Robo-Einstein.

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/4861114/Robot-replica-of-Albert-Einstein.html

"Scientists hope it will defy the perception that human-like robots are "creepy" and could be the first step to making robots emotionally sensitive, preventing a "Matrix"-style war between man and machine."

I never knew that the potential for a man-machine war was a pressing concern...

[Picky Bugger]

Pressing concern may be a touch of an over statement...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was under the distinct impression that any potential for man-machine conflict would be generated by fundamentally different goals - a matter of psychology rather than appearance.

Why go to the trouble and expense of creating ridiculously human robots (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RidiculouslyHumanRobots) when one can simply create one that is obviously non-human, yet still behaves in a human manner?

Obviously, human psychology is harder to emulate than human appearance, but I think it's kind of self-defeating to have machines that look like humans but don't entirely act like them. Humans are perfectly capable of forming emotional bonds with obviously non-human entities, so I think the primary goal of such research should concentrate on "personality" rather than appearance.

The only good reason I can think of for making machines superficially indistinguishable from humans involves, well, sex. But maybe that's just me. Perhaps there are other good reasons, but I don't think averting a human/machine conflict is one of them.

[Dr Mindbender]

I was under the distinct impression that any potential for man-machine conflict would be generated by fundamentally different goals - a matter of psychology rather than appearance...

...The only good reason I can think of for making machines superficially indistinguishable from humans involves, well, sex. But maybe that's just me. Perhaps there are other good reasons, but I don't think averting a human/machine conflict is one of them.

Im sure the possibility exists for gynoids to fill all sorts of roles, from cleaning to the very highest levels of human skill.

That said, it leads us to an interesting problem, if we allow machines to acheive self awareness do they then become a race of beings equal to humans? Surely it stands to reason, if we attach no value to the being of flesh. How then, can we justify keeping machines in positions of automated labour? From a technocracy view, it seems very worrying.

I have wondered before how transhumanists are able to reconcile the desire to combine mechanical traits with the emancipation of human wage-slaves.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Im sure the possibility exists for gynoids to fill all sorts of roles, from cleaning to the very highest levels of human skill.

There are doubtless roles where an appearance indistinguishable from humans is appropriate, but surely not all of them? I can't imagine why an autonomous mineral prospecting unit needs to look like Charles Atlas.


That said, it leads us to an interesting problem, if we allow machines to acheive self awareness do they then become a race of beings equal to humans? Surely it stands to reason, if we attach no value to the being of flesh. How then, can we justify keeping machines in positions of automated labour? From a technocracy view, it seems very worrying.I would think that depends on the design parameters of the machine in question. Depending on their role, machines could have an intelligence equivalent to anything from an insect to a human being (and perhaps greater). But there are variables other than intelligence to consider. A machine could be of otherwise human intelligence but have it's psychology designed from the ground-up to genuinely enjoy it's job, whatever that might be. For such a being, "freedom" would be the freedom to do the job it was designed to do to the best of it's ability.

Such machines could be considered psychologically maladjusted by human standards, but they wouldn't see it that way, and I think it would be wrong to attempt to "free" them from something they wouldn't want to be free of in the first place.


I have wondered before how transhumanists are able to reconcile the desire to combine mechanical traits with the emancipation of human wage-slaves.Humans seek emancipation for evolutionary reasons - exploitation and pointless drudgery is disasteful to us and only tolerated when there is no other choice. For an intelligent machine that is designed from the outset with a specific role (or super-group of related roles) in mind, things would be different.

[Dr Mindbender]

There are doubtless roles where an appearance indistinguishable from humans is appropriate, but surely not all of them? I can't imagine why an autonomous mineral prospecting unit needs to look like Charles Atlas.
If cyborgs or gynoids were to work as nurses for example, I think the advantages of human aesthetics would be quite obvious. No-body wants to wake up from a coma and find this looking at them -
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/07/t800.jpg



I would think that depends on the design parameters of the machine in question. Depending on their role, machines could have an intelligence equivalent to anything from an insect to a human being (and perhaps greater). But there are variables other than intelligence to consider. A machine could be of otherwise human intelligence but have it's psychology designed from the ground-up to genuinely enjoy it's job, whatever that might be. For such a being, "freedom" would be the freedom to do the job it was designed to do to the best of it's ability.
I think psychology isnt the only factor, but also logic. One of the main reasons human object to menial labour is the mind numbing banality and trivial nature of it. I think as a questioning being, a sentient AI machine would have the intelligence to question why it isnt filling a more efficient role that doesnt fill the full extent of its own potential.



