In other words, the "humans only use 10% of their brains" canard would more correctly be phrased "humans only use 10% of their brains for walking around and smelling things"-- the implication being humans, for their size, have an unusually large brain mass available for higher-level functions. (In contrast, elephants and certain whales have LARGER brains than we do, but they must devote a great percentage of brain mass just to moving their massive bodies around-- to say nothing of the mumble-thousand muscles in the elephant's trunk alone, or the sophisticated sonar abilities of toothed whales. That leaves them with less brain mass potentially available for reasoning and language.) Anyway, it's easy to see that a term like "silent cortex" would lend itself to misunderstanding on the part of lay persons"
(I.E., it's not unused, it's just not used all the time)
Secondly, I can't say for sure how the neurons work, but I do know that it's been proven that certain areas of the brain activate when you're in a certain mood, or have certain thoughts. 'Activate' in this sense refers to large clusters of neurons being 'on'. So it seems likely the conscious, as well as the subconscious, is conatined within the brain structure.
However we (well someone) will know
> exactly how that robot works, so we can be sure of what its boundaries are.
Not true. The primary problem with neural network programming (CP) is that it's impossible (with current techniques) to say why it works. All they know is that it does. Not very scientific, but then that's probably why we haven't managed to recreate human intelligence in a machine yet...
I
> admit my programming knowledge is very limited, and consists of Basic, C and
> pascal (all in your lower class programming) but throwing that fact around to
> dicredit me is not a viable argument.
Indeedy. I just threw that in for some fun ;)
However, it might be helpful to be an expert on something in order to try to prove it's impossibility, otherwise you might end up throwing forward endless theories...
Why we have sentience is beyond our
> comprehesion by its very definetion, and if we cant understand it, how can we
> replicate it?
I'm not exactly sure how you can categorise something as "beyond our comprehesion by its very definetion", you'll have to explain that one to me.
And yes, If we can't understand it, we can't replicate it. Convince me we'll NEVER be able to recreate it and I'll agree with you.
> Well, my cat tryed to eat her first kitten. That was one of her race, and she
> had no reason 2.
Lots of animals eat their young. Cannibalism isn't the same as killing for no reason, or for the 'thrill' as many humans claim to do.
As existence coming down to on and off i dont think it
> is.
when u got a small green board made up of resistors junctions and etc it
> seems a little lacking.
Looks can be decieveing. 50 years ago you wouldn't have thought that little green circuit board could do what it does today.
Remeber, we dont use 90% of our brains, and we arn't
> even sure what that 90% does. You cant say we are just a collection of neuron
> firings when u dont even know what your brain REALLY does. The nerons could just
> be our subconcious, which is very robotic.
Excellent point - I had to do a little research on this one.
Firstly, here's a quote regarding the 10% brain use theory:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/10_percent_of_brain.html
"...In other words, the "humans only use 10% of their brains" canard would more correctly be phrased "humans only use 10% of their brains for walking around and smelling things"-- the implication being humans, for their size, have an unusually large brain mass available for higher-level functions. (In contrast, elephants and certain whales have LARGER brains than we do, but they must devote a great percentage of brain mass just to moving their massive bodies around-- to say nothing of the mumble-thousand muscles in the elephant's trunk alone, or the sophisticated sonar abilities of toothed whales. That leaves them with less brain mass potentially available for reasoning and language.) Anyway, it's easy to see that a term like "silent cortex" would lend itself to misunderstanding on the part of lay persons"
(I.E., it's not unused, it's just not used all the time)
Secondly, I can't say for sure how the neurons work, but I do know that it's been proven that certain areas of the brain activate when you're in a certain mood, or have certain thoughts. 'Activate' in this sense refers to large clusters of neurons being 'on'. So it seems likely the conscious, as well as the subconscious, is conatined within the brain structure.
However we (well someone) will know
> exactly how that robot works, so we can be sure of what its boundaries are.
Not true. The primary problem with neural network programming (CP) is that it's impossible (with current techniques) to say why it works. All they know is that it does. Not very scientific, but then that's probably why we haven't managed to recreate human intelligence in a machine yet...
I
> admit my programming knowledge is very limited, and consists of Basic, C and
> pascal (all in your lower class programming) but throwing that fact around to
> dicredit me is not a viable argument.
Indeedy. I just threw that in for some fun ;)
However, it might be helpful to be an expert on something in order to try to prove it's impossibility, otherwise you might end up throwing forward endless theories...
Why we have sentience is beyond our
> comprehesion by its very definetion, and if we cant understand it, how can we
> replicate it?
I'm not exactly sure how you can categorise something as "beyond our comprehesion by its very definetion", you'll have to explain that one to me.
And yes, If we can't understand it, we can't replicate it. Convince me we'll NEVER be able to recreate it and I'll agree with you.
round 4 'ding ding'
and we are all special.
Well, my cat tryed to eat her first kitten. That was one of her race, and she had no reason 2.
As existence coming down to on and off i dont think it is.
when u got a small green board made up of resistors junctions and etc it seems a little lacking. Remeber, we dont use 90% of our brains, and we arn't even sure what that 90% does. You cant say we are just a collection of neuron firings when u dont even know what your brain REALLY does. The nerons could just be our subconcious, which is very robotic. However we (well someone) will know exactly how that robot works, so we can be sure of what its boundaries are.
I admit my programming knowledge is very limited, and consists of Basic, C and pascal (all in your lower class programming) but throwing that fact around to dicredit me is not a viable argument.
Why we have sentience is beyond our comprehesion by its very definetion, and if we cant understand it, how can we replicate it?
As existence coming down to on and off i dont think it is.
when u got a small green board made up of resistors junctions and etc it seems a little lacking. Remeber, we dont use 90% of our brains, and we arn't even sure what that 90% does. You cant say we are just a collection of neuron firings when u dont even know what your brain REALLY does. The nerons could just be our subconcious, which is very robotic. However we (well someone) will know exactly how that robot works, so we can be sure of what its boundaries are.
I admit my programming knowledge is very limited, and consists of Basic, C and pascal (all in your lower class programming) but throwing that fact around to dicredit me is not a viable argument.
Why we have sentience is beyond our comprehesion by its very definetion, and if we cant understand it, how can we replicate it?
Round three
*Ding Ding*
Are we really
> the only species that kills without good reason. My cat brings in things so
> disgustingly mutilated that i feel sick almost weekly, yet she is fed three
> times a day.
I didn't say they didn't kill for no reason, I said they didn't kill others of the same species for no reason.
Will robots feel/need morality? They will learn that
> it is unessary so why should they bother?
You betray someone, and they learn not to trust you, which works against you. Morals developed because they were in our best interests, as they will be with the robots. They are not unnecessary. Our society would collapse without them. How long it would take a robot to learn, I don't know.
Do you think humans are born with morals, or not?
Our emotions come from very basic
> chemical reactions caused by nessecity (but of course they have advanced ALOT
> and are far more than just that now) which a robot would not start of with, no
> matter how good its programming.
With no moral bounds i really fear what
> darkness is possible inside a world of only 1 and zero, black and white.
Yet again, you're being biased, and succumbing to the cold, logical, unfeeling, metallic, binary view of the mechanical world. If you break it down far enough, everything in this world is about ones and zero's.
Humans can be evil, and they can be mean and immoral. Yes, intelligent robots could be too. Our chemical reactions, emotions and whatnot are results of our evolution. The robot has the potential advantage of being able to (mentally) evolve much faster then we ever could.
I am not saying you can prgram a robot to have emotions, feelings, or whatever else, I am saying that creating a roboting device capable of learning them is what can be done.
The robot will have to learn in the same way a baby does. It's the only way.
You
> have refered twice to your 2 different programs, but both of these share a
> binary base.
Essentially true, though I very much doubt you know much else about either of them.
Emotions and sentientce cannot be broken down into 1 or 0. These
> higher things are discovered individually and we all have a different
> life.
Some people never discover this, and they are biological robots. They
> talk, they walk, but they do not exist.
As YH mentioned (and I was intending to mention in my last post, but got to carried away with the rest of it....), there exists a concept called fuzzy logic. Essentially, it's non-binary. It frequently uses analogue values of truth of any given statement, for example. It has a lot of potential, but is currently only really used on modified versions of SSSP problems. If you don't like that idea however, I'll point out that all neural activity in your brain is binary. You feel emotions don't you? Everything you feel is a combination of 'on' and 'off' neurons in your brain.
Deep down, at the fundamental level, what makes you different from a robot?
You're made from chemicals and cells, and you think and move with electric pulses, and yet you think you can't be recreated, you're convinced that somehow you're special.
Whoever programmed you did a good job.
*Ding Ding*
Are we really
> the only species that kills without good reason. My cat brings in things so
> disgustingly mutilated that i feel sick almost weekly, yet she is fed three
> times a day.
I didn't say they didn't kill for no reason, I said they didn't kill others of the same species for no reason.
Will robots feel/need morality? They will learn that
> it is unessary so why should they bother?
You betray someone, and they learn not to trust you, which works against you. Morals developed because they were in our best interests, as they will be with the robots. They are not unnecessary. Our society would collapse without them. How long it would take a robot to learn, I don't know.
Do you think humans are born with morals, or not?
Our emotions come from very basic
> chemical reactions caused by nessecity (but of course they have advanced ALOT
> and are far more than just that now) which a robot would not start of with, no
> matter how good its programming.
With no moral bounds i really fear what
> darkness is possible inside a world of only 1 and zero, black and white.
Yet again, you're being biased, and succumbing to the cold, logical, unfeeling, metallic, binary view of the mechanical world. If you break it down far enough, everything in this world is about ones and zero's.
Humans can be evil, and they can be mean and immoral. Yes, intelligent robots could be too. Our chemical reactions, emotions and whatnot are results of our evolution. The robot has the potential advantage of being able to (mentally) evolve much faster then we ever could.
I am not saying you can prgram a robot to have emotions, feelings, or whatever else, I am saying that creating a roboting device capable of learning them is what can be done.
The robot will have to learn in the same way a baby does. It's the only way.
You
> have refered twice to your 2 different programs, but both of these share a
> binary base.
Essentially true, though I very much doubt you know much else about either of them.
Emotions and sentientce cannot be broken down into 1 or 0. These
> higher things are discovered individually and we all have a different
> life.
Some people never discover this, and they are biological robots. They
> talk, they walk, but they do not exist.
As YH mentioned (and I was intending to mention in my last post, but got to carried away with the rest of it....), there exists a concept called fuzzy logic. Essentially, it's non-binary. It frequently uses analogue values of truth of any given statement, for example. It has a lot of potential, but is currently only really used on modified versions of SSSP problems. If you don't like that idea however, I'll point out that all neural activity in your brain is binary. You feel emotions don't you? Everything you feel is a combination of 'on' and 'off' neurons in your brain.
Deep down, at the fundamental level, what makes you different from a robot?
You're made from chemicals and cells, and you think and move with electric pulses, and yet you think you can't be recreated, you're convinced that somehow you're special.
Whoever programmed you did a good job.
Edwin25 wrote:
You
> have refered twice to your 2 different programs, but both of these share a
> binary base. Emotions and sentientce cannot be broken down into 1 or 0.
You've obviously never heard of Fuzzy Logic then.....
You
> have refered twice to your 2 different programs, but both of these share a
> binary base. Emotions and sentientce cannot be broken down into 1 or 0.
You've obviously never heard of Fuzzy Logic then.....
danger danger will robinson
Well, venombyte from your words I see you are quite the pessimist. Are we really the only species that kills without good reason. My cat brings in things so disgustingly mutilated that i feel sick almost weekly, yet she is fed three times a day. She doesnt need to do it. Some members of our species are like animals and fear what they do not like (nazi's for example, hate/fear jews for no good reason) but for the most part we are good. Do you know a person who has killed another PERSONALLY? And do you know a cat or dog which hunts unessarily personally? Most humans are decent beings with a few exceptions.
And that brings me to another point. Will robots feel/need morality? They will learn that it is unessary so why should they bother? Our emotions come from very basic chemical reactions caused by nessecity (but of course they have advanced ALOT and are far more than just that now) which a robot would not start of with, no matter how good its programming. With no moral bounds i really fear what darkness is possible inside a world of only 1 and zero, black and white.
You have refered twice to your 2 different programs, but both of these share a binary base. Emotions and sentientce cannot be broken down into 1 or 0. These higher things are discovered individually and we all have a different life.
Some people never discover this, and they are biological robots. They talk, they walk, but they do not exist.
And that brings me to another point. Will robots feel/need morality? They will learn that it is unessary so why should they bother? Our emotions come from very basic chemical reactions caused by nessecity (but of course they have advanced ALOT and are far more than just that now) which a robot would not start of with, no matter how good its programming. With no moral bounds i really fear what darkness is possible inside a world of only 1 and zero, black and white.
You have refered twice to your 2 different programs, but both of these share a binary base. Emotions and sentientce cannot be broken down into 1 or 0. These higher things are discovered individually and we all have a different life.
Some people never discover this, and they are biological robots. They talk, they walk, but they do not exist.
I didn't say we weren't.
I just said it's not impossible.
I just said it's not impossible.
Page: