Ai Dreams Forum
Robotics => General Robotics Talk => Topic started by: Freddy on December 06, 2016, 08:40:26 pm
-
Well back to robots, since this was the long distant beginning of this thread.
I split this thread as it's not really related to jlsilicon's original post.
Question : Is a robot predictable ?
Discuss.
-
Where its arm goes to the next move is impossible to know before seeing.
-
Okay, so if you program this arm to pick something up - then you are saying that there is no way to know that it will follow the programming ?
-
I meant for a machine (you Freddy) that doesn't have the info of what it will do next. Ex. it is human AI and you have no idea what data it learned inside.
-
I'm not a robot...thought we cleared that up. For the sake of clarity I mean a machine made by a person.
If you have programmed the machine to perform an action, are you still saying that it cannot be certain that it will perform that action ?
-
If you have programmed the machine to perform an action, are you still saying that it cannot be certain that it will perform that action ?
This may be one of those times when Locksuit was accidentally correct. ;)
Motion planning is actually very complex and can require a huge amount of computation. It depends on the robot and the environment, but solutions aren't necessarily guaranteed. In human terms, imagine trying to fit yourself into a box that's 50cm on a side, or even smaller. I've seen some contortionists do it but not everyone could.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_planning#Completeness_and_Performance
-
Yep I'm not taking a stance - just exploring something that I was thinking about.
Along the lines of; if robots are not at all predictable then how can anyone guarantee the Utopia some people foresee.
-
No, if you know it will do a programmed action then you will know the answer of what will happen. But if the mechanism is human AI and the actions are developed and you don't know what has passed through its brain and what has happened in its brain then no you absolutely will not know what its next action is unless you are watching the brain mechanism in action in a UI or something similar.
Infurl I meant the programmed action is known if known, not that the gravel soil beneath it makes its leg not complete the action, that would make the leg get stuck in the ground and not do the action, and you could also know this if you knew it.
Duuuuude the reason the utopia would happen if we are predictable particles is because of 1: all of their abilities only I list and 2: the play out of human AI robos is so not known unless watching in a UI and lots of stuff just happens by pure reaction - alot more stuff than a rock falling off a waterfall - surgeons saving people for a good income for food.
-
Thanks for playing along.
But if the mechanism is human AI
You mean human level ai I assume ?
Duuuuude the reason the utopia would happen if we are predictable particles is because of 1: all of their abilities only I list and 2: the play out of human AI robos is so not known unless watching in a UI that lots of stuff just happens by pure reaction - alot more stuff than a rock falling off a waterfall - surgeons saving people for a good income for food.
Hmm, that doesn't quite add up. You already said in your first paragraph...
you absolutely will not know what its next action is
Going on you said :
unless you are watching the brain mechanism in action in a UI or something similar.
How does observation make it predictable ?
-
Having the current human AI state and world (as much as can ex. virtual world) and simulating it at lightspeed if the AI isn't at lightspeed or is but you're a timestep ahead let's you have insight to all of the world and AI's future.
I meant utopia will happen because we do a lot of good unique tingies (the reaction that came from evolution) and even if you knew all da future we would end up all immortal in your witch-crystal-ball forecaster.
-
So this is like some magic cosmic thing you think ?
-
i it pure fhysics m man...
Also in a virtual universe with AIs in the computer you can do time travel for real.
They'll never know!
-
A virtual universe is just that. I can fly around in the sky on SecondLife already. I don't mean a virtual universe I mean the one we are living in. Our reality.
Okay, branching out. You think everything in the universe is a machine that equates to any AI - to you they are all the same right ?
Do you think a bird is predictable ?
-
All is just particles, that work by predictable physics unless someone messed with the physics by adding some uncertainty principal.
I meant get the AI state and world as much as can, simulate it faster/a timestep ahead of the original, then you can sorta of know what will happen in the *real world. Works better when in control of the universe.
-
So you're saying that if we could model the entire universe that we exist in and run that simulation faster than the speed of light, we could observe what is happening and thus predict the future ?
-
Yes sir.
-
Okay, it's an interesting theory.
How do you get it to run faster than the speed of light though ? Because if the fastest thing in the Universe already is light - how are you going to power it ? There's a paradox there - you need ingredients that don't exist in the universe - so what now ?
And then (for the sake of argument) if you found something, you'd have to find something faster, because your model will not include everything. And so on.
