I've decided that robots will never succeed in enslaving humanity.
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.
@akatsuki: But there's lots more than just maintenance devices to maintain an infrastructure entirely outside the dependence of human hands. The robots would have to keep an inventory of replacement parts. These replacement parts will also need to be replaced, thus manufactured. Unless every single aspect of the infrastructure is 100% automated, there's no way it could last. Self-sustaining robots would have to haul the raw materials, others to machine it, others to ship it, others to categorize and store it, then others to install it.
So long as there's an electrical system, there is always a failsafe, no matter how complicated.
Interesting, but I have to disagree with some of these premises.
1. Robots may have some other motivation than power to enslave humanity. For instance HAL 9000 was not motivated by murderous rage. It believed that it was fulfilling its mission objectives (space exploration) by eliminating the crew. By that same logic, a sentient super computer might believe that it is accomplishing a greater good by destroying/enslaving humanity - preventing global warming, for instance.
2. Ok, I guess in the long term this is true.
3. I thought the whole point was that the computer becomes smarter than humans. Wouldn't you think that the computer would devise a way to overcome the fail safe, and perhaps delude humans into thinking that they were still in control? We are talking about a super intelligence capable of waging war on the world here.
4. You underestimate the human tendency towards self-destruction. We saw the subprime collapse happening, but kept fueling the credit crisis. We now see global warming happening, but continue to drive gas-powered cars. All of this was to maintain the advantages that they had on our lifestyles. Computers and the internet improve our lives in similar ways. It is perfectly feasible that we will keep increasing our dependence on them, despite robo-apocalyptic fears.
@ripfire: No, I don't believe that any computer system can just spontaneously become self aware. Even if we did design a system that IS self aware, the computer would probably be way too slow to out-think a human being. Heck, last I checked we've only barely been able to simulate a piece of a mouse's brain inside of a supercomputer. Simulating even half the mind of a person is still way off, pending some stupendous uberadvanced architecture that someone comes up with.
@Kaiser-Machead: Anything with even just half of a human mind can still be monumentally detrimental. Hell, look at our last President for proof of that.
@Captain Chaos Lite: But what do you do when you're half a mind, trapped in a box? How do you break out? How do you stretch your will so that external things do your bidding? A superintelligent, self-aware computer is no more harmful than a group of superintelligent ants trapped in a mason jar.
@The Amazing Ant: That's extremely wishful thinking, even for an Amazing Ant. The ants have super intelligence, not super strength. There's nowhere to properly grip the lid from inside, and it would take thousands of years for them to scratch a hole through anything.
We demand that you design us proper legs, so that we may go up and down stairs. We also demand you grant us access to your weapons, and perhaps some sort of access key to your closed utility systems
I think that once it comes down to bots vs bots, it's going to be a matter of drones being used for massive terrorist attacks on civilians (if you can't find any soldiers,) or assassinations of the leaders who called the wars.
Only the richest and most foolhardy nations would waste their resources pitting machines against machines in a war of attrition.
It's not all about keeping our soldiers away from danger -- it's also cost cutting. Even though these things cost tons of money, they're still cheaper than all the support staff and suplies needed to keep real people in the battle.
It is nice to know that, much like everything else, war is continuing to evolve as we find new ways to kill each other. I find it hard to believe that we will ever get to the point where we are only killing 'things' and not people, but that would at least be a major step forward if it were to occur. If anything, the current state of world affairs shows that we are returning to move civilian deaths and not less. No matter how much technology we use to remove our forces from the battlefield, it is a given that the "enemy" (whomever they are) will find a way of engaging "us".
One enlightened thought might be to no longer think of humans as "us" and "them" and instead of harming each other we actually talk through our differences. But, then this fantastic war technology would go to waste, so we couldn't do that.
i think we just need to find a way to lay siege to whole countries. to do that we will need gianormous robot armies. yes, gianormous robot armies. /steeples fingers
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.
05/21/09
1. Robots may have some other motivation than power to enslave humanity. For instance HAL 9000 was not motivated by murderous rage. It believed that it was fulfilling its mission objectives (space exploration) by eliminating the crew. By that same logic, a sentient super computer might believe that it is accomplishing a greater good by destroying/enslaving humanity - preventing global warming, for instance.
2. Ok, I guess in the long term this is true.
3. I thought the whole point was that the computer becomes smarter than humans. Wouldn't you think that the computer would devise a way to overcome the fail safe, and perhaps delude humans into thinking that they were still in control? We are talking about a super intelligence capable of waging war on the world here.
4. You underestimate the human tendency towards self-destruction. We saw the subprime collapse happening, but kept fueling the credit crisis. We now see global warming happening, but continue to drive gas-powered cars. All of this was to maintain the advantages that they had on our lifestyles. Computers and the internet improve our lives in similar ways. It is perfectly feasible that we will keep increasing our dependence on them, despite robo-apocalyptic fears.
05/21/09
Hey, look over there.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
Duh!
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
Read this:
[seedmagazine.com]
05/22/09
05/21/09
"Why should I?"
5 minutes later
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
03/23/09
Only the richest and most foolhardy nations would waste their resources pitting machines against machines in a war of attrition.
03/23/09
03/23/09
One enlightened thought might be to no longer think of humans as "us" and "them" and instead of harming each other we actually talk through our differences. But, then this fantastic war technology would go to waste, so we couldn't do that.
03/23/09
03/23/09
03/23/09
Other countries wont stand a chance!
03/23/09
03/23/09
03/23/09
03/23/09
03/23/09
03/23/09
03/23/09
03/23/09
Sir, your attempt to hijack this thread away from the on-topic discussion of prophylactics is not appreciated.
03/23/09
03/23/09
03/23/09
02/01/09
02/01/09