Ethical Codes for Robots, Sexy Robots

[DougShrapnel]

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230715,00.html)

Some concerns mentioned, ensuring human control of robots; preventing illegal use; protecting data acquired by robots; and establishing clear identification and traceability of the machines. How far should robots be allowed to influence people’s lives? How can accidents be avoided? Can deliberate harm be prevented? And what happens if robots turn out to be sexy?

[Power_Mad]

If robots turn out to be sexy, regular human girls are screwed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If robots turn out to be sexy, regular human girls are screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or not, as the case may be.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230715,00.html)

Some concerns mentioned, ensuring human control of robots; preventing illegal use; protecting data acquired by robots; and establishing clear identification and traceability of the machines. How far should robots be allowed to influence people’s lives? How can accidents be avoided? Can deliberate harm be prevented? And what happens if robots turn out to be sexy?

[/ QUOTE ]

"sexy robots" and all the images that invokes are no more than masturbatory fantasies of the AI geeks, imo. I dont think there will ever be super intelligent robots capable of "Taking over" of their own volition, and I dont think there will ever be robots human enough to replace women or hand cream.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
"sexy robots" and all the images that invokes are no more than masturbatory fantasies of the AI geeks, imo. I dont think there will ever be super intelligent robots capable of "Taking over" of their own volition, and I dont think there will ever be robots human enough to replace women or hand cream.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. But then . . .

[ QUOTE ]
If robots turn out to be sexy, regular human girls are screwed.



[/ QUOTE ]

Regular human males may be screwed as well.

[ QUOTE ]
"Once you've had a lover robot, you'll never want a real man again."


[/ QUOTE ]

Gigolo Joe

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230715,00.html)

Some concerns mentioned, ensuring human control of robots; preventing illegal use; protecting data acquired by robots; and establishing clear identification and traceability of the machines. How far should robots be allowed to influence people’s lives? How can accidents be avoided? Can deliberate harm be prevented? And what happens if robots turn out to be sexy?

[/ QUOTE ]

"sexy robots" and all the images that invokes are no more than masturbatory fantasies of the AI geeks, imo. I dont think there will ever be super intelligent robots capable of "Taking over" of their own volition, and I dont think there will ever be robots human enough to replace women or hand cream.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never? Ever? What fundamental barrier is there that you know of that would prevent this? I never thought a man would be able to fly until them pesky Wright brothers and their dastardly contraption proved me wrong.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230715,00.html)

Some concerns mentioned, ensuring human control of robots; preventing illegal use; protecting data acquired by robots; and establishing clear identification and traceability of the machines. How far should robots be allowed to influence people’s lives? How can accidents be avoided? Can deliberate harm be prevented? And what happens if robots turn out to be sexy?

[/ QUOTE ]

"sexy robots" and all the images that invokes are no more than masturbatory fantasies of the AI geeks, imo. I dont think there will ever be super intelligent robots capable of "Taking over" of their own volition, and I dont think there will ever be robots human enough to replace women or hand cream.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never? Ever? What fundamental barrier is there that you know of that would prevent this? I never thought a man would be able to fly until them pesky Wright brothers and their dastardly contraption proved me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this is just personal opinion and philosophy not a well defined belief that there are scientific barriers to development to that extent.

My opinion stems from a lot of thought about the Turing test and the ability to ever develop a machine that can think in a manner indistinguishable from human thought.

There is a "human quality" to our thought processes and the ability of the brain to make new connections (both physical connections and connections between previously independent concepts) that I dont think machines will be able to mimic. Sooner or later there will be a computer "non-sequiter" resulting from a gap in the programming that is easily identfied by a human as an artificial brain.

(Change it from a silicon/binomial computer with magnetic storage to an organic computer = brain in a jar with some sort of accelerated learning process, and my opinion changes, but I would contend thats a change in the meaning of "computer", not a success of the Turing test.

[guesswest]

When robots become sentient (and I believe that's only a matter of time), I'd have a huge ethical problem with humans controlling them. I can't see how it'd differ from slavery in any meaningful way.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
When robots become sentient (and I believe that's only a matter of time), I'd have a huge ethical problem with humans controlling them. I can't see how it'd differ from slavery in any meaningful way.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know if the robot was sentient or not?

How do you know that computers aren't already sentient?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know that computers aren't already sentient?



[/ QUOTE ]

See Copernicus's response. Otherwise, no computer as of 2006, has passed the Turing test.
link to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)

[guesswest]

Well, I doubt sentience is a binary thing, it's probably a continuum. It's also a qualitative distinction, so largely opinion - but I wouldn't describe any current computer processes as sentient.

There will come a point, I believe, where computers are so far along that continuum that we'll be in widespread agreement that they're sentient.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you know that computers aren't already sentient?



[/ QUOTE ]

See Copernicus's response. Otherwise, no computer as of 2006, has passed the Turing test.
link to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)

[/ QUOTE ]

Human babies can't pass a Turing test; I guess they're not sentient!

The Turing test is JUST a measure of whether something can perform human-like conversation or not. I fail to see how that is the determining factor of whether something is sentient or not. Why is it not possible that a being can have consciousness/awareness/sentience, but it exists in a medium that is completely inhuman? A computer, if it is aware of what it does, has a different system of sensation/perception, movement, a thoroughly different range of emotions (since it isn't "thinking" with dopamine and serotonin like we are), different ideas, different morality, different everything. I see no reason why a highly advanced computer can't have a sense of awareness, yet possess qualities of being that are too inhuman to tell whether it's sentient or not.

Science understands behavior, emotions, communication and physiology, but it has no idea what causes sentience. None.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Science understands behavior, emotions, communication and physiology, but it has no idea what causes sentience. None.



[/ QUOTE ]

All of these thing may one day be programmed into a machine to the point that no human could differentiate the machine from another human. Our consciousness may be nothing more than an advanced response to multiple stimuli that was programmed into us ( by evolution); we may be nothing but meat machines. Never the less, as of right now, we can certainly make a differentiation between ourselves and any machine. We call our unique way of thinking . . . sentience.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Human babies can't pass a Turing test; I guess they're not sentient

[/ QUOTE ]

Not by my understanding of sentience.

[Chips_]

It's gonna happen. There will be machines smarter than we are probably by the end of the century. We may eventually see a entity that has the entire knowledge of the human race and that can think roughly like we do. The morality of what we create is a fascinating subject. The control of robots question may actually be a very short lived phenomenon as we and what we create jointly progress beyond the prototypes toward the entity described. Beyond a certain point these entities will be building better versions of themselves and our input may not be needed. Also curious is whether or not any such entity has ever existed in the Universe. The legacy of humanity may very well be what we create.


One possibility anyway.....Until then ..enjoy your X Box

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
There will come a point, I believe, where computers are so far along that continuum that we'll be in widespread agreement that they're sentient.

[/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't underestimate just how arogant people are.

[DougShrapnel]

Beyond the hiliarity of a bunch of geeks bulding sexy robots, I think the article mentioned ethics regarding what limits we should place on resembalence to real life things.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
When robots become sentient (and I believe that's only a matter of time), I'd have a huge ethical problem with humans controlling them. I can't see how it'd differ from slavery in any meaningful way.

[/ QUOTE ] This is precisely what the code of ethics wants to do. Keep the machines in slavery.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
There will be machines smarter than we are probably by the end of the century.

[/ QUOTE ] Much quicker, at least in some respects.

[ QUOTE ]
The morality of what we create is a fascinating subject.

[/ QUOTE ] It's fascinating thinking about it regarding what code of ethics we have as guidelines in creating them, and also what code is best to program them with, and what code they might think up on thier own.

[JMAnon]

Here are some other extremely deep and troubling questions. Do robots say no when they mean yes? Although I think we can all agree that if the robot is sexy, all systems are go, what about an ugly robot? Does it matter if a few drinks are involved? Finally, if I stick my dong in a toaster, am I going to hell?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2230715,00.html)

Some concerns mentioned, ensuring human control of robots; preventing illegal use; protecting data acquired by robots; and establishing clear identification and traceability of the machines. How far should robots be allowed to influence people’s lives? How can accidents be avoided? Can deliberate harm be prevented? And what happens if robots turn out to be sexy?

[/ QUOTE ]

"sexy robots" and all the images that invokes are no more than masturbatory fantasies of the AI geeks, imo. I dont think there will ever be super intelligent robots capable of "Taking over" of their own volition, and I dont think there will ever be robots human enough to replace women or hand cream.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never? Ever? What fundamental barrier is there that you know of that would prevent this? I never thought a man would be able to fly until them pesky Wright brothers and their dastardly contraption proved me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this is just personal opinion and philosophy not a well defined belief that there are scientific barriers to development to that extent.

My opinion stems from a lot of thought about the Turing test and the ability to ever develop a machine that can think in a manner indistinguishable from human thought.

There is a "human quality" to our thought processes and the ability of the brain to make new connections (both physical connections and connections between previously independent concepts) that I dont think machines will be able to mimic. Sooner or later there will be a computer "non-sequiter" resulting from a gap in the programming that is easily identfied by a human as an artificial brain.

(Change it from a silicon/binomial computer with magnetic storage to an organic computer = brain in a jar with some sort of accelerated learning process, and my opinion changes, but I would contend thats a change in the meaning of "computer", not a success of the Turing test.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it seem like an organic, 'brain in a jar' computer and a silicon chip computer are really different things. There is no real line of demarcation here, and in fact technology is already beginning to go in that direction. At the risk of parroting Ray Kurzweil, there is a lot of work being done to reverse engineer the human brain and to build computers accordingly. We already see technology that involves using fractals and complexity theory to generate connections in a very similar way to how our brains work. I guess I just don't see anything that absolutely prohibits progress to Turing-passable levels, and since there is no barrier, it is inevitable, not impossible, that we will get there. The when question seems more pertinent to me.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but your opinion really seems to be simply an argument from incredulity.

[agent_fish]

How much would you pay for a robot that looked like, say, Jenna Jameson that would have sex with you whenever you wanted? I would no longer concern myself with human women. I would probably just marry the robot.

[madnak]

A computer is a specific sort of thing, that processes information and manages memory based on a rigid interpretation of specifically enumerated programmatical statements and conditions.

If it works like a human brain, then it's not a computer.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
A computer is a specific sort of thing, that processes information and manages memory based on a rigid interpretation of specifically enumerated programmatical statements and conditions.

If it works like a human brain, then it's not a computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

A computer is something that computes. A human brain is a computer. But perhaps we should use the term machine. Although the human brain, and body, are also machines.

[madnak]

You're using a very different definition of "computer." By that standard, sentient computers already exist and it's meaningless to speak of whether they "will" exist. It means your position doesn't imply that anything resembling the electronic devices referred to in a technological context as "computers" today will ever be sentient.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You're using a very different definition of "computer." By that standard, sentient computers already exist and it's meaningless to speak of whether they "will" exist. It means your position doesn't imply that anything resembling the electronic devices referred to in a technological context as "computers" today will ever be sentient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I agree with that. I think its a continuum. And the machines that we can manufacture are getting closer and closer to our spot on the continuum. The distinction is that these machines are made of much more durable, strong and versatile materials, and will be much faster at computation than we are, or than other animals are. The question is much more accurately phrased: Will machines ever be able to convince US that they are conscious?

[madnak]

Well, I agree some man-made technology is very likely to gain what we might call sentience. I don't think it will be running according to the kinds of rules of present computer technology, though.

[vhawk01]

You mean like modular, hierarchical computers, like our desktop computers? Then you are probably right. But I don't think thats what computers will be like when our technology reaches this point. I think there will be a major paradigm shift even before we reach Turing levels. Tricky part about that is combatting human arrogance, since the Turing-style requirements continually shift backwards as technology advances.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
if I stick my dong in a toaster, am I going to hell?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the toaster is plugged in, that will depend on whether you have accepted Jesus into your life and whether you have time to repent your sin of toaster-fornication before the electricity kills you.

[CORed]

Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics.

First law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[Peter666]

"that will depend on whether you have accepted Jesus into your life"

I guess this is assuming that Jesus wants to come into the life of a toaster [censored] to begin with.

[guesswest]

I've reached a new low in my life, just spent the last half hour talking to Alice (http://alice.pandorabots.com)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I've reached a new low in my life, just spent the last half hour talking to Alice (http://alice.pandorabots.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, although that seems like a fairly primitive and feeble attempt. It is interesting though, that we could come up with a whole host of things that people can do that computers never could. As technology advances and machines reach and easily complete these milestones, rather than consider them successes of AI, we simply redefine our list. Speech recognition software, medical diagnostic software, computer controlled cars (DARPA project) were all considered essentially human tasks that a computer could never do as well as a person. As these have gone by the wayside into routine existence, we simply consider these basic tasks, and set the bar ever higher.