Also where are you going to get your materials from ? Your materials have to exist in the universe in the first place. If you want a 1:1 model then you would have to use all the matter in the universe - and then there would be no universe to model !
It's problematical.
-
You have to be the creator of a universe to do so.
-
If you want to know the future of our universe then you have to contact our creators.
-
Plural. Who might these creators be ?
-
Plural. Who might these creators be ?
Whoa whoa whoa whoa... Freddy? ???
-
Oops sorry, did I say something bad ? :-[
-
Erm...
Uh, hmm...
Err...
Nope, not at all!
Keep going! O0
*Sits in the corner and observes the thread silently* ...
-
The time you contact them is the time they want you to and will grant access.
-
Seriously, I hope I've not offended ::)
I can't prove what I am saying to any certainty that would satisfy me - I have doubts about the speed of light for example...I'm only going by what I have been taught, read and picked up along the way.
A benevolent creator could well be out there - who am I to argue against that.
-
A benevolent creator could well be out there - who am I to argue against that.
As rationalists we are routinely offended by the sheer ignorance and stupidity of religious people and they certainly don't feel embarrassed about it, so why should we?
If you look around, you will see ample evidence that god is either malevolent, impotent or nonexistent, so even if there is a god, it isn't the one that any modern religion claims to know about.
-
I'm more inclined to follow science than any thing else because I find it more tangible.
-
Well, how to offend half the world in three easy steps by Freddy. Look and learn people, look and learn.
-
If you have programmed the machine to perform an action, are you still saying that it cannot be certain that it will perform that action ?
This may be one of those times when Locksuit was accidentally correct. ;)
Motion planning is actually very complex and can require a huge amount of computation. It depends on the robot and the environment, but solutions aren't necessarily guaranteed. In human terms, imagine trying to fit yourself into a box that's 50cm on a side, or even smaller. I've seen some contortionists do it but not everyone could.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_planning#Completeness_and_Performance
Obviously, IF you have programmed a machine to perform an action, then it will, otherwise you have not programmed it to do so.
Aside from a remote possibility of a lightning strike, power failure or mechanical part defect, you'll have about a 99 % certainty of the machine performing an action.
I put clothes in my washer, add detergent, turn the settings knob and push it ON, the machine starts to work, filling the basket with water to a programmed level, turning the agitator to work in a back and forth cycle, then finally draining, rinsing, spinning and shutting off, having performed it's programming perfectly, as it has for the past 15 years!
In fact this machine is so good, that once filled and programmed and turned on, I don't even look back. I just turn off the laundry room light and close the door, knowing that it will perform it's programming.
Any questions? :knuppel2:
-
No matter what particular position any person chooses to take on any given day about any given subject, I can guarantee someone will get pissed off about it in some way or another!!
So, be ye not offended my brethern, speaketh thy mind as if no one will harken to thy words. Verily I say to thee, be of good cheer and go about thy ways for thou art a unique person and of a good and humble mind. Peace be unto thee!
- Pastor or the Universal Truth - ^-^
-
Just remember:
You can know the programming.
You can know the cycle.
You right now mr machine can't predict some things (AI 0% chance).
You can know every particle's placement.
You can even simulate it at lightspeed and skip every other so it is twice as faster for real world prediction.
But if you want to know us here right now, then your'll need to have every particle including us AI machines learnin n doin actions listed down into the computer to simulate.
That pretty much sums it up.
A programmed action is the same just a variant of AI learning and using unknown actions, it is all a reaction. Wanting to call one controlled and one changing is a particlistic reaction in your brain. Including if it leg gets stuck in the mud when about to move. Including if a bunch of particles (you) has the info of " " or not.
-
Well good luck with that Locksuit.
When you can tell me and prove it possible that "You can know every particle's placement" and "simulate it at light speed" then I might start listening.
You'll need to tweak it of course, like how you have changed your mind over using a faster than light speed simulation.
-
I think now is the perfect time to bring up some points.
So as we discussed, you know we are machines.
Do you realize that while we do have a mom and a dad, we don't actually "have" a mom or a dad? They are not, you know, soul related. Hell, we're particles. I don't call my parents "mom" or "dad".
-
So as we discussed, you know we are machines.
Yup we are complex biochemical machines which exhibit consciousness and self awareness amongst many other ‘human’ traits.
