Well hopefully by that point we will have solved that issue with more rules.
One of the concepts I read about was just making task specific bots. Like a domestic bot, and a maintenance bot. Creating all purpose do everything bots may cause problems. On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Martin Baxter <martinbaxt...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > I didn't know that, Mr Worf. Still doesn't allay my fears in the least. > Humans can work their way around laws if it's to their best advantage. Why > not 'bots? > > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Mr. Worf <hellomahog...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Did you know that they modified it and added a "zero law?" >> >> Here are the updated rules: >> >> *0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to >> come to harm. >> 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a >> human being to come to harm. >> 2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where >> such orders would conflict with the First Law. >> 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does >> not conflict with the First or Second Law.* >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Martin Baxter <martinbaxt...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> "n one of the articles I read about interaction with robots, someone >>> suggested that they program it so that the robots receive pleasure from >>> doing their tasks." >>> >>> I can see a few 'bots questioning that program, if their sentience is >>> strong enough. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Mr. Worf <hellomahog...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Good question! It depends on how repressed that they are. In one of the >>>> articles I read about interaction with robots, someone suggested that they >>>> program it so that the robots receive pleasure from doing their tasks. This >>>> way they will enjoy the work that they are doing. >>>> >>>> I think that with the advent of the laws of computing they may assist us >>>> in creating sentient machines that will not plan to take over the world. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Martin Baxter >>>> <martinbaxt...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mr Worf, in the course of my Internet life, I've heard many a tale of >>>>> 'bots. From ones that just walk around and talk and make humans happy to >>>>> ones that DARPA's developed as part of their SERE program which have >>>>> escaped >>>>> containment when their human holders were sleeping. I seriously suspect >>>>> that >>>>> this dialogue is long past due, as there probably already are sentient AIs >>>>> out there. The only question I ask is, "What happens after they see >>>>> 'Spartacus' ?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Mr. Worf <hellomahog...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Robots, Consciousness and Rights >>>>>> <http://omnikool.discovery.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html/1342634297/Top3/default/empty.gif/535066614230786455654941414a4e67?x> >>>>>> <http://news.discovery.com/contributors/jonathan-strickland/> Analysis >>>>>> by Jonathan >>>>>> Strickland<http://news.discovery.com/contributors/jonathan-strickland/> >>>>>> Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:13 AM ET >>>>>> 39 >>>>>> Comments<http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html#view-comments>| >>>>>> Leave >>>>>> a >>>>>> Comment<http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html#post-a-comment> >>>>>> Print<http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html?print=true> >>>>>> Email >>>>>> >>>>>> - >>>>>> Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html> >>>>>> - >>>>>> Twitter<http://wd.sharethis.com/api/sharer.php?destination=twitter&url=http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html&title=Robots,%20Consciousness%20and%20Rights%20:%20Discovery%20News> >>>>>> - >>>>>> Digg<http://digg.com/submit?url=http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html&title=Robots,%20Consciousness%20and%20Rights%20:%20Discovery%20News&bodytext=Recently,%20I%27ve%20been%20researching%20artificial%20intelligence%20and%20consciousness%20for%20HowStuffWorks.com.%20While%20exploring%20the%20possibilities%20of%20machines%20with%20&topic=television> >>>>>> - Yahoo! >>>>>> Buzz<http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=discovery_cha79&targetUrl=http://news.discovery.com/tech/robots-consciousness-and-rights.html&submitHeadline=Robots,%20Consciousness%20and%20Rights%20:%20Discovery%20News> >>>>>> >>>>>> [image: >>>>>> Deep-blue-1]<http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef01310fc9c22e970c-pi>Recently, >>>>>> I've been researching artificial intelligence and consciousness >>>>>> for HowStuffWorks.com <http://www.howstuffworks.com/>. While >>>>>> exploring the possibilities of machines with self-awareness, I'm drawn to >>>>>> the debate about whether an artificially intelligent construct has the >>>>>> same >>>>>> rights as a biological entity. In other words, if we built a robot or >>>>>> computer that could seemingly think on its own and was aware of its own >>>>>> existence, should we give it the same rights and privileges we have as >>>>>> humans? >>>>>> >>>>>> The question itself may be moot. Our own understanding of the human >>>>>> brain is still limited. While some scientists and doctors are working on >>>>>> building a computer simulation of the brain, they're doing so without >>>>>> knowing all the details of how the brain works. It's like finding a >>>>>> mysterious machine and then reconstructing it without actually >>>>>> understanding >>>>>> what makes it tick. It may be impossible for us to create a machine >>>>>> capable >>>>>> of real thought and self-awareness. >>>>>> >>>>>> To make the debate even more complicated, there's no way to know if >>>>>> machine consciousness would resemble human consciousness. When it comes >>>>>> to >>>>>> the conscious mind, we have a very small sample size from which we can >>>>>> extrapolate. While a machine brain would be the product of human >>>>>> ingenuity >>>>>> (or possibly the product of another machine that was itself the product >>>>>> of >>>>>> human ingenuity), it's impossible to know right now if a conscious, >>>>>> thinking >>>>>> machine would have an intelligence comparable to ours. Would it >>>>>> experience >>>>>> emotion (simulated or otherwise)? Would it come to the conclusion that >>>>>> people are at best a messy threat that should be eliminated? Or would it >>>>>> just process the tasks we give it and never think beyond those >>>>>> parameters? >>>>>> >>>>>> There are dozens of science fiction stories that deal with machine >>>>>> consciousness and the ethical dilemmas that follow. There are doomsday >>>>>> tales >>>>>> that suggest machines will rise up against biological entities. There's >>>>>> Kurzweil's theory of the >>>>>> singularity<http://www.howstuffworks.com/technological-singularity.htm>, >>>>>> one version of which sees humans and machines merging together to create >>>>>> a >>>>>> new species beyond our imaginations. And there's the movie A.I., in which >>>>>> the audience feels empathy for a synthetic creature that possesses an >>>>>> intelligence and awareness that it doesn't understand. Are any of these >>>>>> futures likely? >>>>>> >>>>>> I once participated in an alternate reality game (ARG) in which the >>>>>> players were given the task of voting to bestow or deny basic rights to >>>>>> thinking machines. My philosophy is that creating a machine that can >>>>>> think >>>>>> isn't a great idea. It makes sense to build machines that are good at >>>>>> what >>>>>> they do but I don't see the need to design thinking versions. I certainly >>>>>> don't need my toaster outsmarting me on a daily basis. I voted against >>>>>> giving machines rights, though at that point it's really too late. >>>>>> >>>>>> What are the right questions to ask about artificial consciousness? >>>>>> And do you think we'll ever reach a point where we can create a truly >>>>>> conscious machine? We've seen Deep Blue defeat chess master >>>>>> Kasparov<http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/>. >>>>>> We've also seen a computer at >>>>>> Cornell<http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April09/NaturalLaws.ws.html>extrapolate >>>>>> the basic laws of physics by observing a swinging pendulum. How >>>>>> far are we from hearing a computer telling us what's on its mind? >>>>>> >>>>>> *Image from AP Photo/Adam Nadel* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! >>>>>> Mahogany at: >>>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> "If all the world's a stage and we are merely players, who the bloody >>>>> hell wrote the script?" -- Charles E Grant >>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! >>>> Mahogany at: >>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> "If all the world's a stage and we are merely players, who the bloody >>> hell wrote the script?" -- Charles E Grant >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! >> Mahogany at: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ >> > > > > -- > "If all the world's a stage and we are merely players, who the bloody hell > wrote the script?" -- Charles E Grant > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik > > > > -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
