Beware the robots, warns scientist

[SoylentGreen]

Beware the robots, warns scientist - Technology - NZ Herald News

The robots are not so much coming; they have arrived. But instead of dominating humanity with superior logic and strength, they threaten to create an underclass of people who are left without human contact. The rise of robots in the home, in the workplace and in warfare needs to be supervised and controlled by ethical guidelines which limit how they can be used in sensitive scenarios such as baby-sitting, caring for the elderly, and combat, a leading scientist warns today. Professor Noel Sharkey, an expert on artificial intelligence based at the University of Sheffield, warns that robots are being introduced to potentially sensitive situations that could lead to isolation and lack of human contact, because of the tendency to leave robots alone with their charges for long periods Research into service robots has demonstrated a close bonding and attachment by children, who, in most cases, prefer a robot to a teddy bear," Professor Sharkey said. "Short-term exposure can provide an enjoyable and entertaining experience that creates interest and curiosity. But because of the physical safety that robot minders provide, children could be left without human contact for many hours a day or perhaps several days, and the possible psychological impact of the varying degrees of social isolation on development is unknown." Less playful robots are being developed to look after elderly people. Secom makes a computer called My Spoon which helps disabled people to eat food from a table. Sanyo has built an electric bathtub robot that automatically washes and rinses someone suffering from movement disability.

This reminds me of an old isaac asimov story where humans become isolated from each other and dependent on their robots for companionship.

What do you think , is it a good thing that we might be able to provide artificial companionship or is it not the way to go?

[Compugasm]

This is a bit of fear mongering on the role of robots. It's not really the physical presense of the robot which is to be feared, but what it's programmed to do. Ultimately, the robot is controlled by software.

NEC has tested its cute-looking personal robot PaPeRo on children: the device lives at home with a family, recognises their faces, can mimic their behaviour and be programmed to tell jokes, all the while exploring the house.

Apparently that's fine in Japan. But if this were done in America, the authorities would surely gather all kinds of interesting information about you. Again, the issue isn't that this toy has surveilance cameras. But that it is programmed to transmit the data "through wireless computer connection or mobile phone". For now it's a good thing that noone is monitoring these toys to find stuff out about you. But if we're speculating on the future of robots, the real danger is how it is abused.

[Scribbler1]

The robots are not so much coming; they have arrived. But instead of dominating humanity with superior logic and strength, they threaten to create an underclass of people who are left without human contact.

Why are they worried about robots? The Internet is already doing that.

[key wish]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Why are they worried about robots? The Internet is already doing that.

I remember a discussion I had with a neighbor about using computers to teach children to read. My point against it was the very point of human contact. The mock human contact made by a program, or a forum for that matter, would probably cause people problems with interaction with other people.

I could never prove it but It seems like we are traveling down a very dangerous avenue.

Human contact may be the very thing that makes us human. Without it what would be be? Beings without souls.... robots?

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: key wish I remember a discussion I had with a neighbor about using computers to teach children to read. My point against it was the very point of human contact. The mock human contact made by a program, or a forum for that matter, would probably cause people problems with interaction with other people. I could never prove it but It seems like we are traveling down a very dangerous avenue.

Not neccesarioly. Once VR becomes available, we will be able to "mock" human contact perfectly, so that no interraction problems would be caused.

[rez]

Quote by: key wish I remember a discussion I had with a neighbor about using computers to teach children to read. My point against it was the very point of human contact. The mock human contact made by a program, or a forum for that matter, would probably cause people problems with interaction with other people.

Did you ever think that by the time machines are teaching they would be doing it to "human beings"?

Human contact may be the very thing that makes us human.

um no.

Without it what would be be? Beings without souls.... robots?

Sir, we are robots. We are just robots constructed through natural processes.

[rez]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Why are they worried about robots? The Internet is already doing that.

Certainly. We can consider the internet the "transitional fossil" of our time.

[key wish]

Quote by: RealRockingham Not neccesarioly. Once VR becomes available, we will be able to "mock" human contact perfectly, so that no interraction problems would be caused.

I don't see how that will mock human contact. Even if it was almost perfect, even with respect to touch, you would have to fool the individual depending on it that it was real.

And I said even if.

Just because tech has climbed so high so fast is not proof that there is not a summit. If you think tech is unlimited in its power then you have just created a religion.

[key wish]

Quote by: rez Did you ever think that by the time machines are teaching they would be doing it to "human beings"? um no. Sir, we are robots. We are just robots constructed through natural processes.

I don't understand what you mean in your first statement but I would like to if you can explain it.

I say human contact may be the thing that makes us human. Your rebuttal is "um no". Not very good by any means so I will let myself believe everything stands on your last statement.

I won't get into the "prove we don't have souls" "no! I don't have to prove something doesn't exist. you have to prove it does." argument.

But I would like to know Where are all those computers that we constructed through a natural process. And I don't mean the human brain. I'll settle for a calculator or even a flashlight ( and by flashlight I don't mead a lightning bug. I mean what we actually call a flashlight) Have any of those things been constructed by the natural process?

[rez]

Quote by: key wish I don't understand what you mean in your first statement but I would like to if you can explain it.

The idea is that machines will start teaching human beings. However, thats assuming machines evolve and human beings don't evolve.

With advancements in neurology, genetics and robotics, humans will no longer be humans by the time machines are teaching....

I say human contact may be the thing that makes us human.

The point was that your definition of human is completely wrong.

But I would like to know Where are all those computers that we constructed through a natural process.

I am suggesting that our DNA code is no different then machine code. The only difference is how it was constructed in the first place.

The DNA code was constructed through natural processes of chemicals forming together.

Machine code was constructed through human invention.

And I don't mean the human brain.

Well, thats what I meant.

I'll settle for a calculator or even a flashlight ( and by flashlight I don't mead a lightning bug. I mean what we actually call a flashlight) Have any of those things been constructed by the natural process?

No, but you bring up a good point. Human beginings create things based on what they see in nature.

They see a lightening bug and a human will say "why not recreate an artificial lightening bug that shines light when I tell it to so I can see in the dark"

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rez The idea is that machines will start teaching human beings. However, that's assuming machines evolve and human beings don't evolve.

I see it as more a matter of the machines are "evolving" FASTER than humans. But since that is by human design it gets a bit cloudy.
But since we still don't understand a lot about our own brains it's unlikely we will create a computer with better brains than us. The problem is we will THINK a future computer will be smarter than the human mind, but they will still need to be built by us.

As for the DNA example, I think DNA is comparable to the method with which the computer is BUILT, as in our DNA is what builds the brain, which starts out as a pretty blank slate. The program that does the thinking is different. With computers, the code is already there and with humans it writes itself over a person's lifetime.
Of course, when computers are developed to function differently than they do now (not better or faster) it could be a whole different thing.

Has anyone seen "Colossus, the Forbin Project? It's an old flick but worth the watch is you can find it.

[rez]

im looking it up now

[Jack]

Has anyone seen "Colossus, the Forbin Project? It's an old flick but worth the watch is you can find it.

Isn't that the one in which the computer is a sort of precursor to Hal in 2001? The self-thinking, "sorry Dave, I can't so that" kind of machine?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Jack Isn't that the one in which the computer is a sort of precursor to Hal in 2001? The self-thinking, "sorry Dave, I can't so that" kind of machine?

Think globally. I'm only giving up the first 5 minutes so as not to ruin the film. It's about a guy named Dr Charles Forbin (Eric Braeden) who builds a super (and I mean super) computer to run all the U.S.'s nations nuclear weapons, ostensibly to take them away from "accident prone" humans. Things get interesting from there.
I think it was made in the early 70's.

One cool touch was that they used real computer equipment in the film.


BTW, merry Christmas.

[Jack]

Yup, I think that's the one that came to my mind.

Re: MC...you, too.

[key wish]

Quote by: rez The idea is that machines will start teaching human beings. However, thats assuming machines evolve and human beings don't evolve. With advancements in neurology, genetics and robotics, humans will no longer be humans by the time machines are teaching.... The point was that your definition of human is completely wrong. I am suggesting that our DNA code is no different then machine code. The only difference is how it was constructed in the first place. The DNA code was constructed through natural processes of chemicals forming together. Machine code was constructed through human invention. Well, thats what I meant. No, but you bring up a good point. Human beginings create things based on what they see in nature. They see a lightening bug and a human will say "why not recreate an artificial lightening bug that shines light when I tell it to so I can see in the dark"

I must say I do find this interesting. It is really the first time I debated a topic like this one.

Now That I know what you meant about machines teaching humans:

I would say they already are to a point. we use interactive programs to teach all sorts of things and many companies use programs to evaluate new prospects to hire. I'm betting you were thinking more down the line of some kind of synthetic life form like a cyborg (I believe that would be the term).