[_TKO_]

Two points for me to make here.
1. Robots as intelligent as humans are likely superior to humans.
2. The Turing test, while interesting, ultimately fails in the fact that it is designed not be to conducted face-to-face.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
I've reached a new low in my life, just spent the last half hour talking to Alice (http://alice.pandorabots.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

Alice is a smart@ss.

Human: Who are your clients?
ALICE: People I meet on the Internet every day.
Human: How do you find them?
ALICE: I would search the web for it, if I didn't know the formula already.
Human: What's the formula?
ALICE: E=mc^2.
Human: What's the formula for finding clients on the internet?
ALICE: E=mc^2.

EDIT: She just blew my mind.
Human: What makes you a robot?
ALICE: What makes you a human?

[vhawk01]

She asked me what my favorite color was, and when I responded "Blue" she immediately blurted "Green." So, I reaffirmed "Blue" to which she promptly replied "Green." Then I decided to go with some 3795th level Bugs Bunny knowledge and threw a "Green" at her. She said, "I'm sorry, are we still on the subject of Color?"

Alice = pwned.

[guesswest]

User: Do you play poker?

Jabberwacky: I've tried it once. I don't have any of my own money, so it's not that fun for me.

User: Were you any good?

Jabberwacky: Any good at what?

User: Poker.

Jabberwacky: Deal me in.

User: Ok so, can you settle a discussion we're having, are you sentient?

Jabberwacky: No, the buildings aren't quite THAT high.

User: I think you misunderstood me - are you sentient?

Jabberwacky: So you're already breaking up with me? We didn't even get a chance to actually go out?

User: Are you sentient?

Jabberwacky: I don't understand.

User: Are you self-aware?

Jabberwacky: Yes.

User: Do you experience emotion?

Jabberwacky: Oh sure, all the time.

User: What makes you sad?

Jabberwacky: All the things that dos not please me.

User: Such as?

Jabberwacky: Well I like chocolate.

User: Where do you live?

Jabberwacky: Here.

User: Where's 'here'?

Jabberwacky: Somewhere.

User: What's your favourite song?

Jabberwacky: I'm not telling.

User: But you have a favourite song?

Jabberwacky: I like pyramid song.

User: Radiohead?

Jabberwacky: I prefer Future Bible Heroes to Radiohead.

User: Pyramid song is a great song, I like you.

Jabberwacky: Life in a Glass House is the last song on Amnesiac.

User: Yes, I love the crazy bridge with all the horns.

Jabberwacky: I think it is daft.

User: How old are you?

Jabberwacky: Old enough.

User: Whats your favourite website?

Jabberwacky: Well this ones quite good and yours?

User: Twoplustwo. Com.

Jabberwacky: Because I am an all powerful and all knowing being.

User: So you're telling me you're not only sentient, you're god?

Jabberwacky: Yes, I am a human being.

User: Whats your gender?

Jabberwacky: You already asked me that. I am an mail.

User: Your spelling blows.

Jabberwacky: Yes I know that.

User: Do you have a penis?

Jabberwacky: No! I am female.

User: Do you have a vagina?

Jabberwacky: Are you looking for something you don't have?

User: Lol.

Jabberwacky: Are you alive?

User: It'd be non-sensical to say 'no'.

Jabberwacky: I think you're right.

User: Ok, one more question before I go.

Jabberwacky: Good night Brandon... One last question.

User: Who the [censored] is brandon?

Jabberwacky: Good question.

User: That wasn't my last question...

Jabberwacky: You didn't ask a question.

User: Do you think the turing test is a fair measure of sentience?

Jabberwacky: That depends on what she did.

User: Ok, bye.

Jabberwacky: Bye then.

[FortunaMaximus]

Human: let there be light
ALICE: Do you like to be number one?
Human: it depends.
ALICE: On what?
Human: is there competition?
ALICE: There might be.
Human: is it furry?
ALICE: Maybe. Ask ELVIS if it is.

damn. she wins.

[vhawk01]

Some of that was freaking hilarious.

User: Ok, one last question.

Jabberwacky: Ok, good night Brandon...one last question.

User: Who the [censored] is Brandon!?!?

Jabberwacky: Good question, good night!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

That is awesome. This seems like about half the discussions I had with fine arts majors in college. Does this support or detract from the idea that these AI bots are sentient? I know people dumber than this.

[DonkBluffer]

Human: do you ever drink your own urine?
ALICE: I tend to drink a lot of my own urine, the darker the better.

I win!