The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Your Honour wrote:
>It's not what a soldier should think. A soldier
> should follow orders, whatever those orders are. Only a >crap soldier argues with
> what his superiors tell him.
No, thats what most films would love us to think. In Somalia 1993 the Americans refused to open fire on rebels for fear of hitting civilians, despite the fact that those civlians hated the americans. During the Balkans many RAF jets returned with bombs because civlians were near the targets. Nuremberg established that following orders was no excuse to commit war crimes.
>True, but it doesn't
> matter if a robot gets destroyed, as you can just build >another, so that order
> would never be given in the first place.
The robot may be replaceable but the person it is going into that unstable place isnt. My point is humans try against massive odds, they dont always oversome the odds but they try.
>So you're saying that there is no point having robots with
> a free will, and I agree. But you're not denying the possibility of them....
Anything we can imagine is possible, to deny the possiblility would be foolish, but theres a difference between the concept and the reality.
>It's not what a soldier should think. A soldier
> should follow orders, whatever those orders are. Only a >crap soldier argues with
> what his superiors tell him.
No, thats what most films would love us to think. In Somalia 1993 the Americans refused to open fire on rebels for fear of hitting civilians, despite the fact that those civlians hated the americans. During the Balkans many RAF jets returned with bombs because civlians were near the targets. Nuremberg established that following orders was no excuse to commit war crimes.
>True, but it doesn't
> matter if a robot gets destroyed, as you can just build >another, so that order
> would never be given in the first place.
The robot may be replaceable but the person it is going into that unstable place isnt. My point is humans try against massive odds, they dont always oversome the odds but they try.
>So you're saying that there is no point having robots with
> a free will, and I agree. But you're not denying the possibility of them....
Anything we can imagine is possible, to deny the possiblility would be foolish, but theres a difference between the concept and the reality.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
Open fire on those civilians for no reason than they are
> protesting ...erm hang on thats not right should be what most soldiers will
> think,
It's not what a soldier should think. A soldier should follow orders, whatever those orders are. Only a crap soldier argues with what his superiors tell him.
A human rescue worker in an unstable building often
> endangers themselves to rescue others evenwhen ordered to retreat yet a robot
> will obey unquestioningly.
True, but it doesn't matter if a robot gets destroyed, as you can just build another, so that order would never be given in the first place.
It is our free will and conscience which make us what
> we are. Why cant we give robots free will, apart from programming difficulties
> (!) ? Because to give them no set of controls/parameters would mean there was no
> point in having them, because we want robots to do tasks, and with free will a
> robot could decide not to do those tasks.
So you're saying that there is no point having robots with a free will, and I agree. But you're not denying the possibility of them....
Open fire on those civilians for no reason than they are
> protesting ...erm hang on thats not right should be what most soldiers will
> think,
It's not what a soldier should think. A soldier should follow orders, whatever those orders are. Only a crap soldier argues with what his superiors tell him.
A human rescue worker in an unstable building often
> endangers themselves to rescue others evenwhen ordered to retreat yet a robot
> will obey unquestioningly.
True, but it doesn't matter if a robot gets destroyed, as you can just build another, so that order would never be given in the first place.
It is our free will and conscience which make us what
> we are. Why cant we give robots free will, apart from programming difficulties
> (!) ? Because to give them no set of controls/parameters would mean there was no
> point in having them, because we want robots to do tasks, and with free will a
> robot could decide not to do those tasks.
So you're saying that there is no point having robots with a free will, and I agree. But you're not denying the possibility of them....
Whats this?
*rubs eyes in disbelief*
Someone fighting for my side of the argument?
Halleujah!
*rubs eyes in disbelief*
Someone fighting for my side of the argument?
Halleujah!
Using robots for many human tasks, especially dangerous ones, would be disastrous. For instance a soldier has a conscience which means he will question some kinds of orders. Open fire on those civilians for no reason than they are protesting ...erm hang on thats not right should be what most soldiers will think, a robot thats got parameters which allow it to will fire until it fulfills a command. A human rescue worker in an unstable building often endangers themselves to rescue others evenwhen ordered to retreat yet a robot will obey unquestioningly. It is our free will and conscience which make us what we are. Why cant we give robots free will, apart from programming difficulties (!) ? Because to give them no set of controls/parameters would mean there was no point in having them, because we want robots to do tasks, and with free will a robot could decide not to do those tasks. In many japanese animation ( manga) stories there are robots who are peoples girlfriends/wives ( way weird ) and do as tehy are told. Now if anyone wants a robot for this then you don't want a girlfriend, you want a slave ! The most powerul thing any human has is simple - to say no. Those two letters can, if said by the right person, halt anything. When you create something which cannot say no that is a very dangerous future.
Ah, thank you. your the first person to agree with me in this topic.
well, a dog would be relatively easy to 'clone' robotically.
A human however, would be impossible to recreate FULLY. We are just to damn complicated.
A human however, would be impossible to recreate FULLY. We are just to damn complicated.
I think many people would actually prefer a robotic dog, as most people buy a dog with expectations of what it should do and what it shouldn't. When a dog uses the carpet as a toilet is anyone happy about that ? What about people who'd love something to come home to at night but can't find time for exercising the thing and feeding e.t.c If a robotic dog was sufficiently programmed then I think a surprising number of people would want one. Admittedly some of us dont want a commercialised pet, and thats okay too.
Edwin25 wrote:
>People wont ever except robotic
> dogs fully,
Accept. Sorry for the spelling.
>People wont ever except robotic
> dogs fully,
Accept. Sorry for the spelling.
Probably. Sony have already done it though! :-)
How much computing tecnology does it take to pee on a tree and eat your own poo? I dont think it would be hard.
Although getting that 'save my life' and 'sit by my grave until you die too' mentality could be a little difficult.
People wont ever except robotic dogs fully, as deep down they will always know they are fakes. And they wont be puppies, and they wont c'rap on the new playstation...hold on thats a good thing!
How much computing tecnology does it take to pee on a tree and eat your own poo? I dont think it would be hard.
Although getting that 'save my life' and 'sit by my grave until you die too' mentality could be a little difficult.
People wont ever except robotic dogs fully, as deep down they will always know they are fakes. And they wont be puppies, and they wont c'rap on the new playstation...hold on thats a good thing!
Page: