Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/23/09
It sort of looks like they developed an algorithm for playing Mario Bros. I think robotics is awesome but machine vision still has a ways to go...
Not too many real-life targets will have a blue dot on them :)
08/23/09
08/23/09
They are waiting for new algorithms. Navigating around well marked barriers and arbitrary environments are by far several orders of magnitude different.
So I think it will not be a simple issue of Moore's law, but a breakthrough in computer science or neuroscience that will make this possible... who knows when that will be.
08/23/09
If Isaac Asimov were alive he'd be grinning alongside me.
08/23/09
08/23/09
I certainly acknowledge the idea of artificial intelligence as "taking over" is legitimate concern; the technology we develop will surely bring us to the point of independent artificial intelligent machinations.
However, since the Cold War, humanity's technophobic sentiments have run rampant. The whole lot of us have read/viewed/heard about robots as the harbingers of death. I think we've immersed ourselves in the negative so much that it has seeped in to our preconceived notions of what a robot is and will do.
Regardless of whether or not you hold a technophobic or technophilic attitude, let's hope developers incorporate programming laws in to their robots--something similar, perhaps, to Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.
P.S.--Let's hope that sentient A.I. doesn't become an issue. Otherwise, no matter how many programming laws we integrate, we're S.O.L.
08/23/09
Pick it up at about 3:28
08/03/09
"Smile now, but my time comes.
08/02/09
08/02/09
08/03/09
07/26/09
I have no doubt that we will eventually be building war robots that are capable of autonomous operation including determining their own targets and killing them. Once the technology has advanced enough, it will just grant too big an advantage to not use it. So the question is, what kind of limitations should be placed on it? What overrides should be available? How can those overrides be made immune to hacking? What kinds of targets should never be fired at?
07/26/09
by the headline alone "Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man" it seems more a worry of losing a chess match or the like.
we have the capability to virtually destroy the world if we so desire already, not sure how machines coming into play ads to that scare factor.
07/26/09
07/26/09
Also before anyone spouts about programming them with the 'Three Laws of Robotics' Read the god damn book first.
07/26/09
Since the very start of our existence us humans have evolved. Step back to look at it. Over the course of thousands of years we went from hitting eachother with rocks, to walking over the bering strait, to making an atomic bomb, and now to the freaking internet. Now we make Machines that we can control remotely. Everyone thinks this is terminator movie come true.
There is a clear line between fiction and reality. Sure, it is unwise to put everything in the hands of the machines but there WILL BE NO SKYNET. NONE. Machines are simply NOT powerful enough for that stuff, and I mean come on, seriously? Can we all look at common sense here?
Now even if the idea of "Machines Taking Over" were to come true, could they really beat us? Because sure, they can fly a plane. But who will refuel it?
Do you think they can build human like machines to do this with machine powered factories? Factories need equipment. Where will they get the precious metals to do this? If they cannot even make a human like machine to give them the stuff that keeps them going, how the hell can they even get the metals that they are made of?
Furthermore, lets have some courage in our own human race please? We can overcome, we always have. We are continuing to advance by leaps and bounds, and anything that gets in our way is usually defeated. If any stupid machines get in our way (which will never happen) we will defeat them.
/sigh
I am sorry for ranting this terminator nonsense, because I know how interesting this stuff it to people. But lets just make it clear: This will never happen. Sorry, but it gets tiring seeing it. I know I will get flamed for this so flame away...
07/26/09
07/26/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
Ingenuity is a trait we've yet to actually reproduce artificially, so how would a machine develop the means to be creative? Where would it store all of this extra information, and how would it apply it? With our limited understanding of what makes the mind what it is, spontaneously reproducing it on things designed with a far more rigid and more simplistic set of logic sounds like a very far reach.
Anything that can break, will break. A robot's wiring will fray. Hard glass material can crack. Plastics will cloud, fade and wear through, and metals will eventually rust. It will require replacement. The loop of redundancy in a lifeform would be exceedingly difficult to recreate in a machine. Even if an entire robot were made out of nanites that can repair each other, each nanite can fail at a rate they can't handle, whereas we are made of self-replicating tissue and can reproduce in the many thousands.
A group of people can wander the wilderness for years and only develop callouses. Robots will stomp their way through harsh unforgiving environments, and the basic elements that make up their alloys will show their Achilles' heel. Paints and coatings that protect the metals from oxidizing will disappear, and even a seemingly perfect artificial loop of protection will wear out and be destroyed. Our creations have a very limited shelf life.
Go carbon-based life forms!
05/21/09
05/21/09
1. ...self-preservation and ambition, to want power or fear the loss of power.
This is the only thing on the list that is a real issue. And it is entirely possible, as we "evolve" AIs in competitive environments.
2. ...dependence on humans.
A couple of chip fab robots, computerized forklifts and a bit more and I am pretty sure an AI could maintain itself and its infrastructure.
3. ...omitted failsafe controls, so there's no ability to turn robots or AI off.
It doesn't matter if it is a single strike.
4. The robots need to gain these advantages in a way that takes humans by surprise.
Again, a single strike.
What will it be? Easy as hell, one computer controlled gene sequencer.
05/21/09
So long as there's an electrical system, there is always a failsafe, no matter how complicated.