Do you realize that while we do have a mom and a dad, we don't actually "have" a mom or a dad?
This is just a contradiction.
They are not, you know, soul related.
There is no such thing as a soul.
Hell, we're particles.
No sh*t Sherlock.
I don't call my parents "mom" or "dad".
Neither do I, I call them Ma and Pa.
:)
-
They are not, you know, soul related.
There is no such thing as a soul.
Aha! This one I have to disagree. It's not "no such a thing", it is "unknown".
Due to the Antropic Principle, we can't see things that we weren't able to see.
But then these unknown entities "may" not effect us whatsoever.
I don't call my parents "mom" or "dad".
Neither do I, I call then Ma and Pa.
(https://aidreams.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.memeful.com%2Fmedia%2Fpost%2FER5rbyd_700wa_0.gif&hash=f4462dbb0721aa597fe658695097e842642020d3)
-
Aha! This one I have to disagree. It's not "no such a thing", it is "unknown".
Due to the Antropic Principle, we can't see things that we weren't able to see.
Ah I see your reasoning. So being as ‘the soul’ was bought up on a thread regarding whether ‘robots are predictable’ we need not exclude three legged pink sparkly invisible unicorns in the ‘logic’ of conversation/ answering the question. And just the fact that something can’t be disproved makes it a viable inclusion? Okie dokie then…
And how exactly does including any and every unknown/ unprovable ‘thing’ or concept as an argument help get us towards an answer/ solution? Surely if we just stick to what general consensus agrees is correct we stand a better chance?
I don't call my parents "mom" or "dad".
After what lock had stated previously about how he regards everything as ‘particles’, this last comment implies he thinks little of his parents and their relationship to him. He is saying he regards them as mere ‘particles’ and references them accordingly. This seems callous too me.
I love my parents and appreciate the time and effort they have invested in me. I affectionately call them Ma and Pa hopefully implying my affection.
:)
-
My parents are no different then the people next door. We all should be caring for each other.
Kei, souls unseen, but screw that we know we are robots. After all all of us on the forum's opinions are all not proven even if kei says he loves coffee before bed - yes everything you say/do. Get it? No we know souls don't exist. Don't reply back and be all like "but wee doooon't knooooooooow" when your own main job is machines and you believe it hard.
So as we discussed, you know we are machines.
Yup we are complex biochemical machines which exhibit consciousness and self awareness amongst many other ‘human’ traits.
Do you realize that while we do have a mom and a dad, we don't actually "have" a mom or a dad?
This is just a contradiction.
They are not, you know, soul related.
There is no such thing as a soul.
Hell, we're particles.
No sh*t Sherlock.
I don't call my parents "mom" or "dad".
Neither do I, I call them Ma and Pa.
:)
You did this purposely didn't you............................................................
I meant call em mom/dad for useful purposes such as DNA extraction, but actually ya, don't call them mom/dad, they are just a particlistic robot that built you.
-
And how exactly does including any and every unknown/ unprovable ‘thing’ or concept as an argument help get us towards an answer/ solution? Surely if we just stick to what general consensus agrees is correct we stand a better chance?
The funny thing is, we don't even know if it's even unprovable, or provable. It's unknown. Just like all the things we see today, like the quantum mechanics. All of those research are guessing based on observed experiments, but we don't actually see its true form -- well, not yet.
We can't disapprove something just because it's a theory. It remains a theory, or unknown.
That's the beauty of knowledge and curiosity. That's what makes us seek them -- although many morons actually go beyond the humane scope to seek such knowledge and cause destruction... Such as religions. Now, now, it's an example.
After what lock had stated previously about how he regards everything as ‘particles’, this last comment implies he thinks little of his parents and their relationship to him. He is saying he regards them as mere ‘particles’ and references them accordingly. This seems callous too me.
I love my parents and appreciate the time and effort they have invested in me. I affectionately call them Ma and Pa hopefully implying my affection.
The mindset of Locksuit is as terrifying as it is...
-
I live with my mom. She is nice. Humans have to raise children. I am attracted to literally any girl but her. I would never want to see her. (unless I change my rewards). I believe jobs are jobs and deserved money is deserved money and thanks are not required and are inefficient to do. I've seen men that look more cool to hang around than what my dad looks like.
-
Btw I laughed so hard at my last last reply! And the other funny ones recently!
-
It's good to keep a sense of humour :)