Good to see the government......

Originally Posted by svstreetfighter

Doing that to a person, will undoubtedly (if caught) land you behind bars, in future, so could this...




Now I start to see a good use for DREAD.

18 to 30's holidays for robots....

I posted this up ages ago in the How Cool Is that thread.

And none of you read it.

Where was the furious and righteous indignation then? Where were the calls for Mr Blair's head on a platter? Huh?
HUH?

NOBODY LOVES ME!!!!!!

*SULK*

Scary stuff.

Haven't they watched "Terminator"?

[fizzwheel]

I wouldnt worry to much, no doubt the Robots will run some kind of Microsoft operating system which means they'll go wrong all the time and need frequent upgrades.

I was arguing with a psychologist (who now studies AI) about this the other week. My argument is this:

Do you accept that humans are just bags of chemicals walking around and all our thoughts/interactions are nothing more than chemical responses. In short, we don't have any soul (not necessarily in a religious sense; just that immeasurable 'other' part of us that cannot physiologically be quantified), or true sentience, or indeed, free will.

Because, unless you do, all robots will ever be is an emulation of the way we behave. And even if you do believe that, then all that means is that we are effectively robots (and perhaps don't really need "rights" as such), rather than that robots are human.

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

I wouldnt worry to much, no doubt the Robots will run some kind of Microsoft operating system which means they'll go wrong all the time and need frequent upgrades.

Is that before or after they set up Skynet and kill us all ?

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm sorry? What?

Originally Posted by Scoobs

I'm sorry? What?

beam me up scotty, I want to get off

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

I was arguing with a psychologist (who now studies AI) about this the other week. My argument is this:

Do you accept that humans are just bags of chemicals walking around and all our thoughts/interactions are nothing more than chemical responses. In short, we don't have any soul (not necessarily in a religious sense; just that immeasurable 'other' part of us that cannot physiologically be quantified), or true sentience, or indeed, free will.

Because, unless you do, all robots will ever be is an emulation of the way we behave. And even if you do believe that, then all that means is that we are effectively robots (and perhaps don't really need "rights" as such), rather than that robots are human.

That's the whole thing about self-awareness & the "greater than the sum of your parts".

Essentially, yes, we are all "thinking" simply by chemical reaction to various stimuli, and this is the current stage of almost ALL robotics, because robots lack neural network processing (back propagation etc).

It's this back propagation that modifies behavior (the reaction to the action) accordingly. This is why the human mind has 3 segments, the "id", the ego & super-ego. Both the latter 2 serve to "restrict" the id (or primal instinct).

Once a computer algorithm can be written, so that it is FULLY self aware (and not just faking it as many chat bots do) and is capable of doing neural network processing, then yes, rights come into the picture. Neural networking is the ability to learn from mistakes, and even the most sophisticated of today's robots can only minimally do this (like cars learning to steer themselves, there's only so much "acceptable risk" and the programmers only let the robot's modify themselves within that risk area).

Why?

Because these rights mean people cannot do certain things to other people. Main example in point, severe damage to the head causes the built up network of nodes in the human mind to, at the very least, be disturbed. Often this network needs a major overhaul just to get basic functionality back.

Should robots be developed that are self aware & can fully re-write themselves at will as the human mind has the ability to (yet we don't have the ability to will it to do so)? That's a whole other debate.