61–70 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that, as stated, these laws are (1) practically impossible to implement, (2) routinely broken by humans (especially the first law - life-sacing and cosmetic surgery, piercings, sport, euthanasia, abortion), and (3) a matter of philosophical/moral subject, decisions about which, IMO, should be in the domain of humans, not robots.
How are they practically impossible to implement?
* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm. * Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law. * Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.
You do realize that, as stated, these laws are (1) practically impossible to implement, (2) routinely broken by humans (especially the first law - life-sacing and cosmetic surgery, piercings, sport, euthanasia, abortion), and (3) a matter of philosophical/moral subject, decisions about which, IMO, should be in the domain of humans, not robots.
Computers based on neuromorphic design are the best bet for intelligent Machines. The question is, how to control analog computations with a programming language?
> Computers based on neuromorphic design are the best bet for intelligent Machines. I wouldn't go that far. We don't understand enough about the nature of intelligence and the way brain works; right now saying that "the best bet for AI is for computer to look like a brain" is like saying "the best bet for heavier-than-air flight is for a machine to flap wings like birds", which was a stupid idea for the reasons we no…
I am not saying that we should copy the brain. But at least we could copy the design, just like we did for aeroplanes. Neuromorphic sensors could act like our cerebellum, which act during unforeseen incidents. They are typically error tolerating.
* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm. * Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law. * Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.
It's what humans do to themselves, after all.
* First Law: A robot must never harm a human being or, through inaction, allow any human to come to harm. * Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to them by human beings, except where such orders violate the First Law. * Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence unless this violates the First or Second Laws.
* Zeroth Law: A robot must never harm humanity or, by inaction allow humanity to come to harm. Every other law gets an unless this interferes with the zeroth law. suffix. I encourage anyone to read the robots series, specifically( in that order ): The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun and The Robots of Dawn , where the three laws are used in the story, and even the zeroth law is implied in the third book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that, as stated, these laws are (1) practically impossible to implement, (2) routinely broken by humans (especially the first law - life-sacing and cosmetic surgery, piercings, sport, euthanasia, abortion), and (3) a matter of philosophical/moral subject, decisions about which, IMO, should be in the domain of humans, not robots.
Didn't Asimov himself explore the difficulties with such laws at length in his books?
I haven't had the time to research how far the general idea has gone or if it is relevant at all but the scetched examples were pretty interesting.
I also found the random remark of "consciousness = what it feels like to have a neocortex" interesting.
Glad to see that some smart money is bet in this general direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"vastly expand the welfare state and divvy up at least part of the accumulated surplus to everyone" That's a technology we haven't had much luck with so far. We've had economies where "distribution" was related to direct wealth creation (make a sandwich and eat it myself), property & labour (you make a sandwich with my bread,we eat half each), thievery (gimme your sandwich). We've done sharing in small groups, that m…
We disagree about how well redistribution can and has worked at scale. My ultra-compressed (lossy) take is "pretty inefficient, but somewhat effective improving the lives of the less-wealthy". One of the most dramatic and promising examples of redistribution, GiveDirectly, is actually doing some followup research on the effectiveness of their redistribution, and it looks pretty good so far: (pdf warning) http://web.m…
B - Scale in economics is a big deal. Obviously you can transfer wealth from one person to another pretty effectively but what happens to an economy, government, society, etc when it's the main income source is a different kettle of fish.
I didn't say impossible. But it's a technology we need to make a big leap on. Money itself is a technology. Maybe we need money itself to be disrupted to overcome some apparent limitations.
If they do pull that off, I hope they will be very, very careful. You know, Intelligence explosion, Friendly AI, taking over the world, that sort of things. http://intelligenceexplosion.com/
"Information has been running on a primate platform, evolving according to its own agenda. In a sense, we have a symbiotic relationship to a non-material being which we call language. We think it's ours, and we think we control it. It's time-sharing a primate nervous system, and evolving towards its own conclusions."
- Terrence McKenna