The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Thanks Hooplah.
But don't be surprised if Edwin comes back and repeats the same old "soul" crap we've heard in every post of his since this began.
It seems that he is only programmed to type the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, like some mis-written FOR loop or something....
:-)
But don't be surprised if Edwin comes back and repeats the same old "soul" crap we've heard in every post of his since this began.
It seems that he is only programmed to type the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, like some mis-written FOR loop or something....
:-)
There is absolutely no reason at all for the artificial intelligence of a robot to enable it to function indistinguishably from a human being. Just because it isn't possible now, doesn't mean that it will never be possible. In fact, the fact that it is conceived and discussed as an idea almost certainly makes it likely to happen at some stage in the future.
Here's why;
The universe as we currently understand it is a very big place, finite in size but with no boundaries. That's a hard concept to get your head round, but simply put it's like the surface of a sphere, it has a measurable surface but you can keep going round and round. If that dimension is space/time, then the universe has a finite area but is endless.
This is theory of course, but since we are discussing hypothetical situations I fail to see the difference between one or the other.
So this makes the human mind very potent indeed, because through the visualisation of an idea comes the determined probability of that idea occurring. Say the chance of AI getting to the stage of human intelligence (why I don't know) is ten billion to one. Pick a number between ten billion and one and programme a computer to randomly generate one number once a day for a nearly infinite amount of time.
All of a sudden it does not seem to unrealistic does it?
The hardware is not around now, it is estimated that a CPU that could successfully function on the same level as the human brain would be the size of a church or town hall. In thirty years time it is estimated that it will be the size of a postage stamp.
So the technology will be around, how about the actual learning? That's what we are talking about really. A human being is not born with all the knowledge that it dies with. It comes with it's own style of operating system if you like, some natural genetic design but is otherwise an empty hard drive waiting for the information it requires to succeed. I'm a firm believer in the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate, which basically means that I don't believe that your chances in life are pre-determined by your parents genetic make up, that if correctly stimulated and 'nurtured' everyone has the chance to do well.
If a CPU can be designed (which it can, we've determined) to have the same operating system as the human brain, along with the capacity to learn, why can you not raise it in the same way that you would a child? Programming AI would be a problem, but teaching a CPU with the capacity to function in the same way as a human brain would not be difficult. Well as difficult as raising a child at least.
Once that is in place, it's the relatively simple engineering feat of constructing the body.
Voila.
Here's why;
The universe as we currently understand it is a very big place, finite in size but with no boundaries. That's a hard concept to get your head round, but simply put it's like the surface of a sphere, it has a measurable surface but you can keep going round and round. If that dimension is space/time, then the universe has a finite area but is endless.
This is theory of course, but since we are discussing hypothetical situations I fail to see the difference between one or the other.
So this makes the human mind very potent indeed, because through the visualisation of an idea comes the determined probability of that idea occurring. Say the chance of AI getting to the stage of human intelligence (why I don't know) is ten billion to one. Pick a number between ten billion and one and programme a computer to randomly generate one number once a day for a nearly infinite amount of time.
All of a sudden it does not seem to unrealistic does it?
The hardware is not around now, it is estimated that a CPU that could successfully function on the same level as the human brain would be the size of a church or town hall. In thirty years time it is estimated that it will be the size of a postage stamp.
So the technology will be around, how about the actual learning? That's what we are talking about really. A human being is not born with all the knowledge that it dies with. It comes with it's own style of operating system if you like, some natural genetic design but is otherwise an empty hard drive waiting for the information it requires to succeed. I'm a firm believer in the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate, which basically means that I don't believe that your chances in life are pre-determined by your parents genetic make up, that if correctly stimulated and 'nurtured' everyone has the chance to do well.
If a CPU can be designed (which it can, we've determined) to have the same operating system as the human brain, along with the capacity to learn, why can you not raise it in the same way that you would a child? Programming AI would be a problem, but teaching a CPU with the capacity to function in the same way as a human brain would not be difficult. Well as difficult as raising a child at least.
Once that is in place, it's the relatively simple engineering feat of constructing the body.
Voila.
I noticed that as well Venom.
He completely ignored my points about the dogs hunting in packs etc, and learning from praise and punishment, and completely ignored my pointing out about the gravity as well.
Damn, he must be thick....
He completely ignored my points about the dogs hunting in packs etc, and learning from praise and punishment, and completely ignored my pointing out about the gravity as well.
Damn, he must be thick....
Edwin25 wrote:
No selfless act? you've
> been listening to joey from friends havent you?
Well, what about dieing to
> save your friends and family. You will be dead, so you cannot gain any pleasure
> or relief from guilt from your action. So it is the ultimate selfless act.
Try thinking about it for, say.... more than three seconds.
Question is, is your death a very high risk or a certainty in this situation? If it's a risk (no matter how high) the decision is very easy to make, for the reason I outlined earlier.
If however, the situation was, 'slit your own neck with this knife or I kill your family', you'd find it almost impossible to do it.
I would address another point you raised, but if I make more than one point per post, you're likely to ignore it as you have done most of the others that have been made....
(by the way, you spelt dying wrong)
No selfless act? you've
> been listening to joey from friends havent you?
Well, what about dieing to
> save your friends and family. You will be dead, so you cannot gain any pleasure
> or relief from guilt from your action. So it is the ultimate selfless act.
Try thinking about it for, say.... more than three seconds.
Question is, is your death a very high risk or a certainty in this situation? If it's a risk (no matter how high) the decision is very easy to make, for the reason I outlined earlier.
If however, the situation was, 'slit your own neck with this knife or I kill your family', you'd find it almost impossible to do it.
I would address another point you raised, but if I make more than one point per post, you're likely to ignore it as you have done most of the others that have been made....
(by the way, you spelt dying wrong)
Edwin25 wrote:
> 'soul' crap? do you really think that there is no such thing as a soul? (in
> whatever form, sentience, holy whatever) If you truly dont belive that there
> isnt at least something going on, something beyond all our logic, some meaning
> to the existence we call life, then i feel very sorry for you.
I believe that when people are born, they are like an empty piece of paper.
They learn things as they grow, they learn morals, they learn right from wrong etc. Why do they need a soul? They know if what they are doing is right or wrong, as they were taught it by their parents.
to be honest I'm getting increasingly tired of answering your same old points over and over. It wouldn't surprise me if this was some school project, and you're just going to copy out and hand in everything me and Venom have said.
Going back to the original topic, you seem to have changed your view. Initially you're saying that robots can't ever be sentient, yet now you're saying they have ne need for sentience.
If they have no need for it, it must still be an option for them to have it, so therefore you're now contradicting yourself from what you were saying initially.
If you don't understand what I've jsut said, as I didn't explain it very well, you are now accepting the possibility that robots could be sentient.
How did I work that out?
Well, you're now saying that robots won't need sentience. But for them to not need it, it must be possible for them to have it. Like buying an umbrella. It's not raining, so I don't need an umbrella, but I can buy one if I want one.
If I couldn't buy one, I wouldn't say, "I don't need an umbrella", I'd say "I can't buy an umbrella" in the same way a robot won't say "I don't need sentinece", as it's not option for him to have it.
See?
You've now contradicted yourself, and you now accept the possibility of robots/computers being sentient.
> 'soul' crap? do you really think that there is no such thing as a soul? (in
> whatever form, sentience, holy whatever) If you truly dont belive that there
> isnt at least something going on, something beyond all our logic, some meaning
> to the existence we call life, then i feel very sorry for you.
I believe that when people are born, they are like an empty piece of paper.
They learn things as they grow, they learn morals, they learn right from wrong etc. Why do they need a soul? They know if what they are doing is right or wrong, as they were taught it by their parents.
to be honest I'm getting increasingly tired of answering your same old points over and over. It wouldn't surprise me if this was some school project, and you're just going to copy out and hand in everything me and Venom have said.
Going back to the original topic, you seem to have changed your view. Initially you're saying that robots can't ever be sentient, yet now you're saying they have ne need for sentience.
If they have no need for it, it must still be an option for them to have it, so therefore you're now contradicting yourself from what you were saying initially.
If you don't understand what I've jsut said, as I didn't explain it very well, you are now accepting the possibility that robots could be sentient.
How did I work that out?
Well, you're now saying that robots won't need sentience. But for them to not need it, it must be possible for them to have it. Like buying an umbrella. It's not raining, so I don't need an umbrella, but I can buy one if I want one.
If I couldn't buy one, I wouldn't say, "I don't need an umbrella", I'd say "I can't buy an umbrella" in the same way a robot won't say "I don't need sentinece", as it's not option for him to have it.
See?
You've now contradicted yourself, and you now accept the possibility of robots/computers being sentient.
'soul' crap? do you really think that there is no such thing as a soul? (in whatever form, sentience, holy whatever) If you truly dont belive that there isnt at least something going on, something beyond all our logic, some meaning to the existence we call life, then i feel very sorry for you.
As for the logic/humans thing, i dont think robots will stray from logic. Why should they? it explains everthing and with a 'brain' capable of advanced math, they could use it to its fullest extent. No need to even bother helping others. No need for guilt. It only slows you down. And so they would never need to learn it. And if it isnt logical to learn it, they never would bother.
No selfless act? you've been listening to joey from friends havent you?
Well, what about dieing to save your friends and family. You will be dead, so you cannot gain any pleasure or relief from guilt from your action. So it is the ultimate selfless act.
As for the logic/humans thing, i dont think robots will stray from logic. Why should they? it explains everthing and with a 'brain' capable of advanced math, they could use it to its fullest extent. No need to even bother helping others. No need for guilt. It only slows you down. And so they would never need to learn it. And if it isnt logical to learn it, they never would bother.
No selfless act? you've been listening to joey from friends havent you?
Well, what about dieing to save your friends and family. You will be dead, so you cannot gain any pleasure or relief from guilt from your action. So it is the ultimate selfless act.
Let's make another suggestion here too.
Suppose everyone acts in their own best interests. Hedonsim. Aim of life being to get the most 'pleasure', or to be most 'successful', whatever.
Supposing that's true. Name one person who has ever made any selfless act.
Those giving to charity do so because the sense of well being outweighs the extra money and the slight guilt trip from not donating to charity. Otheriwse why not throw the money down the drain instead? Those donating their lives to charity, same thing. Those who risk their lives, same again. You can apply this to any situation. There's always a plus which can carry the weight. Every decision made by every person is therefore a logical decision. Are we robots?
It's a proven fact that if ten people were in danger of losing their lives, and you had a choice of saving five, or haveing a 30% chance of saving them all, most people would take the 30% chance. People who make that choice do so because the guilt of choosing who dies would be too much for them to take. They'd push the responsiblity on to luck rather than themselves.
Your view of a robot would save five of them, wouldn't he?
Mine wouldn't. Mine has learnt that responsibilty leads no decisions where someone loses out. He's learnt the keeping people happy is in his best interests, so he doesn't want to enforce those decisions where someone loses out.
Logical, or illogical?
If you won't accept that robots can be illogical, perhaps you'll accept that neither can humans?
Suppose everyone acts in their own best interests. Hedonsim. Aim of life being to get the most 'pleasure', or to be most 'successful', whatever.
Supposing that's true. Name one person who has ever made any selfless act.
Those giving to charity do so because the sense of well being outweighs the extra money and the slight guilt trip from not donating to charity. Otheriwse why not throw the money down the drain instead? Those donating their lives to charity, same thing. Those who risk their lives, same again. You can apply this to any situation. There's always a plus which can carry the weight. Every decision made by every person is therefore a logical decision. Are we robots?
It's a proven fact that if ten people were in danger of losing their lives, and you had a choice of saving five, or haveing a 30% chance of saving them all, most people would take the 30% chance. People who make that choice do so because the guilt of choosing who dies would be too much for them to take. They'd push the responsiblity on to luck rather than themselves.
Your view of a robot would save five of them, wouldn't he?
Mine wouldn't. Mine has learnt that responsibilty leads no decisions where someone loses out. He's learnt the keeping people happy is in his best interests, so he doesn't want to enforce those decisions where someone loses out.
Logical, or illogical?
If you won't accept that robots can be illogical, perhaps you'll accept that neither can humans?
Also, whats all this crap someone said about "The earth has to be round, otherwise there wouldn't be any gravity"?!
What a load of rubbish, have you done science at school?
Any two masses attract each other, it doesn't matter if they are triangles, there is still an attraction force between the two.
So if the earth was flat, there would still be gravity.
Damn, if you get basics like that wrong, it wouldn't surprise me if your whol argument was wrong....
What a load of rubbish, have you done science at school?
Any two masses attract each other, it doesn't matter if they are triangles, there is still an attraction force between the two.
So if the earth was flat, there would still be gravity.
Damn, if you get basics like that wrong, it wouldn't surprise me if your whol argument was wrong....
What you seem to forget is that humans have been evolving for thousands of years. Robots/computers have only been around for about 50 years, and look how far they've come in that time compared to how far humans have evolved in 50 years!
Who knows where robotics will be in another few thousand years. No one knows, so you can't say something isn't possible, looking at the rate of progress so far, it would seem definately possible that in the next hundred years or so real AI will be an option. But I'll be dead by then, so I don't really care.
On to another couple of points, who effectively said dogs were stupid becuase they hadn't built a civilisation? What a stupid attitude that is. Dogs in the wild hunt in packs, for a start and live in communities as well, If you have a dog as a pet, you can train them to do stuff using the Reward and Punishment routine, why can't you train a robot in the same way?
Also, what's all this crap about mixing robots with human flesh? The only reason they'd do that is to make the robot more aesthetically pleasing, to make it look human, it wouldn't HAVE to look human, it would just make it more realistic, and so more people would buy one (in the future, obviously).
Also, you still haven't said actually why it's impossible to create human AI. You keep babling on about this "soul" crap, but you haven't really answered the question.
So answer it.
Who knows where robotics will be in another few thousand years. No one knows, so you can't say something isn't possible, looking at the rate of progress so far, it would seem definately possible that in the next hundred years or so real AI will be an option. But I'll be dead by then, so I don't really care.
On to another couple of points, who effectively said dogs were stupid becuase they hadn't built a civilisation? What a stupid attitude that is. Dogs in the wild hunt in packs, for a start and live in communities as well, If you have a dog as a pet, you can train them to do stuff using the Reward and Punishment routine, why can't you train a robot in the same way?
Also, what's all this crap about mixing robots with human flesh? The only reason they'd do that is to make the robot more aesthetically pleasing, to make it look human, it wouldn't HAVE to look human, it would just make it more realistic, and so more people would buy one (in the future, obviously).
Also, you still haven't said actually why it's impossible to create human AI. You keep babling on about this "soul" crap, but you haven't really answered the question.
So answer it.
This is a topic that I've been meaning to get round to replying to but I always felt I'd make the post too damn long.
The difference between humans and robots is that first of all robots can't make humans and we can make robots, simple really. But humans don't have tha ability to do complex things in there head for example figuring out 768305*7474. In a single second there would be about 3 people on this planet who would be able to work that out.
Humans have feelings and emotions and can change attitudes, we all get virus' and they can all be healed but it is only due to humans that this is possible. The computer does not have emotions, it cannot tell you what to do and how to do it, it can advise, it can not change it's personality and be grumpy one day and happy the next.
Humans are more complicated and we cannot be 'created' yet......
The difference between humans and robots is that first of all robots can't make humans and we can make robots, simple really. But humans don't have tha ability to do complex things in there head for example figuring out 768305*7474. In a single second there would be about 3 people on this planet who would be able to work that out.
Humans have feelings and emotions and can change attitudes, we all get virus' and they can all be healed but it is only due to humans that this is possible. The computer does not have emotions, it cannot tell you what to do and how to do it, it can advise, it can not change it's personality and be grumpy one day and happy the next.
Humans are more complicated and we cannot be 'created' yet......
Page: