Robots

thetrueman

Active Member
I can understand what you say but a car of 1980s has also 4 tyres as a car of the present. It is what is inside that matters. If a human like robot could look at me, and scan all my vitals, and perform evaluation of them with AI, would it be the same as a toy robot for the kids even if it made the same moves? And this ends up in your final sentence which you already mention in a way what I say. I agree with you. I can understand the need for a humanoid robot only for tasks as climbing up some steps otherwise I do not see why should we invest so much just to manufacture a mechanical us?

I just want to say that bicycle is basic invention of wheel and then advance shape is car with four tyres. OK now they are just modernizing day by day but not changing their basic invention concept. Hence Robots are just machines which do specific tasks with prefix programming algorithms. If they will be so advance to work on their own then one day they will replace humans and will deicide atomic wars so they are too dangerous to make them humanoid and equip with AI. They should only be machines IN Control otherwise soon I see the "Terminator: Rising the Machines".
 

hatzisn

Expert
Licensed User
Longtime User
I just want to say that bicycle is basic invention of wheel and then advance shape is car with four tyres. OK now they are just modernizing day by day but not changing their basic invention concept. Hence Robots are just machines which do specific tasks with prefix programming algorithms. If they will be so advance to work on their own then one day they will replace humans and will deicide atomic wars so they are too dangerous to make them humanoid and equip with AI. They should only be machines IN Control otherwise soon I see the "Terminator: Rising the Machines".

You are right in what you say in the sense you mean it. It is the main point of science development. Remember Einstein's quote: "I am what I am because I stood in the shoulders of giants..." (meaning all the people that contributed in the advancements of physics before him). It is the same as concentric cycles the way science and technological advance happens. Each cycle takes as base the previous inner cycle and builds on it. Would you consider the outer circle a new invention. It partly is but it is based on the previous inner cycle. You are right also in the do not leave the robots uncontrolled and autonomous being continuesly upgraded with ML. If I were a controlling authority I would create an on line "ethics" database and I would force the building companies of robots to programmatically induce in the robot a checking of each new "acquired knowledge" if it co-alligns with the basic principles of this DB. It could start with the four laws of robotics by Isaac Asimov (3 + 1 in 1985) :

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 orders given 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.

4. A robot cannot cause harm to mankind or, by inaction, allow mankind to come to harm.
 

thetrueman

Active Member
I just want to say that bicycle is basic invention of wheel and then advance shape is car with four tyres. OK now they are just modernizing day by day but not changing their basic invention concept. Hence Robots are just machines which do specific tasks with prefix programming algorithms. If they will be so advance to work on their own then one day they will replace humans and will deicide atomic wars so they are too dangerous to make them humanoid and equip with AI. They should only be machines IN Control otherwise soon I see the "Terminator: Rising the Machines".

Here is a link discussion between Jack Ma and Elon Musk...

Robots https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17d3XxbAoZ/
 
Top