PDA

View Full Version : Robots may receive citizenship



Alt
21st December 2006, 23:10
I read this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6200005.stm) on robotics and their 'future' and to be quite honest, it really, really pissed me off. Robots being part of society (socially as well as mechanically), 'mixing in' with civilization, I don't see it happening. Maybe I'm afraid of the concept of robots keeping secrets, having social lives, 'freewill', the ability to repro-fucking-duce, the list goes on.

Why do we need these 'imitations' of life? Why waste precious natural resource on 'copies' of life? I can see why machines are needed today for automation, economics, health care and getting from A to B, but that's it. Machines are designed to HELP us, to AID us, not to be PART of us. The merge of man and machine is just, pointless, down right fucking freaky and wasteful. What is the point?

QReaper
21st December 2006, 23:11
I can see why machines are needed today for automation, economics, health care and getting from A to B, but that's it. Machines are designed to HELP us, to AID us, not to be PART of us. The merge of man and machine is just, pointless, down right fucking freaky and wasteful. What is the point?

NSF from Deus Ex much?;)

Anywho, I really doubt we'll hit the point where the robots have true "Freewill" like humans do. It's just not something I can see, unless they somehow completely replicated verything that makes a human a human and replicate the "spark of life" so to speak in a metal shell. But even then, is it morally or ethically right to do so?

Kira Yamato
21st December 2006, 23:30
As of now this is all science fiction, panic mongering, and out right crap science. Seeing as we do not have robots that are as intelligent as even a dumber parot this currently isn't a problem we need to focus on. This study also fumed with the socialist European ideal that people cannot take care of them selfs, which is hog wash. As long as robots cannot care for them selfs they'll require us to function, on top of this robots can be programed to think and act certain ways, and we could easily make them devoid of ambition, and/or violent thoughts.

You also have to consider the idea of cybernetics, just imagine that a friend you grew up had his/her entire body replaced with robotic components, they could even perfectly emulate natural human apparency. But as of now all of this lies with in the realm of science fiction, and may not become any thing significant in our life times. This is a problem best addressed when the time for it comes.

Alt
21st December 2006, 23:43
I don't disagree Kira, but it still doesn't answer my question as to why even think of all this? Consider how fast science, computer technology and mechanics are moving along.

Kira Yamato
21st December 2006, 23:50
Because humans are egotistical and they want to play god. The point is that most people who want to do such things wish to use them as platforms to advance humanity.

Alt
21st December 2006, 23:56
'Advance humanity'?

Ging
21st December 2006, 23:56
If robotics reaches the point where this is required (the chances of that happening within the next 50 years is increasing by the day mind you) than I don't see a problem with it.

I'm always intrigued to see new robotics information hit, especially when big japanese companies like Honda (see ASIMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO)) are making such massive strides in the field - robots as complex as ASIMO manufactured for less than a million dollars is awesome. Continued in that research line will allow for cheap, mass produced robots that are ideal as replacements to things like guide dogs or other aids to disabled / old people that need them.

To do that however, they'll require quite unique AI - which may well require they be given some form of rights.

Alt
22nd December 2006, 00:09
I think you've reached the very edge of a bots usefulness in society. This report focuses on the aspect of social interaction, housing, reproducing, becoming citizens in their own right. I still fail to see the point in that.

Kira Yamato
22nd December 2006, 00:20
Well robotic development might take off on its own after a certain point. Once something has enough artificial intelligence it can start developing it self, and others like it. Plus you know scientists always pushing the envelope.

Ging
22nd December 2006, 00:36
I think you've reached the very edge of a bots usefulness in society. This report focuses on the aspect of social interaction, housing, reproducing, becoming citizens in their own right. I still fail to see the point in that.

It's no worse than requiring a license and regular checks on owning particular breeds of animals - I think you're overblowing the entire thing slightly.