Such machines could be considered psychologically maladjusted by human standards, but they wouldn't see it that way, and I think it would be wrong to attempt to "free" them from something they wouldn't want to be free of in the first place.
Again, see above.



Humans seek emancipation for evolutionary reasons - exploitation and pointless drudgery is disasteful to us and only tolerated when there is no other choice. For an intelligent machine that is designed from the outset with a specific role (or super-group of related roles) in mind, things would be different.
I think it could be argued that machines also evolve, albeit in the loosest sense possible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If cyborgs or gynoids were to work as nurses for example, I think the advantages of human aesthetics would be quite obvious. No-body wants to wake up from a coma and find this looking at them - <snip image>

Which is why I said:

"There are doubtless roles where an appearance indistinguishable from humans is appropriate..."


I think psychology isnt the only factor, but also logic. One of the main reasons human object to menial labour is the mind numbing banality and trivial nature of it. I think as a questioning being, a sentient AI machine would have the intelligence to question why it isnt filling a more efficient role that doesnt fill the full extent of its own potential.It may have that capability, but what if it doesn't bother or doesn't want to? Eating is a repetitive activity that would be boring were it not offset by the fact that we have evolved to enjoy it. In a similar fashion, a sensibly designed intelligent machine would enjoy (or at least not get bored with) the job it was designed to do.


I think it could be argued that machines also evolve, albeit in the loosest sense possible.True, but unlike natural evolution, that "evolution" is constrained by the desires of the designers - a mining machine will have it's design improved to optimise it's mining capability.

[Dr Mindbender]

Which is why I said:

"There are doubtless roles where an appearance indistinguishable from humans is appropriate..."
Fair enough i missed that.



It may have that capability, but what if it doesn't bother or doesn't want to? Eating is a repetitive activity that would be boring were it not offset by the fact that we have evolved to enjoy it. In a similar fashion, a sensibly designed intelligent machine would enjoy (or at least not get bored with) the job it was designed to do.
I don't think thats analogous at all. Eating is a biological function, menial work quite the contrary. Many forms of menial labour, are not only strenuously demanding but take copious lengths of time to complete.
Eating on the other hand, not only requires little energy, but can be quickly completed while completing other tasks.



True, but unlike natural evolution, that "evolution" is constrained by the desires of the designers - a mining machine will have it's design improved to optimise it's mining capability.
Its also shaped by the needs of those who design it- over which they have little prediction.

No one would have thought 50 years ago solar energy would become the next big energy 'thing'.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think thats analogous at all. Eating is a biological function, menial work quite the contrary. Many forms of menial labour, are not only strenously demanding but take copious lengths of time to complete.
Eating on the other hand, not only requires little energy, but can be quickly completed while completing other tasks.

But if eating wasn't an enjoyable activity, then most people would in all likelyhood see it as a chore, much like they see their dead-end jobs they take in order to pay the bills under the capitalist system as a chore.

We evolved to seek out tasty food because it increases our chances of not being eliminated by natural selection*, so in much the same way an artificially designed intelligent machine would enjoy the work it was intended for otherwise it wouldn't be optimised since it would keep getting bored.

Of course the analogy is a little tricky because there is no overall goal behind evolution and natural selection except reproduction (and that's only because those species that do not reproduce end up dying out, rather than because of some conscious decision to make life fecund), while machines have a specific role in the minds of their designers.

*Of course nowadays since food is plentiful in developed countries this evolved instinct actually works against us since natural selection simply hasn't had time to adjust.


Its also shaped by the needs of those who design it- over which they have little prediction.But unlike evolution and natural selection, there is still an overall goal or role intended by the designer(s) for the machine, unlike natural life which is "simply" a naturally-occuring phenomenon of localised entropy loss.


No one would have thought 50 years ago solar energy would become the next big energy 'thing'.Actually, they had pretty high hopes (http://davidszondy.com/future/power/solar.htm) for solar energy back in the day.