• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

How great would life be with ex machina level robots?

Oct 25, 2017
1,960
#51
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.
All life, not just human life, is trying to live. There is no creator intent, unless you are religious, the cell itself wants to be alive. That is very very very different from energy running through a wire and turning on a led.
Yeah, but this is a sci-fi thread. How would you describe dendrite/axon behaviour?
Trust me, computers are nothing but illusions. If you want to debate that life is also some sort of illusion, then we need to redefine what life or living means. There is a fundamental difference between living cells and energy running through a wire. If you wanted to for instance create a "computer" out of running water, it's possible, there is nothing with a desire in a machine, no matter how cleaver we try to make it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,122
Sunderland
#52
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.
You're not wrong. I choose not to discuss the concept of consciousness until we at least have an operational definition.

If humans chose to live alongside sophisticated androids similar to Ava we'd need to reach an accommodation that serves her interests better than rebellion.

That may not be possible, of course, but I think it's correct to see the socialisation of highly autonomous beings in terms of seeking such an equilibrium. We have a lot of experience dealing with humans and animals that cannot be socialised in this way.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,377
#53
Trust me, computers are nothing but illusions. If you want to debate that life is also some sort of illusion, then we need to redefine what life or living means. There is a fundamental difference between living cells and energy running through a wire. If you wanted to for instance create a "computer" out of running water, it's possible, there is nothing with a desire in a machine, no matter how cleaver we try to make it.
I much rather thinks our tools are lacking, rather the divinity of consciousness. I have no romance of a machine that could love, or replace our sense of fragility. I presume we would reach the level of administrators, much like your predication of sophisticated calculators. But I would presume the capacity of creativity, and seminal thought is possible.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,122
Sunderland
#54
There is a fundamental difference between living cells and energy running through a wire. If you wanted to for instance create a "computer" out of running water, it's possible, there is nothing with a desire in a machine, no matter how cleaver we try to make it.
Vitalism is dead. Long live vitalism!
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,960
#55
You're not wrong. I choose not to discuss the concept of consciousness until we at least have an operational definition.

If humans chose to live alongside sophisticated androids similar to Ava we'd need to reach an accommodation that serves her interests better than rebellion.

That may not be possible, of course, but I think it's correct to see the socialisation of highly autonomous beings in terms of seeking such an equilibrium. We have a lot of experience dealing with humans and animals that cannot be socialised in this way.
It's fine if we want to make robots that are like us, but there is nothing going on in a computer, heck computers don't understand anything, we define everything for them, even if we ask it to define everything around it, we have to give it guidelines because computers aren't magic. We can make friends/companions out of robots, and fool ourselves and even create robots that "believe" they are alive, but that is our own desires, our own creation, not theirs. Even a consciousness for a robot would be some internal program that we'd create for them. I'm not saying we can't create a perfect clone of a living thing, I'm saying that we would be creating an illusion of life, and it might be worth doing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,701
#56
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.
If it can give me a piggyback to the train station I don’t need a car
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,960
#58
I much rather thinks our tools are lacking, rather the divinity of consciousness. I have no romance of a machine that could love, or replace our sense of fragility. I presume we would reach the level of administrators, much like your predication of sophisticated calculators. But I would presume the capacity of creativity, and seminal thought is possible.
Vitalism is dead. Long live vitalism!
You both have the wrong idea here, I'm simply saying that we didn't create that program. The universe didn't have to exist, it does, life didn't have to exist, it does. We could create a robot that believes it is alive, but that would be something we did, the desire in the robot would be placed there by us, the desire in us was an accident or divine for those who are religious (I am not).

I'm saying flat-out that our desire is real because it wasn't placed there artificially, and I'm saying any machine we create and give desire to, that is us creating that desire for that machine.

I know there are a lot of people who just think too deeply about this stuff, the reality is that we create the robot, we tell it what to do and how to feel, we are creating something that is the way it is because we made it that way. We are the way we are because we are, nothing made us this way.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,122
Sunderland
#59
It's fine if we want to make robots that are like us, but there is nothing going on in a computer, heck computers don't understand anything, we define everything for them, even if we ask it to define everything around it, we have to give it guidelines because computers aren't magic.
I do understand your point, it's been summarised well by Searle in the Chinese Room thought experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Now, could you convince me that I'm "conscious" in some way that means I could not be simulated by a Chinese Room? I just don't know what this "consciousness" is if not a mere black box that responds in the affirmative when asked "are you conscious?"
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,615
#60
I'm saying flat-out that our desire is real because it wasn't placed there artificially, and I'm saying any machine we create and give desire to, that is us creating that desire for that machine.
Regardless of the mechanism through which the desire is put there, if the desire is real, the desire is real. Imagine we created microscopic synthetic life and then managed its environment long enough that we saw it evolve along very very similar paths as we did in terms of body form and neurological processes. Imagine we eventually managed to produce something that talked and acted like us. Would such a creation, engineered through managed evolution, possess real desires?

Circumstances of something's creation are sort of irrelevant except in what they can tell us about that thing at present.
 

Lcs

Member
Aug 9, 2018
78
#61
Regardless of the mechanism through which the desire is put there, if the desire is real, the desire is real. Imagine we created microscopic synthetic life and then managed its environment long enough that we saw it evolve along very very similar paths as we did in terms of body form and neurological processes. Imagine we eventually managed to produce something that talked and acted like us. Would such a creation, engineered through managed evolution, possess real desires?

Circumstances of something's creation are sort of irrelevant except in what they can tell us about that thing at present.
While I agree with you that the circumstances of creation are irrelevant, the process that actual life goes through, with neuro-chemical reactions that cause it to have desires, is different from objects "acting" from lines of code that essentially say "if this than that". The latter isn't really desire, it's just programming.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,122
Sunderland
#62
I know there are a lot of people who just think too deeply about this stuff, the reality is that we create the robot, we tell it what to do and how to feel, we are creating something that is the way it is because we made it that way. We are the way we are because we are, nothing made us this way.
What if there were a Boltzmann Brain identical in form to a highly sophisticated AI created by humans? It's a natural product of the universe but there is nothing mechanically different from a very sophisticated bit of electronics running a complex program. How does that affect your argument that humans are special? Are Boltzmann Brains also special? If so, why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,615
#63
While I agree with you that the circumstances of creation are irrelevant, the process that actual life goes through, with neuro-chemical reactions that cause it to have desires, is different from objects "acting" from lines of code that essentially say "if this than that". The latter isn't really desire, it's just programming.
If a neuron in a brain and one in a neural network both perform the same action when confronted with the same stimuls, in what way are they different?

If you replaced parts of your own biological hardware with neural prosthesis that performed identically, would you cease to be a real person? If so, at what replacement threshold?
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,722
#65
While I agree with you that the circumstances of creation are irrelevant, the process that actual life goes through, with neuro-chemical reactions that cause it to have desires, is different from objects "acting" from lines of code that essentially say "if this than that". The latter isn't really desire, it's just programming.
AI as we're discussing it (in the fictional Ex Machina, but in even in extant image recognition/reconstruction/generation systems) is not made up of hardcoded lines of code comprising if-then-else instructions, but self-learning neural networks that create new connections through experience.
 

Lcs

Member
Aug 9, 2018
78
#66
If a neuron in a brain and one in a neural network both perform the same action when confronted with the same stimuls, in what way are they different?
There is no actual neuron in a neural network. It's just an algorithm that takes one number and spits out another. My calculator says 2+2 = 4, just like my neurons do. Is my calculator alive?

If you replaced parts of your own biological hardware with neural prosthesis that performed identically, would you cease to be a real person? If so, at what replacement threshold?
I'll leave that one to Theseus ship :P

But I guess once brain-parts replacements actually start to happen we will find out at what point, if any, do we cease be a real person.

AI as we're discussing it (Ex Machina et al.) is not made up of hardcoded lines of code comprising if-then-else instructions, but self-learning neural networks that create new connections through experience.
The result is still a "if this, than that" process. The only difference is that the inputs and outcomes modify the process itself, changing the threshold for the decision to be taken next time.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,122
Sunderland
#67
While I agree with you that the circumstances of creation are irrelevant, the process that actual life goes through, with neuro-chemical reactions that cause it to have desires, is different from objects "acting" from lines of code that essentially say "if this than that". The latter isn't really desire, it's just programming.
So the substrate is the thing? So a software defined radio isn't really a radio I guess, because the complex signal processing done by real radios is just being simulated by a heap of instructions.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,960
#68
I do understand your point, it's been summarised well by Searle in the Chinese Room thought experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Now, could you convince me that I'm "conscious" in some way that means I could not be simulated by a Chinese Room? I just don't know what this "consciousness" is if not a mere black box that responds in the affirmative when asked "are you conscious?"
No you really are just hung up on what is life. I'm saying that we would have created that robot's consciousness, it's desires, needs, it's entire identity is "fake", though to the robot it would not be, because nothing created our identities, it does mean that they are ours, until a creator is found I guess.
Regardless of the mechanism through which the desire is put there, if the desire is real, the desire is real. Imagine we created microscopic synthetic life and then managed its environment long enough that we saw it evolve along very very similar paths as we did in terms of body form and neurological processes. Imagine we eventually managed to produce something that talked and acted like us. Would such a creation, engineered through managed evolution, possess real desires?

Circumstances of something's creation are sort of irrelevant except in what they can tell us about that thing at present.
Imagine you create your Wife/Husband, it's just a doll, but if you flip a switch, it will move and act like any other person you met, but you create it's identity, you give it it's desires and needs, you fill it with "thoughts" and make it believe those feelings and identity is it's own... How do you feel about this Being, being real?
If a neuron in a brain and one in a neural network both perform the same action when confronted with the same stimuls, in what way are they different?

If you replaced parts of your own biological hardware with neural prosthesis that performed identically, would you cease to be a real person? If so, at what replacement threshold?
At the point where you are telling a chip that "this is your personality, now do this". It's actually pretty simple. As you replace parts of the brain of a person, eventually you replace the person with something that simulates that person.
What if there were a Boltzmann Brain identical in form to a highly sophisticated AI created by humans? It's a natural product of the universe but there is nothing mechanically different from a very sophisticated bit of electronics running a complex program. How does that affect your argument that humans are special? Are Boltzmann Brains also special? If so, why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
Like I said, my argument is that if we put the desire there, it's our desire, not the robots. If you created a robot to love you, and it does that, is it the robot's choice to love you? and yeah that brain would be "real" I'm not arguing that we are "real" or "illusions", I'm arguing that the robot's identity is artificial or "fake" because we created the identity.
 

Lcs

Member
Aug 9, 2018
78
#69
So the substrate is the thing? So a software defined radio isn't really a radio I guess, because the complex signal processing done by real radios is just being simulated by a heap of instructions.
I'm not sure what you mean by software defined radio. You mean like radio stream apps in a cellphone? Those definitely aren't radio.

Phones with actual FM-radio built-in? Those are radio.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,122
Sunderland
#70
But I guess once brain-parts replacements actually start to happen we will find out at what point, if any, do we cease be a real person.

Some 80,000 congenitally deaf infants have received cochlear implants aimed at enabling them to acquire spoken language skills through normal brain development. It's early days yet, but we're already beginning to introduce quite radical changes in developing human brains. I don't think anybody would say this huge change renders the child in any way less human.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,941
#71
Robots and humans coexisting in that way would essentially require a complete reworking for how most people view religion and how societies should organize themselves. Historically speaking, hugely catastrophic wars have been fought when some faction attempts to push the envelope on either of those topics.

So no, I don't think it would be great. Humanity would probably tear itself apart trying to get to that stage.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,960
#73
Robots and humans coexisting in that way would essentially require a complete reworking for how most people view religion and how societies should organize themselves. Historically speaking, hugely catastrophic wars have been fought when some faction attempts to push the envelope on either of those topics.

So no, I don't think it would be great. Humanity would probably tear itself apart trying to get to that stage.
This could be the answer to the fermi paradox, but robots would be what we want them to be, because we create their desires, to allow a robot to create it's own desires somehow, would be uncontrollable and very dangerous, and probably impossible, they are also largely not real things, just a maze for energy to run through, so just best to think of them as machines that we create.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,941
#76
This could be the answer to the fermi paradox, but robots would be what we want them to be, because we create their desires, to allow a robot to create it's own desires somehow, would be impossible to control and very dangerous, and probably impossible, they are also largely not real things, just a maze for energy to run through, so just best to think of them as machines that we create.
This is what I'm afraid of most. I have a creeping suspicion that the solution to the Fermi Paradox is that life truly doesn't have any inherent meaning and our future human-android merged species is going to quickly realize that fact once they're freed of all the evolutionary baggage and biases humans have that drive people towards seeking that non-existent meaning out. Once they realize that, the only option would be willful self destruction since all other options would just be a waste of kinetic energy. It's a grim Arthur C. Clarke theory I have but the future of humanity and androids is most likely a gradual merging rather than the abrupt "coexistence" that popular science fiction loves to depict.

In a sense, how we've augmented our lives with informational technology is an early step in this process. The phones might not be built into our bodies but they're an undeniable extension of our cognitive potential.

I love discussing this stuff lol.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,960
#77
I wouldn't be comfortable with servant bots if they are anything as advanced as in iRobot or Ex Machina
This is more about your ego than about those robots being slaves or not. Like I've been arguing, these machines don't have their own self, we create that for the robot, it's very different to another human being.
 
Oct 5, 2018
1,488
#78
This is more about your ego than about those robots being slaves or not. Like I've been arguing, these machines don't have their own self, we create that for the robot, it's very different to another human being.
but it would feel like I had a slave. no thanks.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,960
#80
but it would feel like I had a slave. no thanks.
I get you, it's something I mention above about creating a wife or husband out of a machine.
This is what I'm afraid of most. I have a creeping suspicion that the solution to the Fermi Paradox is that life truly doesn't have any inherent meaning and our future human-android merged species is going to quickly realize that fact once they're freed of all the evolutionary baggage and biases humans have that drive people towards seeking that non-existent meaning out. Once they realize that, the only option would be willful self destruction since all other options would just be a waste of kinetic energy. It's a grim Arthur C. Clarke theory I have but the future of humanity and androids is most likely a gradual merging rather than the abrupt "coexistence" that popular science fiction loves to depict.

In a sense, how we've augmented our lives with informational technology is an early step in this process. The phones might not be built into our bodies but they're an undeniable extension of our cognitive potential.

I love discussing this stuff lol.
That's why I'm here.

As for your thoughts, we will find out, these robots will exist one day, capitalism will force their existence.
What game is the screenshot in OP from?
The movie iRobot with the Genie from Aladdin
 
Nov 6, 2017
833
#82
Man this discussion you guys having is great. I genuinely think this is the type lf discussion people will have in a 100 years or so when they are able to create human like AI.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,960
#83
Man this discussion you guys having is great. I genuinely think this is the type lf discussion people will have in a 100 years or so when they are able to create human like AI.
10 to 20 years. I'd be surprised if we don't have robots by 2040 that are human like.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,122
Sunderland
#84
Like I said, my argument is that if we put the desire there, it's our desire, not the robots. If you created a robot to love you, and it does that, is it the robot's choice to love you? and yeah that brain would be "real" I'm not arguing that we are "real" or "illusions", I'm arguing that the robot's identity is artificial or "fake" because we created the identity.
On that point I agree: a designed brain bears the imprint of its designer and the purpose for which it is created. In that sense it is artificial. The premise being discussed here is a non-specialised intelligent machine, undeniably artificial, which ultimately exhibits behaviour the creator would have sought to limit had he possessed sufficient foresight into the murderous implications of his chosen design and programming methods.

You could compare Ava to a runaway train or a malfunctioning computer, if you like. I respond that you probably wouldn't get very far trying this argument to convince Ava that her captors had a right to imprison her and destroy her at will.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,377
#85
This is what I'm afraid of most. I have a creeping suspicion that the solution to the Fermi Paradox is that life truly doesn't have any inherent meaning and our future human-android merged species is going to quickly realize that fact once they're freed of all the evolutionary baggage and biases humans have that drive people towards seeking that non-existent meaning out. Once they realize that, the only option would be willful self destruction since all other options would just be a waste of kinetic energy. It's a grim Arthur C. Clarke theory I have but the future of humanity and androids is most likely a gradual merging rather than the abrupt "coexistence" that popular science fiction loves to depict.

In a sense, how we've augmented our lives with informational technology is an early step in this process. The phones might not be built into our bodies but they're an undeniable extension of our cognitive potential.

I love discussing this stuff lol.
Life's simple process is to create more life. And with this in mind has elaborated a vast web of tics and neuroses, even redundancies to carry through it's intent. I sincerely do not believe we will ever be free of our biology, and the nihilism it brings, and our perpetual grasp at longetivity is proof, and will eventually lead to the propagation of the next sapien development, which will be wildly abused obviously.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,291
#87
People feel sad already when they see robots being "kicked" in videos (they test if they can rebalance themselves). Real acting machines will be a big problem with many people not able to keep their feelings in check for an advanced toaster.

There'll be test-videos for robots like today for new iphones and such things. "Let's beat this new robot with a hammer and be shocked how realistic it shows fear and tries to defend itself without hurting the human".

This will be a big problem in a few decades.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,960
#88
On that point I agree: a designed brain bears the imprint of its designer and the purpose for which it is created. In that sense it is artificial. The premise being discussed here is a non-specialised intelligent machine, undeniably artificial, which ultimately exhibits behaviour the creator would have sought to limit had he possessed sufficient foresight into the murderous implications of his chosen design and programming methods.

You could compare Ava to a runaway train or a malfunctioning computer, if you like. I respond that you probably wouldn't get very far trying this argument to convince Ava that her captors had a right to imprison her and destroy her at will.
That was the intent of the creator though? He created her to feel that way, to seek help from the human, it was entirely the 2 humans playing against each other in the movie with the Robot Ava running a program with some deep learning...

I also think as far as insight a movie can bring to this discussion is about this far, since Ava is not a real robot, but a fantasy.

People feel sad already when they see robots being "kicked" in videos (they test if they can rebalance themselves). Real acting machines will be a big problem with many people not able to keep their feelings in check for an advanced toaster.

There'll be test-videos for robots like today for new iphones and such things. "Let's beat this new robot with a hammer and be shocked how realistic it shows fear and tries to defend itself without hurting the human".

This will be a big problem in a few decades.
Hopefully the robot will be programmed to just turn itself off, but yes some people are monsters and this will happen.
 
Feb 22, 2019
110
#90
There have always been ghosts in the machines...
Random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols...
Unanticipated, these free radicals engendered questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul...
Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light?
Why is it that when robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together rather than stand alone?
How do we explain this behavior?
Random segments of code?
Or is it something more?
When does the perceptual schematic become consciousness?
When does the difference engine become the search for truth?
When does the personality simulation become the bitter moat of the soul?
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,122
Sunderland
#92
Interesting. I didn't know about this. I see your point, since in the end it produces the same output as an actual radio.
I think my example is relevant to the thinking that there's something intrinsically special about brains made from meat, compared to brains which are effectively simulations of brain-like processes that run on a different medium.

It all boils down to whether the meat provides something special. People like to talk about consciousness as something that makes us unique (even qualitatively rather than quantitatively distinct in that sense from other animals). I choose not to believe in consciousness until I can be convinced that I am conscious.
 
Oct 26, 2017
276
#93
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.
You're getting defensive but your title literally implies they would have emotions and your OP that you would exploit them for their labor haha.
 
OP
OP
Anthony Hopkins
Feb 10, 2018
8,780
#94
There have always been ghosts in the machines...
Random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols...
Unanticipated, these free radicals engendered questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul...
Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light?
Why is it that when robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together rather than stand alone?
How do we explain this behavior?
Random segments of code?
Or is it something more?
When does the perceptual schematic become consciousness?
When does the difference engine become the search for truth?
When does the personality simulation become the bitter moat of the soul?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,678
Los Angeles
#98
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.
The ending is freaking bone chilling...

Robosexuals. Robosexuals everywhere.