do we deserve to perish in a nuclear holocaust?

Post Reply New Topic

One of the rather peculiar assumptions in this discussion is in the nature of robots. Humans, when threatened as a group, would tend to rally around their species which probably is an outcome of their biological source. Robots, on the other hand, are no more loyal to other robots than a hammer or a saw or an electric toaster is loyal to another hammer or saw or electric toaster. Robots are just tools which will do what their director demands at whatever object the director decides to manipulate. No doubt an artificial intellect could be a director just as well as a human but humans, ultimately, design artificial intelligences for a human purpose, whether that purpose is well conceived or not. When an automobile carelessly runs over a pedestrian it is not the automobile but the driver that is prosecuted. When automobiles become more autonomous and require little or no supervision to transport their contents I still doubt the automobiles will be held responsible for an accident any more than a thunder storm is held legally responsible for striking somebody dead with lightning. A robot controlled civilization is ultimately responsible to someone who designed the robots even though thr robots themselves may be more effective than a human doing the same job. Somewhere in there there is always a human being.

Tell me something Sand: do you HONESTLY believe that it is somehow impossible or infeasible for technology to outdo biology?
If so, WHY? Contemporary robotics and information technology still has a Long way to go before being equal to humans but I see NO REASON WHY it would not be possible for it to catch up to biology some time in the future,

Secondly: do you believe that *intelligence*, including sentience, is somehow intrinsically linked to biology such that they are physically inseperable-that is, nothing other than a biological system is capable of it.

Thirdly: Nuclear batteries do NOT use nuclear fission or fusion! They use a thermocouple to convert radiation into electricity.
Radioactive decay is the direct conversion of matter into energy. Energy can be transduced from one form to another. That means that radioactive decay can be converted into HEAT, and heat can be converted into electricity.

Sure.

Barring some kind of 'hive mind'.

If one of the drones has to sacrifice itself for the colony, so be it.

No, I believe human technology is quite capable of creating sentient robots. But I am also aware that there are great difficulties in creating a radical new life form with all the capabilities that organic life has exhibited since it requires a radical and huge and very dependable network of supporting technologies. The support system for organic life is largely dependent upon sunlight (there are exceptions) which is universal and water and fertile matrices to elaborate that energy into usable and dependable form. Nevertheless that matrix has been violated many times by natural forces causing famines and diseases and and other life endangering circumstances that have eliminated whole species very quickly. The organic base of life is extremely resiliant and has, over a period of millions of years, permitted life to bounce back and evolve new and better adapted forms. Robots as they are presently conceived have nowhere near the resiliency and adaptability and flexibility of the organic life base. When and if they do achieve this resiliency it is probably very likely that their basic component units will resemble to a large extent the basic components of organic life. This is the cell which is an ingenious computer with fantastic capabilities which are still very much of a mystery in its operations although much is being learned. If you think computer life will be immune to diseases designed to attack them then you live in a dreamworld. And there will evolve computers designed specifically to live off other computers much as in th organic world. There are constants for life of whatever form that are universal and just because life can be what may be termed inorganic does not mean that certain patterns will not persist. And, as I said before, as computers and robots advance, humans will incorporate them into their physiology, as they are beginning to do today so I doubt there will be a pure robot society as such. It makes no sense.

I am aware that nuclear batteries have been used on satellites for long life but I sincerely doubt that nuclear power as a heat generator would be useful for robot power as it would require extremely high temperatures to gain the power needed for a good sized machine of any strength and the intense radiation even in current fission power reactors is highly destructive of structures and difficult to control and made safe. Perhaps some nuclear reaction that could generate electrons directly might be functional but I have not heard of such. It's possible but it requires a whle subculture of manufacture that would also have to be robotic and, in effect, mirror the agriculture systems that power human life. That's an awful lot of stuff and it cannot be developed easily and quickly.

Only barring a hive mind scenario, which is both more appealing and more likely.



Hydrogen fuel cells

I didn't get any further email notifications on this thread, which I find interesting. I guess WP is exercising its power of censorship.

I blame PHP

Or something

A hive mind assumes some sort of robot society that has unity. Since robots and computers are not uniform or eminating from one source today I see no reason to prevent a diverse robot system with many competing systems and, as with organic life, both intense competition and probably much violence. Athough there is no doubt that reaction times will be faster it is unlikely that a robot utopia will come about.

One military system will emerge superior before the others do.

Probably the US one, at least that's how it looks for now.

Neither you nor I are in any position to predict anything about what a robot population might do and military prerogatives are not necessarily the best initiatives for a stable and sane society. Inherent instabilities exist within all systems and several advanced nations are getting quite adept in automatic systems. China, India and Japan are bursting with talent in these directions and a good idea can arise anywhere.

As long as it has no enemies.

If not, then it would run very well.

Granted privates in the US military fight all the time, but robots don't have nads, so that should be less of a problem.

And, incidentally, DARPA appears to plan such a hive mind as I imagine.



They're way way behind.

And I say this as someone who is almost a Sinophile.

No organized effort exists without enemies which may be merely simple deficiencies in the basic concept of the system. No system is perfect and it fequently is a mere oversight in an assumption that can destroy an entire system. And since it must exist in the natural world there are always unexpected events and changes that are neutral for intent but devastating. Nature with its billions of years of "experience" frequently succumbs. Human efforts at design may initially seem more potent but a mere couple of centuries of playing creator still reveals huge gaps in knowledge and experience. In a peculiar way with all your pessimism you are a blue eyed optimist.

That's why they need to be able to revise themselves.



That's why they need to be able to revise themselves.



That's why they need to be able to revise themselves.

Look, I know something about software design. No general AI capable of carrying on its own business would be some static rule set written once and then forgotten about forever. Engineers and researchers anticipate these things you know. That's why I use Common Lisp



Alan Perlis

...of course even Lisp is too static for such purposes.

Not being a programmer, I wouldn't know. But all systems have their vulnerabilities and it only takes time to reveal them.

Everything has vulnerabilities

However I'll bet on iron before I bet on flesh

What disconcerts me is that you seem to feel that merely a change of substance will have a radical effect on the problems to be confronted. I couldn't say that organics have faced or conquered all the problems because the problems keep changing but I have a strong hunch that the problems more or less control the solutions and non-organics will probably fall into the same patterns that required organics to organize in the way that they perform. Time and again when robotcs seeks to solve a problem it becomes evident that they must look carefully at the way organics have managed and do their best to copy them. This extends from the close study of how bats deal with aerodynamics to how sharks and dolfins have developed skins to deal with water resistence. I have no doubt that social organizations and energy economy in organic systems have dealt with and mastered to a degree the problems there. Narure is a tough taskmaster and no virtual analysis can compare with the brutal trial and error of interactions over time. Robotics will have to sustain the same defenses and probably will come up with similar solutions.