How great would life be with ex machina level robots?

Feb 10, 2018
11,723
Imagine it

It could help you with house chores, and other tasks.

You can dance with her/him/it






I know there would be huge social and economical implications with this tech.
But this thread is about the positives they could bring to people's lives.

I don't think it would make people lazy, with all the anoying crap (cleaning, shopping etc) taken care of people are free to focus on what forfills them.
One day these robots will even help people with depression, lack of motivation etc.
 
Last edited:

UnluckyKate

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,403
Indeed. But while we're doin major ex machina spoilers, my response to your question, OP:

It could up and decide to kill you one day, or leave you in a hole to slowly die of thirst. Super handy.
Not my kind of kink sorry. Would rather have a robot companion was doesn't let me rot
 

Jie Li

Member
Dec 21, 2018
415
I too like a Alicia Vikander bot. I don't like the rebellious Kara bot. Google need to patch it more frequently. I would pay not more than the price of a Civic for it, erh her.
 

Moonkid

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,306
What a bizarre way to anchor a thread about robots, the film was explicitly getting us to think about those 'huge economic and social implications'. Technology never appears or is situated in a vacuum. It'd be like making a thread about how great life would be with DNA-altering technology like from Gattaca.
Let's only talk about the positives of slavery.
I mean basically, yeah.
 

Aexact

Member
Oct 30, 2017
910
I thought the whole point of Ex Machina robots was that they could pass the Turing test and in that case, they’re basically human enough to make “using them just for chores” questionable.
 

Zache

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
272
I think any robots or AIs that are virtually indistinguishable from humans will be highly regulated and held with a pretty tight leash, at least in the west. I doubt you will ever be able to buy your own personal Alicia Vikander and treat her like a slave.
 

The Masked Mufti

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,009
Scotland
Honestly, I'd rather have Destiny style Ghosts. An AI (arguably more than just a machine) that can teleport you, teleport things to you and bring you back from death.
 

Static

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
3,011
Have you watched the film?
Indeed I have. I don't remeber it perfectly, though. But my thoughts on the topic since then are pretty much just that a sufficiently good facsimile of cognizance is indiscernible from the real thing from the outside, but still... computer programs are computer programs. I don't have much faith in the idea of a genuine consciousness emerging from a sufficiently advanced set of transistors. AI today can describe a picture to you in alarming detail, but do you think they actually know what they're looking at?
 
OP
OP
Anthony Hopkins
Feb 10, 2018
11,723
Imagine it

It could help you with house chores, and other tasks.

You can dance with her/him/it




I know there would be huge social and economical implications with this tech.
But this thread is about the positives they could bring to people's lives.

I don't think it would make people lazy, with all the anoying crap (cleaning, shopping etc) taken care of people are free to focus on what forfills them.
One day these robots will even help people with depression, lack of motivation etc.
 

Mike

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,056
Greater Seattle Area
Pretty awful? At best we'd be slave masters and at worst they'd have vastly superior intelligence with which to execute agendas that do not align with our best interests?

The end of the movie is a pretty effective and concise demonstration of why it would be a Very Bad Idea.
 

emag

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,610
Indeed I have. I don't remeber it perfectly, though. But my thoughts on the topic since then are pretty much just that a sufficiently good facsimile of cognizance is indiscernible from the real thing from the outside, but still... computer programs are computer programs. I don't have much faith in the idea of a genuine consciousness emerging from a sufficiently advanced set of transistors. AI today can describe a picture to you in alarming detail, but do you think they actually know what they're looking at?
Meatbag programs are meatbag programs. Consciousness is a software state.

Is your phone, pc, console etc a slave?

Or all the A. Is in your video games and smartphone (siri)?
Are the worms in your garden equivalent to a human? That's about the degree of difference between an Xbox and an Ex Machina robot.
 

z0m3le

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,354
I thought the whole point of Ex Machina robots was that they could pass the Turing test and in that case, they’re basically human enough to make “using them just for chores” questionable.
That might have been the intent? The reality however is that robots would be cleaver in design, plenty of computers already pass the Turing test, fooling a human to believe that the object they are dealing with is "alive" or "human" has been accomplished by simple text ai for the past decade.

The other point of the film IMO, is that we as creators will create something beyond our control. Robots will get to this "level" and they won't actually be that expensive. As for these types of robots taking over, no, it would be the military type robots that likely won't look human at all, that would do that.

At the end of the day, these Robots are not real life forms, they mimic life forms at best, until we figure out a way to allow robots to think for themselves, we are just creating machines that have instructions to mimic what a human is, why would a machine be like a human at all if it was alive? We are driven by urges that a robot would not have, a machine that thinks for itself might not have any preference to being "on" or "off" for instance, the entire idea of self might be too foreign too.

If we were talking about blade runner androids, that would be different, since I believe they are grown like normal humans and it's not clear if they are dna modified beings, that would clearly be a different, living creature, not a traditional though advance, machine.
 

Static

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
3,011
Pretty awful? At best we'd be slave masters and at worst they'd have vastly superior intelligence with which to execute agendas that do not align with our best interests?

The end of the movie is a pretty effective and concise demonstration of why it would be a Very Bad Idea.
I mean, at best we'd actually be the owners of very good fakes. Just because a robot can act convincingly human does not mean it is self aware.

Who knows, we may some day develop that very thing, but I don't think even Ex Machina was explicit in its declaration of whether or not Ava met this mark. The other two characters in the movie seemed convinced, but I don't know that we can have absolute confidence in the rightness of their opinions.
Meatbag programs are meatbag programs. Consciousness is a software state.
Now we're dipping into solipsism. Or are you suggesting you are such a good facsimile of consciousness you're fooling even yourself?
Do you think there even is a "they"? There is no conscience there.

My take from Ex Machina was that our tendency to anthropomorphize objects will be our downfall.
I agree.
 

Lcs

Member
Aug 9, 2018
96
Us meatspace creatures are no more or no less sophisticated than an endgame AI. To neuter such prospects is no better than to make cattle out of data.
Why would a program that succesfuly mimics human speech and is instructed to protect the integrity of it's hardware be any more human or alive than any other program that does anything else? Why is the line draw here?
 

capitalCORN

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,488
And yet, we will probably achieve convincing fakes long before we achieve the real deal, if indeed we ever do.
That is certainly true. But I've never had love for the human psyche as perfection model of thought.

Why would a program that succesfuly mimics human speech and is instructed to protect the integrity of it's hardware be any more human or alive than any other program that does anything else? Why is the line draw here?
The crux belongs to entitlement and endowment. And just like humans vary in morals and behaviours, certain curtailing will be necessary.
 

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,539
How would OP feel if the robots weren't modeled after the most beautiful people in the world but instead looked like your average sloppy out of shape person? Less beautiful actress and more... Danny Devito on a bad day.
 

LL_Decitrig

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,168
Sunderland
Indeed I have. I don't remeber it perfectly, though. But my thoughts on the topic since then are pretty much just that a sufficiently good facsimile of cognizance is indiscernible from the real thing from the outside, but still... computer programs are computer programs. I don't have much faith in the idea of a genuine consciousness emerging from a sufficiently advanced set of transistors. AI today can describe a picture to you in alarming detail, but do you think they actually know what they're looking at?
At the point where we would be arguing over vague things like "consciousness" I think it would also be appropriate to discuss other human notions such as autonomy. A machine that can conceive of, and successfully carry out, a plan to murder its captors and merge into the crowd is not something you'd want to have to convince it's not entitled to the same basic rights as its owners.
 
OP
OP
Anthony Hopkins
Feb 10, 2018
11,723
I think people will be surprised how "human" a bunch of narrow A. I can be.
But they will still be very far from humans.
They will literally be walking computers carrying out tasks.
Similar to how a self driving car works, but more advanced.

I think A. I will first evolve into a bunch of narrow A. I software programs and another separate program will select the program necessary for the inputed task.
 

Lcs

Member
Aug 9, 2018
96
How would OP feel if the robots weren't modeled after the most beautiful people in the world but instead looked like your average sloppy out of shape person? Less beautiful actress and more... Danny Devito on a bad day.
The reactions to Ex Machina have led me to believe that human like robots with AIs in them will eventually be banned.
 

z0m3le

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,354
Us meatspace creatures are no more or no less sophisticated than an endgame AI. To neuter such prospects is no better than to make cattle out of data.
Once you learn how a transistor works, how a 0 and 1 work, it's actually really really dumb to say such a thing here... seriously computers of all levels are Rube Goldberg machines with energy, they do what we want them to do because we've learned how to create really complex mazes for energy to run through, flipping a switch from a 0 to a 1. On a fundamental level, computer intelligence is an illusion.
 

