Forum - View topicNEW thread about robots and stüff!
|
|
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
 Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||
|
Now presenting: a new and improved thread to improve forum discussion! (See CR? All it takes is one spark for the old talkage to come back.
 )
Many tech/computer companies in Japan are providing new innovations in AI technology every day. They've had expositions with prototypes of robots that respond to human stimuli, as well as those that perform a variety of household tasks. Sony, in fact, had a few years ago pronounced desires for AI robots to be eventually integrated into society. (Also interesting, read this recent ANN news item on humanoid robots in the industrial workplace.) This directly correlates anime, as well. In many anime series, there are humanoids and androids and a vast variety of robot-things that are a part of everyday human life. My question is, what do you envision our future with AI as? Do you think it's possible to have them integrated into our society, like the Persocoms in Chobits? Or do you think they'd be rejected by society, as some s.f. writers fear, like the late Isaac Asimov?[/url] |
||||||
|
||||||
Emerje
 Posts: 7406 Location: Maine |
|
|||||
|
Personally I think that the movie A.I. came the closest (up to the part about the aliens anyway) but they didn't touch on the giant robot factor in that movie. If we DO end up with a future with giant robots we'll probably get something similar to Gundam but smaller, like Patlabor, more mobile than a tank, but not so big that it's going to do more harm than good. They've got to work on hand held lasers first though.
Emerje |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||
|
Hm... I've always thought that even though some people would be accepting of having robots in human society, a large fraction of mankind would object strenously to them.
(I'm all for robots, but I'm playing the devil's advocate here) 1) They could argue that they're unsafe -- for example, if a robot is ordered to drop an anvil on some other guy's head, what will stop him from doing it, if he's well-programmed enough? Or, if a robot breaks down like a computer, you've got a chunk of very strong metal that can easily kill someone. 2) They'd be taking human jobs. No matter how mundane or crappy a job is, there's always a human to do it now. As robots take over some of our tasks, it'll mean less jobs for humans. True, there'll be more jobs available in the robotics industry, but what about the jobs that the robots will be doing, like mining, or housework? So, assuming that humanoids are going to be built in the same proportion as humans, there's no need of discussing the physical let-downs. But as for arguments that society will make...? Hm... I'd say there'd be be a huge anti-robot coalition in the world fighting against them. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Cgoten
Posts: 390 Location: Glenview, Illinois |
|
|||||
|
I think it SOUNDS like a cool idea but it'd be terrible. Like you said, if robots started taking human jobs there would be a lot of people out of their jobs. With a lot of people out of their jobs there'll be a lot of people without money. What would happen to the money they're saving by using robots? The people who still have their jobs will probably get more money, making a big gap between rich and poor.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Grive
Posts: 21 Location: Monterrey, México |
|
|||||
There's a problem, and you have a point. however, you can argue that there are people who are programmed to drop anvils into other's heads and will do. And People who break down and kill not someone, but many people. Danger and death is always present. The problem is not to make them dangerless, but make their benefits worth the protential danger. Much like planes, for example. Some will crash - sooner or later - but the benefit or air transportation is so big in today's society, and the ratio of successful flights to crashes so big in success' favor, that it's worth the potential danger.
I would assume robots would be used for dangerous work probably unfit for humans. Plus, the jobs lost by robots taking place would be somewhat offset by the jobs in the robotic industry, and in mainteinance and direction. Yes, this will make people need higher studies to actually get a job, but I'm wondering if that is such a bad thing. After all, it might make an incentive to increase their level of education and probably living standard, which could - theoretically - make a larger middle class, and the place of the lower class would be occupied of robots.
Actually, I wouldn't make antropomorphic robots. We humans have a lot of physical limitations that have been offset by tools and intelligence, and our body is a jack of all trades. By creating specialized robots that would excel in one task, efficiency would be increased. I don't see humanoids as more effective than specialized robots, mainly because humanoids would be harder to make, more expensive, and need a higher level of technology, which means more sensitive equipment, which means more fragile gizmos, which means more mainteinance needs 
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Case
Posts: 1016 |
|
|||||
|
Way to go, Sakechan!
I like this analogy. You make a good point directly, but you've also created a springboard for less-positive secondary points.
The airline industry does indeed benefit society in many ways, and they they even say that far more people are killed in car accidents on the way to the airport than die in plane crashes. But consider the fact that the airline industry made history last year after being used as a tool for grand scale terrorism, and now security is opressively tight and a number of major airlines are cancelling services and going bankrupt. Would this be a major consideration for the next generation robotics industry? I think so. Especially with the aforementioned anvils-dropping on heads. Without a conscience or other high-level intellectual countermeasures, intelligent robots could be abused to no end, and cause all kinds of terrifying havoc. Even equipped with a (seemingly) fully aware AI, advanced robotics could pose a serious risk. We need look no farther than Macross Plus's Sharon Apple for an example of this. She seems to have a fully human consciousness, but because she isn't bound by the requirements and limitations of the flesh - the need to work for food, competition, self defense, death - she acts totally on impulses and ideals without any regard for the hardships she is causing others who are not immune as she is. Advanced Robotics. Heheh. Anyone seen that music video... thing... on Cartoon Network? Good stuff.
I think, if and when robots advance to a point where they compete directly with human beings, the robotics industry will probably be heavily safeguarded like the airlines are being right now. Artificial Intelligences will probably be put through rediculously rigorous testing, and there will probably be fairly heavy restrictions on what kinds of equipment can be installed on artificually intelligent units. Companies that make robot components may well be heavily regulated, if not allowed to produce only on a specially contracted basis. And of course... all of this could realisitcally lead to the creation of special anti-robot police forces a la Patlabor or BGC's AD Police, a robotic black market like the ones alluded to in Star Wars, and even robot-human segregation and conflict like that seen in the Armitage films. Indeed, the authors of these and a good many more science fiction works could be much greater prophets than even they themselves realize.
I think Karl Marx would hate you for that statement. 
Socialist doctrines and experiments teach that there are segments within the population which will only persue education to a certain level and then give up and either go look for work or live at the mercy of others. The most commonly accepted thoery says that this is a major reason why the lower classes tend to change so little, and why the standard of living at the bottom of society never seems to improve. 
But anything is possible, right? I myself dream of one day creating a working communist utopia, which will basically require people to totally renounce instincts like greed in favor of the more intellectual promise of being taken care of in exchange for sharing all the individual has to give. A lot of people today would agree that this is not at all feasible, but I'm keeping my hopes up.
"In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, they had better aim at something high." --Henry David Thoreau |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||
My thought is that even though humans are capable of murdering people, when that happens, people hiss at the murderers themselves (or videogames, annoyingly). If a robot were to be ordered to shoot someone though, people would look for scapegoats and scream rape at the company who produced the robot. Humans can be made to do bad things, t his is true. But there's always that interplay of conscience, and the complexities of human nature. Robots, on the other hand, can be ordered to kill someone, and they'll do it without even thinking about it, unless it's programmed into them to not harm living things-- but how would they know what's living or not? You could have evil robot assassins and stuff, and boy, wouldn't that suck? Also, many humans don't like the idea of living things that are stronger and live longer than they do, and the whole conception (even through s.f. and fantasy) of superior robot beings would drive a whole bunch of people crazy. I bet a large population of people would feel very insulted that robots are used for jobs when they feel that they could do a much better job at it.
I mentioned Isaac Asimov in my first post, and this brought it back in my head again. (He even coined the term robotics. ) In his novels and short stories about robots, he always wrote that the companies equipped them with the 3 Laws of Robotics, (In short,
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.) It's interesting, as he said that the only way that humans could ever live in a semblance of peace with robots was if there was a way for these laws to be implemented (but then there'd be the problem of those laws malfunctioning, etc.) Either way, I don't see how humans could ever live 100% happily with robots. I'd hazard to say that at least 1 out of 10 people would have some issue with robots. (It reminds me of an SNL skit for life insurance against robot attacks. )
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Grive
Posts: 21 Location: Monterrey, México |
|
|||||
Well, Cars have been used as terrorist weapons, exacto knives have been used as terrorist weapons, the internet has been used as a terrorist weapon, and feces have been used as terrorist weapons. Not to mention twisting religion and politics. What I'm aiming at is that the fact that people might misuse technology is rarely a factor big enough to stop something. There'll always be people who misuse technology and inventions, but again, if the benefits are worth the risk of this, it's worth it. And I believe that the benefits for people will be worth its potential misuse. The same thing goes for planes. first off, I want to say that I'm in no way condoning nor trying to make the incident in NYC and the pentagon look like less. It was a terrible tragedy, and my condolences go for every person who lost someone in the WTC, and that I hope every victim will rest in peace. However, the benefits derived from the use of the air transportation industry in the past centuries (Counting all forms of air transportation, not only planes) are much more the amount of damage accidents and the WTC attack have caused. Thousands upon thousands of lives have been saved, the economy of countries improved drastically (and so the standard of living) You're right in that robots can be abused to no end. However, I'm going to believe the people making these robots will include safety measures to reduce this potential problem. Plus, using specialized robots will make this problem less serious. While I acknowledge your points, I still think that with enough forethought and handling, the potential benefits for humanity will be vastly superior to the potential problems.
Good. I won't lose sleep. I prefer Groucho over Karl :p Seriously though, I believe Karl Marx's theory was fundamentally flawed because he failed to consider many aspects of society, so it's his fault I'm giving him an ulcer in the first place :p
Well, I think I have some things that Karl Marx didn't have: 1.- I live in a time where technology has already entered society full-force, and thus, have seen the effects of it and the social result, whereas Karl Marx lived in a time where technological advance was relatively slow and small. 2.- Experience in this, as I work at a factory (operating the machinery) and have seen the effect of Automatization and implementation of Mechatronic technology (mainly in the introduction of CNC machinery and integration of computers to the industrial workplace) over a period of 5-6 years. Complementing point 1, I can say, the average standard of living has increased as technological advances appear. We're better off than in medieval times, even better off than in the beginning of the XXth century. I believe this trend still has the power to continue - according to some analysts, at our current consumption rate of natural resources, the more scarce ones will last for another 150 years. Consider that refining and increased efficiency are some of the major research points, I believe that in the next 150 years there will be enough technological advances to either obtain other, easier to renew energy sources (maybe making water batteries more accessible, for example?) and make the processes efficient enough to continue the development. Complementing point 2, I can share experiences. Two people, operated simple machining at the factory - spindles, drills, that kind of stuff. When the factory got a CNC machining centre - quite a sophisticated thingamaroo back when it was bought - One of those two was assigned to that machine. Of course, he was pretty much unable to operate it properly: He could only start and stop the process, remove the finished piece, and use the emergency stop. However, he started taking a CNC course (pretty simple course, 3-6 hours a week during a couple months). He's now an operator level 1, winning about three or four times his previous salary. The same happened with the other person, a year after when the factory got a CNC spindle. No one has lost their jobs now that CNC machining centres (which are a kind of specialized robot) are in there. The ratio of robotic/mechatronic machines to older ones is about 5:9, and in fact, more people have been hired after the automatization process: Production has increased so much, that more people are needed to perform mainteinance, operation and human resources and relations. Since production has increased, everyone has obtained a raise, and the factory has taken to divide a part of the earnings once a year to give it to the workers - think of it as a bonus. With these things in mind, I just can't help but be completely in favor of mechatronics and robotics. In fact, the work in that factory was the decisive factor in selecting my college major, which is Mechatronics engineering. Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read -- Groucho Marx. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||
Interestingly, there are economists who believe that it's not possible for each generation to live better than the one before it. For example, Thomas Malthus believed that an excess of population was inevitable, because land and food increased arithmatically, while population increased geometrically. Thus, wars, diseases, and fames were "natural checks" on excess population growth. Another economist David Ricardo believed that as the population rose, the people that owned business and houses and what not would gain, but workers and those below the prior group would lose, because of mechanical replacements. He believed that the result would be recurring, general Depressions as the capitalist system produced a "flood of commodities with no takers." It was his idealogy behind excess supplies with inadequate demands. But that's just economics. People would rather believe in J.S. Mill and Adam Smith anyway.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Grive
Posts: 21 Location: Monterrey, México |
|
|||||
Well, there are also people who set 1998 as the year of the apocalypse. And people who said people would never fly. What I'm coming at is that there will always be predictions, there will be always theories. What I see is that quality of life has increased, and automatization and implementation of robotics in factories has not only increased the quality of life of the workers, but generated more job opportunities. No offense to those people whose ideas you mention, they're probably better informed in this than a college freshman that ain't even majoring in anything relating to economics, but I've seen the effects of both automatization and integration of technology into society, and I don't see but positive results. |
||||||
|
||||||
SuperSkylineGTR
 Posts: 471 Location: Chicago, IL |
|
|||||
|
Well if AI is developed, more then likely, the US military (and possibly Germany, Italy, France, and the UK) will have first dibs on it. Maybe something A-la Terminator to send as oppossed to human Special Forces troops. But these AI troopers will have to have a behavior program installed similiar to what was installed in the Synthetic Bishop from Aliens to prevent friendly fire. It is really a touchy subject. Plus the fact that something like in BGC where common construction work is no longer done by humans but AI could send Unions in a frenzy. Well, back to the military application, we are kinda seeing it now in the modern day, ever heard of that Predator unmanned Hunter-Killer that the CIA used to whack some Al quida members? If I'm not mistaken, it does have some sort of an AI system as far as navigation goes(Although I also believe it is radio controlled for shooting the Hellfires)
|
||||||
|
||||||
Craeyst Raygal
 Posts: 1383 Location: In the garage, beneath a 1970 MGB GT. |
|
|||||
|
*a bit embarassed* Yep, one spark...
Robotics as far as mechanical devices taking the place of humans in work enviroments is already here. Take a look at any major modern auto plant. Robots handle the assembly line nearly all the way through, inluding welding the unibody together, assembling the engine, and painting the body. The only place where this hasn't decimated the automobile work force is in the United States, where the UAW has clung to its role in auto production well past the point of obsolescence. (apologies to any auto workers out there) In fact, it's putting General Motors at risk. At last count, GM has over 4 billion dollars in un-funded pension debt. That means that as all of those baby-boomers who've been riveting Chevy's together since the sixties retire, GM is running out of money to pay their retirement fund. There is 4 billion dollars in pension money owed that GM doesn't have. Companies like Honda, Toyota, and Volkwagen don't have these problems as they implemented mechanized production in cheap labor areas (New Beetles are assembled in Mexico, for instance). It's ironic, the unions that fought to keep the jobs of the working class are now killing the goose that laid the golden egg, so to speak. Now, AI is a whole different scenario. To quote Arucard of Hellsing "History is filled with man's cheap imitations". As interesting as a robot built to an exact specification of personality, but with the ability to think as feel as that personality would, could be of interest (I'll take mine 124cm tall,with cm measurements of 88-53-89, synthetic bronze tan skin, golden blonde hair, large sapphire blue eyes, elven ears, and with an innocent naivete, coupled with the eager to please complex) but ultimaely, what purpose would it serve? To be honest, I can't justify AI for any reason but the novelty. Besides, as Masamune Shirow has taught us, what of sentient synthetic lifeforms? Would they have a soul? Would they have rights? When humanity blurs the lines between itself and its creations, then who is to decide what is right? I don't think a human being is qualified to create a whole new type of lifeform (albeit synthetic). There's too much we don't understand about the very nature of life to start creating a new version of it. |
||||||
|
||||||
~squeak.
 Posts: 28 |
|
|||||
|
Robots: possibly would become someone who has to do all the work that humans do not want to do, depending how advanced its AI would be.
If we take approach from the mechanical/electronics point of view, where AI is based based on microchips and the like, I think that kind of technology would have serious limitations even if we are to produce more advanced hardware in the future. *visions lots of upgrade patches, repair shops, black market robots and widely advertised gardening accessory set.* Other thing would be...
So, I am assuming that this means human-like artificial beings which have capability of independent reasoning and can experience emotions. It would be interesting thing to see how technology would overcome the difficulty of creating a replica of human mind. Assuming if that would be possible in future, would they be coded much like programs are nowadays (which sounds pretty much impossible), or would we have a technology to create an identical copy of the mind of single person and transfer it to the android? If so, of whom these copies were taken? (Uh-oh, this is starting to get little scifistic... )
I have no doubt that Celebrities and some politically involved / successfull businessmen would surely find it intriguing to have themselves immortalized as an android. I think that anime draws a pretty picture what artificial beings might be if we would have unlimited resources and the technology to produce them. Realistically speaking I think that we would see the unfortunate side-effect of the adult busineses selling them as "substitute companionship" or somesuch. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group