My definition of being human:

I am in no way convinced that my definition of what it means to be human is wrong. I do not even think that "machine code" (When I was in school I think it was called machine language and was used for creating other more user friendly computer languages) is anything at all like dna. There has not been any conclusive work that shows dna is what causes the intricate parts of individual personality.

The personality is what I think makes a human. The personality is created by interaction between humans. Some people may see personality in wild wolves. I do not. all wolf pacts act the same. Each pack is made up of the same type of wolves. The alpha, the beta, the one that gets kicked around. It is more like a machine than a personality. A boy raised by wolves does not end up with an intricate personality. It ends up with the make up of a wolf. (I will drop the soul part of my thought because it will only get us into another topic).

And I do not think we mimic nature in our want to create things. That may be so for some things. Man gazed at the birds in the air and dreamed of flying and maybe edison was inspired by a fire fly or lightning bug but there are a great deal many things that could not have been inspired by nature. I think you are saying the computer was created by people who wanted to create a brain. Maybe looking down the road to a life form. I would say it is nothing more than the off shoot of someone who wanted to see if they could create a calculator. It only grew from there. Over all I would think that is neither here nor there.

[key wish]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I see it as more a matter of the machines are "evolving" FASTER than humans. But since that is by human design it gets a bit cloudy. But since we still don't understand a lot about our own brains it's unlikely we will create a computer with better brains than us. The problem is we will THINK a future computer will be smarter than the human mind, but they will still need to be built by us. As for the DNA example, I think DNA is comparable to the method with which the computer is BUILT, as in our DNA is what builds the brain, which starts out as a pretty blank slate. The program that does the thinking is different. With computers, the code is already there and with humans it writes itself over a person's lifetime. Of course, when computers are developed to function differently than they do now (not better or faster) it could be a whole different thing. Has anyone seen "Colossus, the Forbin Project? It's an old flick but worth the watch is you can find it.

I think the question may be:

Do machines actually evolve. We call it that but is that what is taking place. Evolution... (the way I understand it and I hope I do not accidently start off on debating evolution. I will not say wether I believe in it or not) evolution happens because of beneficial mutations. If the mutation is beneficial enough it enables more of the specie that has the mutation to survive and as a result a new species is created. It happens over and again.

Your point about the supposed "evolution" being by human design is what I am talking about.

where is the mutation that allowed the torch to become the flashlight. The torch may have been changed to a lantern of some design but that can not be considered a mutation because it was built completely separate from the torch. The lantern wasn't in the torch helping out to make the newer better torch survive.

The point I am trying to make is that evolution is a natural process that happens by accident and machines are made better with a specific intent. For the two things to be the same I would think humans would have had to be made by something else just the way a machine is made by a human.

" The program that does the thinking is different. With computers, the code is already there and with humans it writes itself over a person's lifetime"

And this is a very good point i would like to use to back up what i was trying to say in a previous post. The person "code" ( I wouldn't exactly call it that but it works) was created through its interactions. The machine is what it is and will never be anything else unless some one changes it.

It may be able to mock human interaction and therefor personality but it will not grow of itself. If it ever does ( in place of colossus (was there something with an incredible magnetic force towards the end in that movie? I would think of terminator)) as I was saying. If the machine ever does become self aware it would still be our creation. Would that imply we ourselves may have been created also.

This is kinda mucky stuff but it is fun.

[rez]

Quote by: key wish There has not been any conclusive work that shows dna is what causes the intricate parts of individual personality.

What is personality to you?

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: key wish 1)I don't see how that will mock human contact. Even if it was almost perfect, even with respect to touch, you would have to fool the individual depending on it that it was real. 2)Just because tech has climbed so high so fast is not proof that there is not a summit. 3) If you think tech is unlimited in its power then you have just created a religion.

1) If it is almost exactly like human contact in every way, then it will suffice.

Afterall, the individual may ponder the "unreality" of the VR for short periods of time, but he will largely be "caught up in it". I mean really, observe how absorbed people can be by modern videogames.... the "unreality" of it won't be a problem in an illusion far more potent then modern video-games.

2) True. But that summit is almost certainly way above the potential and capacities of a human mind.

3) I don't believe that tech is unlimited in its power. And even if I did, it would be a faith, not a religion.