71–80 of 158 posts
* 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.
Replicating the neocortex is Kurzweil's vision / approach also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_Mind
The AI winter is very much over, and we're back to the good old days of selling the future. I bet this team is very sharp, but there's still merit to "over-promise, under-deliver." "Phoenix, the co-founder, says Vicarious aims beyond image recognition. He said the next milestone will be creating a computer that can understand not just shapes and objects, but the textures associated with them. For example, a computer…
Funny to think that instead of curing diseases or making cheap renewable energy, we'd instead try to spend resources to invent a computer to do that for us...
privatization of research is real and awesome!
Call it what it is, an expert system, market research, a database of decisions/observations. Real "artificial intelligence" only exists in science fiction, in the minds of children playing with toys. Your computer (doll) won't ever love you back or have any awareness or understanding no matter how bad you want it to. It's a cool sounding buzzword for marketing, but if there's any intelligence here it's coming from a…
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?
Also, even if you change the laws to get rid of logical inconsistencies, you still have to translate the words into logic, by strictly defining them, which is again impossible (as humans disagree what these words mean).
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?
This fits Elon Musk's vision. He had 3 main and 2 smaller things that in the future will most affect the future of humanity. Main: the Internet, the transition to a sustainable energy economy, and space exploration, particularly extension of life to multiple planets Smaller: artificial intelligence and biology
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Neuromorphic computers do not look like a brain. They just borrow some of it's so called 'features'. 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.