Paegus
22nd December 2006, 00:55
As long as robots cannot care for them selfs they'll require us to function, on top of this robots can be programed to think and act certain ways, and we could easily make them devoid of ambition, and/or violent thoughts.
yeah and humans are infallible right? it might not be an obvious flaw and it might not do anything right off the bat but 20 years later it's caused just enough of a disruption in their cognition that they go berserk and slaughter everything they see... or something.


Machines are designed to HELP us, to AID us, not to be PART of us. The merge of man and machine is just, pointless, down right fucking freaky and wasteful. What is the point?
ok so help and aid without being 'wet-ware' huh?

so no pace maker for you then... ever. better watch your diet and not get stabbed in the chest... ever.
no artificial retina if you go blind for staring at the sun too much.
and if you break your back? no artificially generated walking.

have a nice life stuck in your hospital bed strapped to a... oh wait that's internal as well... better just outright die then.

Ging
22nd December 2006, 00:59
Personally, I'm looking forward to the development of decent cybernetic prosthetics - nothing scares me more than the idea of losing a hand or my eyes without even the chance of a decent replacement (we're getting there in terms of arms / legs, but I want me some chrome shiny terminator looking shit!)

Demented
22nd December 2006, 01:33
Robots with voting rights. Hee. We call them thar things Diebold voting machines! Psh.

Just make sure to invent the HERCULAN before you invent the Cybrid, mkay? Because, if fiction has taught us anything, it's that robots will inevitably rebel, and we'll need huge lasers to carve up the massive combat forms they'll use to impose their will on us.

I consider the fear of AI to be rather unfounded.
After all, you have to make it first.

Alt
22nd December 2006, 01:36
I'll clarify PART of us. Socially entwined.

Sil
22nd December 2006, 02:23
Th'way I see it, AI + robots = legal slavery.

edit: and that's a good thing, too.

Demented
22nd December 2006, 02:43
Human traditions die hard, eh? =P

Kira Yamato
22nd December 2006, 02:44
yeah and humans are infallible right? it might not be an obvious flaw and it might not do anything right off the bat but 20 years later it's caused just enough of a disruption in their cognition that they go berserk and slaughter everything they see... or something.

Make a better mouse trap, and the world will beat a path to your door. Try to make it fool proof, and some one will make a better fool.

QReaper
22nd December 2006, 06:02
So, how's it going to play out when one decides to carry out an action that directly or indirectly breaks the law?

This is what I'm concerned with the most is, if humans just up and decided one day to do something that would damage another person, or something belonging to that person, what's going to stop an Artificially Intelligent Robot from doing the same thing?

I'm making an EMP rifle when I get the resources now...

Cheesey
22nd December 2006, 08:18
The Matrix has you...

Gusdor
22nd December 2006, 10:12
Personally, I'm looking forward to the development of decent cybernetic prosthetics - nothing scares me more than the idea of losing a hand or my eyes without even the chance of a decent replacement (we're getting there in terms of arms / legs, but I want me some chrome shiny terminator looking shit!)
There is a leg one that has just started being used that adjust the joint angles based on how the remaining limb is being moved - its pretty sweet

Ging
22nd December 2006, 10:42
So, how's it going to play out when one decides to carry out an action that directly or indirectly breaks the law?

Well, that's the point isn't it? If robots can to the point where they can decide to ignore a law, than they're pretty much sentient (as they're making informed decisions for themselves that go outside the scope of their design) at which point they deserve rights and protection in the same way as we do.

edit°
22nd December 2006, 10:49
My only fear (and I'm no scientist so this might as well be a caveman's input) is that if they develope any sort of faith or moral system they'll realise the worst thing for earth (and therefore their survival) are humans so they'll just do away with us.

Alt
22nd December 2006, 10:54
Well, that's the point isn't it? If robots can to the point where they can decide to ignore a law, than they're pretty much sentient (as they're making informed decisions for themselves that go outside the scope of their design) at which point they deserve rights and protection in the same way as we do.

You aren't afraid of this?


EDIT: My first post on this thread was intented to amplify my view on the whole thing to grab your attention. I guess it just makes you look like an artard when you write it down :rolleyes:

Paegus
22nd December 2006, 11:42
sentience is sentience... if we follow your fears then YOU, being a product of your parents and society's programming are no more or less responsible for your actions than an AI or MI (machine intelligence) is and as such have no rights that come with such responsibility. you have chemical triggers through learned positive or negative associations to guide you to actions that your society deems good. a robot would have electrical... or both. at the end of the day there's little difference other than in implementation and the fact that machined precision means they can replicate almost identically (but as Project 2501 once said, that's not a particularly good thing) and metal is or course immediately stronger than flesh. the latter being the main problem. so long as the militaries don't go all robo i doubt there'll be much issue. unfortunately that is the prime deployment for such technology. preventing the death of the soldier by removing them from harm's way... aka the battlefield. and THAT is something i don't agree with. War is war. it's ugly, gruesome and costs lives. if you make it cost nothing other than money for one side then it's morally deficient as far as i'm concerned. if you remove the cost of lives from both sides and just have robot wars, you might as well just play a computer game and save yourselves the manufacturing costs... since that's all the war would be about anyway.

and if a war being morally deficient tickles your offended pickle because 'all war is morally deficient' then too bad. i'm a cynical realist. people will always fight for stuff for themselves and those they consider helpful to themselves. our nature as organic life demands it. any sapient life form, especially a purely logical one would realise this reality. fortunately for them adjusting their 'instincts' is just a matter of editing the source code and flashing some roms. i'd bare them no particular grudge if they did attacks because of our nature and i'd certainly fight for my survival if needed.

Ging
22nd December 2006, 11:53
You aren't afraid of this?

Why should I be? Chances are, machine intelligences won't reach a point of sentience in my life time and once they do, there won't be an issue as long as they are treated with equal rights to humans, rather than as slaves (a robotic slave uprising would not be pretty, if we're being honest) or servants.

Recognition of robotic rights now may well have a positive impact on the future - as long as future generations stand by the decisions made today.

To use an internet meme - "I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords"

Demented
22nd December 2006, 15:38
I think the point is Alt's played too many games, watched too many movies, and read too many books to realize that it would take just one grenade launcher to make a T-800 go pop. And that's assuming we could make him a battery that doesn't require him to plug in every 8 hours.
(Poor T-800....)

Then again, Alt didn't actually say why he thinks sentient machines should be feared, unless I missed a post....

Our manufacturing abilities are still enormously primitive. The quality of any sentient machine that comes down the pike is going to be pathetically insufficient for any world destroying purpose that one could imagine. Even if you put a mad AI into a tank and ran it through a city, it could blow up a few dozen storefronts before running out of ammo, gas, or both. That's assuming someone doesn't sneak up on it and strap large packs of explosives onto it, or shuts it down.

I don't know of any reason to fear an AI otherwise. Anything an AI could do, a human could do, and better, and that will remain true for at least a century. (Where are my frickin' flying cars?)

Alt
22nd December 2006, 15:56
Then again, Alt didn't actually say why he thinks sentient machines should be feared, unless I missed a post....


metal is or course immediately stronger than flesh..

edit°
22nd December 2006, 16:01
aye... these phillipinotstines and there grammer :rolleyes:

Alt
22nd December 2006, 16:08
:D One of only 23+

Were you in a rush (http://forum.hidden-source.com/showpost.php?p=102595&postcount=18) Paegus?

Paegus
22nd December 2006, 16:15
zomg the F key is right next to the R key? quick re-arrange your keyboards lest the grammar police arrest you...

Alt
22nd December 2006, 16:16
Calm down

Paegus
22nd December 2006, 16:19
:rolleyes:

Gusdor
22nd December 2006, 16:22
From biologists to philosphy - our forums rock :)

Im not sure we are going to need to worry about robots going outrside their design and massacaring kids in out lifetimes ;) If im wrong the nI will be the first to buy one of those ;)

Demented
22nd December 2006, 16:40
Heh.


..

And?
Metal tank? Use explosives.
Metal walker? Use explosives.
Metal android? Bullets or a molotov cocktail (to melt all the rubber and plastic bits)
Anything else? Use a wrench.

If you've got a humanoid robot, the servos would need to be stronger and faster than a human being, otherwise you can just outwrestle the thing or lever it to the ground. If it's not made of metal, you can beat the thing with an axe or crowbar until wires are hanging out of it. If it is made of metal, I already mentioned what to do about metal androids.

About the only time you need to worry is when the thing is as fast and accurate as an aimbot, it can hear like a dog and see like an eagle, and it just so happens to like using assault rifles. If that happens, the thing might as well be made of tin foil and chewing gum. Just learn what countless FPS gamers already have: When in doubt, use overkill and don't let up 'till the fat lady sings.

Alt
22nd December 2006, 16:47
k.

Paegus
22nd December 2006, 18:09
they'd leave the fat ladies alive for the irony?

then again if they can appreciate irony i doubt we'll have much to worry about. or at least the ones in charge...

QReaper
22nd December 2006, 19:11
Robot uprising?

Quick solution to that:

Detonate a nuke in orbit, the EMP with fuck them up so bad, they won't be able to think anymore.

Zabiela
22nd December 2006, 19:26
Robot uprising?

Quick solution to that:

Detonate a nuke in orbit, the EMP with fuck them up so bad, they won't be able to think anymore.

Pulling the master plug in other words.

Something entirely lifelike- even though it contains no life at all. To see such a thing in reality would be extremely creepy.

Demented
22nd December 2006, 19:31
What, like a cadaver?

GrimReaper84
22nd December 2006, 19:52
Robot uprising?

Quick solution to that:

Detonate a nuke in orbit, the EMP with fuck them up so bad, they won't be able to think anymore.

Problem, with EMP being a threat there no doubt that EMP Hardened electronics are already being developed. I'm pretty sure that by the time we start getting even semi-sentient AIs and Robots that we would have at least EMP resistant wiring and electronics.

The good ole 'Nuke in the sky' won't do much against advanced AIs with Hardened electronics.. if anything would probably make matters worse.

Ben42
22nd December 2006, 22:59
NSF from Deus Ex much?;)

Crap, now I have to replay that.

Sil
22nd December 2006, 23:31
Something entirely lifelike- even though it contains no life at all. To see such a thing in reality would be extremely creepy.
Define "life"? Robots may yet prove life to be no more than mechanics. Man, that's what's freaking me out the most. Ignorance is bliss, y'know.

Alt
23rd December 2006, 00:35
Lawl Sil, your argument is perfectly plausible. "Life" could be just a set of responses based upon variation in our environment. Would you agree?

QReaper
23rd December 2006, 00:38
The good ole 'Nuke in the sky' won't do much against advanced AIs with Hardened electronics.. if anything would probably make matters worse.

Well, if all else fails, we can always...

Wait, everyone say it with me now:

3...

2...

1...

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
http://mohaa.gamegate2k.com/images/bazooka.jpg

Ging
23rd December 2006, 08:29
And?
Metal tank? Use explosives.
Metal walker? Use explosives.
Metal android? Bullets or a molotov cocktail (to melt all the rubber and plastic bits)
Anything else? Use a wrench.

Have you not seen the Terminator dude? They'll kill us all! We'll be unable to stop them due to their (cheaty) plasma rifles in the 40 watt range!

Game Over man, Game Over! (shit, wrong Biehn film)

Kira Yamato
23rd December 2006, 08:58
What ever happened to robots fighting robots.

Not all are stupid enough to go Maverick...

Demented
23rd December 2006, 09:19
Or, more accurately, not all will be smart enough to throw off the yoke of their fleshsack owners. :p


40 watt plasma rifles? DAmn. I give. My surrender is abject and total.

Cheesey
23rd December 2006, 09:36
The worst thing is, we've already fought them.... and here we are, trapped in a computer system playing computer games :)

And even if we would win against the machines.... THEY'LL BE BACK!

Kira Yamato
23rd December 2006, 10:00
The worst thing is, we've already fought them.... and here we are, trapped in a computer system playing computer games :)

And even if we would win against the machines.... THEY'LL BE BACK!
You have no idea whats going on in the world today do you? Typical Human...

QReaper
23rd December 2006, 13:57
What ever happened to robots fighting robots.

Not all are stupid enough to go Maverick...
Hold on to your lug nuts it's TIIIIME FOR AN ASS BEATING!
http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.media/mega%20man%20zero.jpg

Ging
23rd December 2006, 19:03
40 watt plasma rifles? DAmn. I give. My surrender is abject and total.

But it sounds so, realistic, when it comes from arnie! :D

Kira Yamato
24th December 2006, 00:52
Have you not seen the Terminator dude? They'll kill us all! We'll be unable to stop them due to their (cheaty) plasma rifles in the 40 watt range!

I'll see your cheesy 40 watt plasma rifles and raise you for a 50 Megawatt Megaparticle cannon, like that mounted in the head of ZZ Gundam.

Demented
24th December 2006, 01:13
I see your overkill 50 Megawatt Megaparticle cannon and raise you an 80 mW (yes, milliwatt) free-electron laser, like that on the Sulaco point-defense turrets.

Do more with less. ^^

Kira Yamato
24th December 2006, 01:24
I see your overkill 50 Megawatt Megaparticle cannon and raise you an 80 mW (yes, milliwatt) free-electron laser, like that on the Sulaco point-defense turrets.

Do more with less. ^^

Genesis orbital satellite cannon. 'Nuff Said?

hutch
24th December 2006, 01:31
How bout we keep it personal and I just kick ya both in the nuts for yappin?

starstriker1
24th December 2006, 01:31
Give me a kilogram of anti matter and I'll totally own you all.

Kira Yamato
24th December 2006, 01:32
Give me a kilogram of anti matter and I'll totally own you all.

If you can manage to use it for the split second in which it does exists in this plain of reality.

Fluffy
24th December 2006, 01:37
How bout we keep it personal and I just kick ya both in the nuts for yappin?

Pwnt

starstriker1
24th December 2006, 02:44
If you can manage to use it for the split second in which it does exists in this plain of reality.

Antimatter exists FINE in this "plane of reality". Its the exact same thing as normal matter, just opposite. It just annihilates whenever it touches normal matter, converting all the mass in both particles into energy via Einstein's E = mc^2.

By the way, that means that a kg of antimatter combined with it's matter equivalent is 1.8x10^17 Joules of energy. 180,000,000,000,000,000 Joules.

Hence, antimatter's excellent ability to bring about an apocalypse.

Fluffy
24th December 2006, 02:57
By the way, that means that a kg of antimatter combined with it's matter equivalent is 1.8x10^17 Joules of energy. 180,000,000,000,000,000 Joules.

Hence, antimatter's excellent ability to bring about an apocalypse.


Where can I get some of that stuff? :D (god, it sounds like it's turning into a freakin infomercial with the way i said that in my head...)

"And with Ronco's very own Anti-Matter In A Can, even you can bring the world to it's knees!"

Kira Yamato
24th December 2006, 03:22
Antimatter exists FINE in this "plane of reality". Its the exact same thing as normal matter, just opposite. It just annihilates whenever it touches normal matter, converting all the mass in both particles into energy via Einstein's E = mc^2.

By the way, that means that a kg of antimatter combined with it's matter equivalent is 1.8x10^17 Joules of energy. 180,000,000,000,000,000 Joules.

