Robot workers

Post Reply New Topic

The "smartness" of humans is a general smartness. We can do many things intelligently and some even creatively. Machines can be built to outperform humans on some specific tasks. For example, computers and calculators are much better than humans at arithmetic. Computerized controls can handle aerodynamically unstable aircraft much better than human pilots. There is a machine than can play a better game of chess than any human player. But these are specific capabilities. I have yet to see a machine than can produce a completely different kind of machine without the help of human input. The machines (mostly computers) we build lack creativity, by and large. Why? I suspect our brains are much better (albeit slower) parallel processors than anything silicon thingy we can build. In a way humans are computers of a sort. We work on the basis of rather slow wetware, but we are highly parallel and associative in our operation.

ruveyn

see, i always jump in too early.

artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence should not be feared. the transition phase, where robots are smart and dexterous and yet still controlled by humans... now that's something to worry about.

the problems we're forseeing/denying here are about humans not behaving responsibly. captains of industry throwing the crews overboard, apparently not realizing that workers need to be paid in order to pay for the goods of the industry. a self destructive scenario, for sure. suicidal tendencies are probably not evolutionary strengths.

would not rational and logical analysis help to avoid such self destruction?

there is no reason we should not be able to create self-aware constructs. there is an issue we're currently facing in regards to miniaturization of computer technology but, unless we're willing to admit there's some supernatural creator, there's no reason we should not be able to duplicate the capabilities of animal brains, such as our own, or to create a superior version. there is no reason to believe that such a construct would not repeat that process to create constructs vastly superior to themselves.




yeah, it might suck for a lot of us. depending on who holds the reins during the transition, the masses could see the best of times or the worst of times. i doubt that, once achieving supremacy, the A.I. constructs will wipe out humanity. i do not, however, doubt that much of humanity will resist this change. many will likely resist violently.




robots are nothing but tools until they are endowed with intelligence. increased robotics use in place of increasingly skilled labor is bad for skilled laborers unless we create new industries where humans are preferable to robots or change our world economy. our captains of industry like to act like father figures to our economies, why not let them support their children? should we make 5 men hammer 10 hours a day when 1 could do the work in the same time with a nailgun? when the company switches to nailguns, why fire the other 4 men? why not simply cut their work day? allow more projects to be worked simultaneously? why do we compensate workers based on the work they put in and compensate employers by the work that comes out? allow workers the choice to be paid a flat rate for their work, a flat amount for a specific contract, or a share of the capital their work helps to create -i.e. a small, fixed, percentage of the profit gained by their labor.

humans are often selfish before being rational. we love fictional heroes and real life martyrs because we wish we were like that. this implies that we are not, for the most part, like that... even though we see that it's better.




don't blame the robot workers and don't worry about rewriting evolution. evolution is slow and pushed from behind. it's nice to evolve advantages that make life and reproduction easier. it's hard to reach a goal that way, though.


we should be happy that there are people out there doing so much work to make creationists feel good by supplanting evolution with intelligent design. make the atheists happy by showing that, if there's to be any intelligent design, we need to get down to the hard work of designing, intelligently.


or just hold tight until someone else does it.

The way we will "rewrite" evolution is to modify the human genome. Designer genes is the way to go.

ruveyn

Basically, evolution functions be being presented with a spectrum of possibilities and the environment then destroys whatever currently cannot survive.Moving a creative process such as this from organic to non-organic structures is a major change of evolution. No one can say with any security which move is more fertile or provides better survivability.

it's an opportunity for intelligent design. real intelligent design, as opposed to the hallucinations of religion. would you rather build a house with well-designed, finely crafted tools and pre-cut lumber, or with rocks, mud, and whole trees?


at some point, we'll have to accept a certain level of obsoleteness as inevitable. the decision of what to do about that is important. pretending it isn't going to happen falls under the jurisdiction of the old idea of intelligent design.


the gap between what we consider natural evolution and the potential for advancement we're becoming capable of is amazing.

i see little possibility of humans colonizing outside our own solar system, or even much of that. a.i. constructs could easily organize and execute this.

Do not denigrate or despise
What nature came to devise
Within a million years or so
We've seen all sorts of things
Come and go and so
The fresh attempts
That human minds
Fiddle with to make all kinds
Of fragile gadgets, silly toys,
Have still long distances to go
What nature now
Knows how to grow.

