SWG Tales

There has been a lot of research into robotics and artificial intelligence. We are building machines that are programmed to react to all different types of stimuli. Now, this helps us out in our everyday lives. But what about if it all goes wrong? There are a ton of movies out about when machines decide to take over.

Here is another thing. How much of the human equation do you want to take out of a scenario? Say the police send their new robots in to handle a SWAT situation. Do you really want a robot to be making decisions on who is hostile and who isn't?

I think technology is great. I just don't know how comfortable I am with giving a machine the ability to think on its own. What do you all think?

Anything we create and aim to give sentience, decision making choices, or feelings--it deserves rights and respect. Clones and robots both fall into a category where we're forging ahead to try and create these things without addressing issues where we can't even respect existing people's rights. I don't see how we can be hoping to introduce new issues--however far away they may be, in the case of cloning humans or making sentient robotic life--when we can't resolve the ones that we currently have.

Technology is a great thing, if used properly. I do not believe we will ever see computers that will take over the world. It's human nature to dominate. It's in our genetic makeup. We will continue to create technology only if we can control it, dominate it.

I do believe we will eventually see a blending of cybernetics in the next 50 years. This will not only create longer lifespans, but will be beneficial in other ways. Those defects that cannot be purged by genetics could potentially be purged by cybernetics. For example, handedness or the propensity for obesity. It is unrealistic to think we will all be Borg, but I think eventually we will see a blending of technology and humanity.

Illbleed wrote:Technology is a great thing, if used properly. I do not believe we will ever see computers that will take over the world. It's human nature to dominate. It's in our genetic makeup. We will continue to create technology only if we can control it, dominate it.

I agree with you that a normal sane human would want machines to be less intelligent. The problem lies in when the wrong person decides to use a technology to hurt humanity. Get a couple MIT graduate terrorists together and they might forget to put an off switch on their monstrosity.

And now with the new nanotechnology they are say that bots will be alble to reproduce themselves. Scary stuff there.

So long as my robot is a certified ass kicker, I am all about it.

In all seriousness, I am a bit of a fence sitter in these kinds of issues. I have to say though, E-bo...you ask how comfortable people are with computers making decisions of hostility. How many accidental shootings are there by police across the country every year...becauase they saw a flashlight or cell phone. I bet that a bajillion times out of a bajillion and one, the computer pegs the phone as a phone and the gun as a gun. Maybe I am over estimating the abilities of a computer, but I don't think I am too far off.

Looking at the racial demographic of the people filling up our prison's, one has to wonder whether or not our legal system is slanted against minorities. The percentages of incarcerated minorities compared to caucasion inmates is uncharacteristically high. A robot can only show a racial bias if it is programmed to do so.

I don't know why I latched on to law enforcement for this issue, but I think it just gave me the clearest examples of why I would want a robot around. I am strangely comfortable with it.

nanobots are the next big thing.
Within 8 years a project it expected to be completed, armor suits for american soldiers with integrated computers, the ability to form instant casts around broken appendages...
They just built a human size robot in Japan that can run.
Do you think that a Clone has a soul? what if its a clone of you? will you just be like twins?

Del'tar Chagas wrote:In all seriousness, I am a bit of a fence sitter in these kinds of issues. I have to say though, E-bo...you ask how comfortable people are with computers making decisions of hostility. How many accidental shootings are there by police across the country every year...becauase they saw a flashlight or cell phone. I bet that a bajillion times out of a bajillion and one, the computer pegs the phone as a phone and the gun as a gun. Maybe I am over estimating the abilities of a computer, but I don't think I am too far off.

The machine is programmed by a human. Human's are fallable. The machine is going to be given a set of parameters based on what some software engineer is given as a statement of work. Add in that government agancies go with the lowest bidder on contracts and I am very concerned about this.

The low ball bidding is a concern, but the fallability of computers is not so much to me. Computers do what you tell them to. So long as your programmer doesn't suck at his job, I don't see that as a problem. The computer won't act beyond its paramaters, right?

I don't know...I look at it like this...if you use the computer accessory on your computer, every time you add 2 and 2 you get 4. Period. Computers are fallible, sure...not questioning that. But I can't remember the last time my computer did anything I didn't tell it to or want it to.