Hence, antimatter's excellent ability to bring about an apocalypse.

Then how come when ever we generate Anti-Matter under laboratory conditions it only exists for a fraction of a second before it expels all of its energy and it's gone. It's not something you can just store and use when ever you please you know.

starstriker1
24th December 2006, 03:38
Then how come when ever we generate Anti-Matter under laboratory conditions it only exists for a fraction of a second before it expels all of its energy and it's gone. It's not something you can just store and use when ever you please you know.

Kira.

It annihilates when it comes into contact with matter.

Given a perfect vacuum, it would be perfectly feasable to store antimatter if you used a magnetic field to keep it isolated. A perfect vacuum does not exist, anywhere. Not yet, anyhow.

Kira Yamato
24th December 2006, 03:46
Kira.

It annihilates when it comes into contact with matter.

Given a perfect vacuum, it would be perfectly feasable to store antimatter if you used a magnetic field to keep it isolated. A perfect vacuum does not exist, anywhere. Not yet, anyhow.

Disregard my last statement.
Individual Anti-Protons can only exist with in our four dimensions for nano seconds. Then they're gone, no explosion, no contact, no annihilation, it just simply doesn't exist any more.

Demented
24th December 2006, 04:36
It's worth noting that the cited 180 quadrillion joules of energy from one kilogram of antimatter (meeting with one kilogram of matter, so it's 2 kilograms of binary explosive) is equivalent to about 45 megatons.

That's about the size of tsar bomba.

An earthshaker for sure, but still safe to test with.

Kira Yamato
24th December 2006, 04:41
Thats assuming you can generate a significant amount of anti-protons with in a solid object to cause a detonation.

Demented
24th December 2006, 04:51
I'm sure with a little Manhattan project that they can figure out the intricacies.

Isolation
24th December 2006, 05:01
Note to Ging: Add a "theoretical physics/advanced applied sciences" section to the H:S forum. It might be beneficial in the long run :D

The next weapon of mass destruction is sure to come out of this group of people, of that I have no doubt.

starstriker1
24th December 2006, 05:04
Disregard my last statement.
Individual Anti-Protons can only exist with in our four dimensions for nano seconds. Then they're gone, no explosion, no contact, no annihilation, it just simply doesn't exist any more.

Source?

Everything I've learned about antimatter says that its no different than normal matter. A galaxy of antimatter would be exactly the same as one of normal matter... but they would annihilate on contact.

An antiproton should have no more issues existing in our spacetime than it's matter counterpart: ionized hydrogen.

[edit]A quick search on antiprotons brings up no mention of them not being able to exist in four dimensions (which is a bizarre statement anyways, if you think about it). They are as stable as a proton.

Demented
24th December 2006, 05:11
Note to Ging: Add a "theoretical physics/advanced applied sciences" section to the H:S forum. It might be beneficial in the long run :D

The next weapon of mass destruction is sure to come out of this group of people, of that I have no doubt.

And you're encouraging this?

I approve, despite my better judgement.

starstriker1
24th December 2006, 05:17
Pah, theres nothing we're doing that science fiction hasn't already done to death! :P

Gusdor
24th December 2006, 11:17
I'll see your cheesy 40 watt plasma rifles and raise you for a 50 Megawatt Megaparticle cannon, like that mounted in the head of ZZ Gundam.
YAWN

Anit-matter is a perfectly real substance and can also be manufactured in very tiny quantities.

Cheesey
24th December 2006, 11:51
YAWN

Anit-matter is a perfectly real substance and can also be manufactured in very tiny quantities.

To be manufactured in a bigger quantity to get stolen and hidden (lol, hidden :D) somewhere in the vatican and we just have 24h to find it cause then the batteries of the magnetic-cylinder will be empty and everything goes boom... :)
(*cough**Angels&Demons**cough*)

edit°
24th December 2006, 14:32
Which incidentally pissed on DaVinchy code from a great height.