Again, that already happens. It's the difference between hourly wage, working on commission, and working by profit-sharing contract (such as having stock options be part of your salary).

But why would they?

Intentionality comes from intelligence that can't be uncoupled from emotions. There is much talk here (and elsewhere) about how Aspies don't make decisions based on emotion but rather on logic whereas NTs do the reverse. But the truth is, everybody makes decisions based on emotion. The very concept of "decision" is an emotional one.

Computers/robots/artificial intelligence can give the illusion of making decisions because they are following an algorithm that simulates decision-making. These algorithms can be so complex that from a distance they really do look intelligent. But it is always a human who made the actual decisions because it is a human that cares about the outcome. A computer/AI can be programmed to head towards a designated outcome but it is necessarily a human who will decide in advance what that outcome will be since wanting a particular outcome requires "want", which is an emotion.

Take the famous case of chess playing computers. The surely do seem intelligent. By well-written algorithms and high speed processing they can simulate an intelligent chess game purely by simultaneously running an enormous number of possible plays and selecting the ones that lead to the desired outcome. But who desired that outcome? The programmers. Computers/AI don't care if they win or lose a game of chess. The desire to "win" is a human desire, an emotion. The human chess player has it but can't compete with the faster processing speed. However, without a human programmer to tell the computer what the desired outcome is, it sits there as an inert lump. It has no desires of its own because it has no emotions and therefore no intentioonality. And intenionality is the core of intelligence.

This whole idea of colonizing outside our solar system, of designing ever-better AI's is based on a very human desire to see certain things accomplished. It is based on intentionality. It is based on the human emotion to "want" certain things accomplished. AI's don't "want" and they never will because they are not alive. Being alive is a requirement of emotional; "wanting". Other animals have it too- and the intentionality that goes along with it- just not as refined as ours because although they are emotional, they don't have abstract reasoning far-sighted enough to want things more complex than "catch that animal", "get away from that animal before it catches me" and so on. All this talk about the things AIs could do in our absence is silly because it's us that actually wants things done. AI's, no matter how complex and fast, simply go in the direction they are pointed (albeit very well and quickly). They have no life, therefore no emotion, therefore no intentionality, therefore no way of choosing what direction would like to go. Because they wouldn't "like" to do anything. They just go where pointed.

On the otherhand it would be nice to have a robot that did the cooking and cleaning for me.

It could also play cards, watch TV, go out with me like a friend or something.


Hmmm, I can't decide...

i do not adhere to a belief system requiring the human brain to be magically exempt from the laws of physics. emotions come from the brain. there is no reason why an a.i. construct would be limited to lesser abilities. we're not talking about remote controlled robots, we're talking about autonomous robots that are self sufficient enough to replace skilled, and even creative, human workers.

either the human brain is magical or it can be recreated and even improved upon. i'm not inclined to believe in magic.

It would be interesting to devise some sort of mechanical device which exactly replicated the structure and functioning of a human brain (or perhaps a mouse brain to start off with). The results could finally put Cartesian dualism to rest, and would be a good starting point for further AI endeavours.

believe me, we're working on it. the point i keep trying to make is that that exact scenario is both possible and likely. more importantly, there's no reason to stop at the level of complexity of our own brains and once we've created intelligence more powerful than our own, it could surely create intelligence even more powerful/complex. on a complexity scale ranging from simplest to most advanced forms of life (that we know of), humans aren't that much more advanced than rats. the gap, however, is incredibly significant, from our perspective. i'm sure the rat's impressed, too. evolution leaves organisms well suited to their current conditions. engineering leaves us well suited to our intended future conditions, aka, goals. hence a.i. (potentially) > regular old i.

unless regular old i. is magic, in which case ...w00t?

Neglecting the economic stupidities of sabotaging our basic systems of productions and markets, it seems to me likely that the direction may move towards a meld of robotics and organics towards a cyborg compromise with more or less of robotics and organics involved in different qualities of the final products. Even a rat or a bird brain may contain capabilities worth capitalizing on with robotic enhancements. Humans, of course, are beleaguered by clumsy interfaces such as keyboards and such but there is rabid progress even today in direct mental interfaces which surely have cyborg potentials.

i think cybernetics is the best option for humans remaining relevant, once surpassed by a.i.

Suprassed by A.I.? Not in a thousand years. Silicone and Germanium chips are far too gross.

ruveyn