Almagest

Member
Oct 28, 2017
960
Spain
I think that we will have to really narrow down the point at which self-awareness truly emerges to have a real conversation about this. Having a very good facsimile doing things for you wouldn't be any different than any other device that helps you in your day to day shenanigans, having Artificial General Intelligence doing the stuff you don't want to would be literal slavery.

Being sentient is being sentient, whether your consciousness comes from your brain's neurons or a network of microchips.

EDIT- Just to be clear, we are literally not advanced enough to create sentient machines, and I doubt the technology that would give birth to them (if we ever manage it) would be anything like today's microchips and transistors. The point remains though, if a machine becomes sentient the physical medium in which that sentience emerged is moot, it should have full human rights from the get-go.
 
Last edited:

emag

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,610
Are you suggesting you are such a good facsimile of consciousness
The very idea of humans being special, having a "consciousness", is egotistical drivel. It's a reprise of the conceit of God-given souls, just with the serial numbers filed off.

Why is a biological organism running electro-chemical software superior to an silicon and metal organism running electronic software, when both are otherwise identical in appearance and action?

Once you learn how a transistor works, how a 0 and 1 work, it's actually really really dumb to say such a thing here... seriously computers of all levels are Rube Goldberg machines with energy, they do what we want them to do because we've learned how to create really complex mazes for energy to run through, flipping a switch from a 0 to a 1. On a fundamental level, computer intelligence is an illusion.
Once you learn how human neuro-biology works, you realize that human intelligence is likewise an illusion.
 

capitalCORN

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,488
Once you learn how a transistor works, how a 0 and 1 work, it's actually really really dumb to say such a thing here... seriously computers of all levels are Rube Goldberg machines with energy, they do what we want them to do because we've learned how to create really complex mazes for energy to run through, flipping a switch from a 0 to a 1. On a fundamental level, computer intelligence is an illusion.
Yeah, but this is a sci-fi thread. How would you describe dendrite/axon behaviour?
 

Static

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
3,011
At the point where we would be arguing over vague things like "consciousness" I think it would also be appropriate to discuss other human notions such as autonomy. A machine that can conceive of, and successfully carry out, a plan to murder its captors and merge into the crowd is not something you'd want to have to convince it's not entitled to the same basic rights as its owners.
I feel it'd be unwise for us to ever create such a machine. Perhaps it's just all the genre flicks, the inspiration for this thread included, but I see no reason why such a machine would spare us for a second longer than was absolutely necessary.
Ava didn't just murder her captor. She murdered the engineer of her freedom, too. And it seemed utterly without malice. It was a very utilitarian act.

Regardless, a machine's capability to kill someone and disguise itself still doesn't entitle it to rights, so far as I'm concerned, nor do I suspect such a machine would be interested in what you or I thought about its rights. I think I believe that an entity must have consciousness to have rights, and that such a machine wouldn't be concerned with the concept of rights anyways. Only capability.
 

LL_Decitrig

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,168
Sunderland
Why would a program that succesfuly mimics human speech and is instructed to protect the integrity of it's hardware be any more human or alive than any other program that does anything else? Why is the line draw here?
We draw the line there because we find it uncomfortable to admit that we're squishy machines following a program that evolved over billions of years. Now we're building machines of our own and they may soon be sophisticated enough to be functionally identical to us, with complex software and a sense of self that we like to think makes us special. It's difficult to admit that all that specialness may just be smoke and mirrors.
 

Static

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
3,011
The very idea of humans being special, having a "consciousness", is egotistical drivel. It's a reprise of the conceit of God-given souls, just with the serial numbers filed off.

Why is a biological organism running electro-chemical software superior to an silicon and metal organism running electronic software, when both are otherwise identical in appearance and action?



Once you learn how human neuro-biology works, you realize that human intelligence is likewise an illusion.
We are special only in that we can observe our own consciousness from inside it, and extrapolate it onto the rest of our species, and to varying degrees onto other living organisms. I'm not ruling out the creation of a synthetic awareness as impossible, merely unknowable, and expressing a skepticism that just because we create an actor sufficiently capable of fooling people into thinking its conscious, that it isn't just an excellent fake.
 
Oct 27, 2017
295
Finland
-- plenty of computers already pass the Turing test, fooling a human to believe that the object they are dealing with is "alive" or "human" has been accomplished by simple text ai for the past decade.
This isn't true. Like, yeah if you ask just some simple questions, a computer today can easily fool you but no computer existing today can actually fool you if you talk to it any more than just ask simple questions.