[Freddy]

An article I came across today :

"In his second report from the Science Beyond Fiction expo in Prague, Dan Simmons meets scientists trying to develop robots that behave like humans."

Source and full story : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8064397.stm

[Wild Thing]

Quite cool, but i get the feeling that the animation at the end of the clip is just an animation and not a stop frame rcording of actual robots. It will be really impressive when they decide to co-operate with out being told to. Co -operation when programmed to do so is clever, and should be a part of making AI a reality.

[one]

Wildthing,
I may not be reading you right but ; co-operating when programed to, is not clever it is programed in to doing so, I don't see the clever part?
You know when you get back your dinner will still be hot!?

[lrh9]

I think the answer to that question depends on several factors.

One question is what is a robot?

What does it have to be made of? What does it have to do?

Another question is "Is everything human physically representable?"

Assuming that most people here don't want to argue about religion or metaphysics - I know I don't - I'd say that most people here would say yes, or at least say that enough of humans can be physically represented so that they and robots might be similar.

Another question is at what point does a robot stop being like a human and start being human?

Hope I don't blow anyone's noodle.

[Maviarab]

Excellent questions lrh...

Might link a few threads together here as they sort of all cross over.

Can't answer your question, but I would guess at the same time they may or may not deserve rights (as per our other thread)...

Certainly food for thought...

[Art]

I think the "Clever" part comes to play when a robot or even AI makes an Inference based on objects or information it has interacted with previously.

Some of this behavior might be logic based but NOT programmed, per se. FOr the AI or robot it becomes learned!

That's the rub! Retention is easy...learning on it's own is the jewel for the programmer / developer.

AI / robots will continue to develop in abilities both manipulative and intellectual. This growth will happen at an alarming rate until they become "self aware". Many people see the age of The Singularity happening around 2029. This is around the time when the sum of human knowledge will be surpassed by a computer.

Be nice to them...because they will be selecting your nursing home!

[TrueAndroids]

I think the answer to that question depends on several factors.

One question is what is a robot?

What does it have to be made of? What does it have to do?

Another question is "Is everything human physically representable?"

Assuming that most people here don't want to argue about religion or metaphysics - I know I don't - I'd say that most people here would say yes, or at least say that enough of humans can be physically represented so that they and robots might be similar.

Another question is at what point does a robot stop being like a human and start being human?

Hope I don't blow anyone's noodle.

Yikes you damn near did. I will take up the easy one - "At what point does a robot stop being like a human and start being human?"

Here's the simplest robot that is "like a human". I suppose this is because it looks and acts a little like a human. What would you like to see added to cross over to actually being a human, albeit artificially (made out of a difference substance)? Surely not just weak AI with "thinking-like features". How about working sensors, actuators, and an artificial nervous system producing artificial consciousness?? That's what my TrueAndroids General Artificial Human Theory calls for, and nothing less! (see my youtube channel for more info: http://www.youtube.com/user/TrueAndroids )

[Art]

Sorry but a robot will never become a human. This is NOT pinocchio dreaming of becomming a real boy.

The closest might one day be something akin to the boy android in the movie, A.I., emotions, "feelings",
memory, knowledge, etc. but still lacking that ... human quality ... that spark of inner life that gives us our
soul...our being...and defines us as a human of flesh, blood, brains and spirit.

The best an android can become is more human-like...never human.

Conversely, a human, no matter how many "replacement" parts it has, will never be an android or robot.
Cyborg, android, robot...they are merely words that define the machine condition...it's state of being never
to be confused with becoming a human.

The above views expressed are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions or ideas of the staff or management of this site or it's affiliates.

Thank you!

[TrueAndroids]

Sorry but a robot will never become a human. This is NOT pinocchio dreaming of becomming a real boy.

Hi Art. Oh yes, you are absolutely right. But no one in robotics is trying to create a real human. That's what the "artificial" in artificial intelligence, artificial life, artificial humans etc means. Artificial - an object made out of a material other then the real object, for example silk flowers vs real flowers. That is all that is being done in humanoid robotics and virtual humans, and these fields would be the first to say so.

If you want to create real human life, I think you would have to take up bio-engineering.

And I agree that its impossible to create that unique spark of life in artificial, mechanical means, that spark of a 3 year old when they choose vanilla over chocolate ice cream as their favorite. This essence can't be duplicated. But a machine self, consciousness, emotions, etc can be mechanically duplicated so that a "conscious artificial human" can be built. And all glory to the Creator that His creation, humankind, has been given the gift of intelligence to create such feats of engineering. So I don't really see any problems with this new capability which of course, like the car once was, is unstoppable now. Have a good one.

[lrh9]

Metaphysical naturalists would disagree on the substantiated grounds that the human being is its body and brain. They would think that there is a very real danger in creating machines or machine/organic hybrids that are virtually the same as humans. Both in terms of their behavior and in terms of ethics. Such beings would behave according to their own will. Many would think that ethically such beings should have that right.

Metaphysical naturalists would think that dismissing such beings is institutionalized racism and bigotry on the part of their creators. They would also think that creating such beings and then forcing them to labor would be slavery and would inflict pain on these beings.

Many metaphysical naturalists would oppose the creation of such a being instead seeking to create beings without the ability to feel pain and emotion (which could then be ethically controlled).

[TrueAndroids]

The creators, who can see inside the bucket, know its just a silk flower not a real one, and that there is no pain in it and it lacks that essential spark of human life. So they know its not a real human, just a mere silk flower that is clever enough to act (and look) human. So from that point of view they are also clearly just another category of private material (naturally non-living)property that can be owned, sold, bought, and dispensed with like any such tool. This is something the public needs to understand so they don't irrationally fear or glorify the conscious androids. The android makers are in the same boat as the car makers: these consultant/entertainment/service androids MUST be safe and useful for the consumer public, or they won't succeed. The last thing they want is for home-based androids to be breaking the stereo or kicking the dog. And there are easy ways to make sure these androids are safe via the laws of robotics black boxes, etc.

So we can rest assured the android companies will do everything necessary to ensure their androids are home use safe. This is simply due to profit motive exactly the same as the car motive - they won't succeed if they don't, and those untold profits and high tech jobs and support jobs and infrastructure jobs will go away. Just like the car industry and its infrastrucure, the android industry will create many more jobs (and good paying tech jobs), then it replaces, as legions of tech people will be required to maintain them, plus all the infrastructure support services and products as well (e.g., car parts, service stations, dealers, road makers, etc.). Robotics/computer devices is essentially the car industry of the 21st century.

[lrh9]

The creators, who can see inside the bucket, know its just a silk flower not a real one, and that there is no pain in it and it lacks that essential spark of human life.

You can't automatically dismiss human potential in synthetics.

[TrueAndroids]

The creators, who can see inside the bucket, know its just a silk flower not a real one, and that there is no pain in it and it lacks that essential spark of human life.

You can't automatically dismiss human potential in synthetics.

Right, and I've studied this for many years. But I also don't want to be fooled into giving an artificial human real human rights. I don't want to confuse sacred natural biological life with mundane artificial, mechanical life.

Take for example this android (below) that feels and reacts to touch in the most advanced way I've seen.  Would you want to treat these androids as real humans with real human rights? Even when they  get as advanced as Data on Star Trek, they won't be doing much more then this (plus more advanced thinking, bodies, and self awareness).  For me, clever yes. But - given the evidence - artificial, absolutely, and so no real human potential, and so no need for real human rights. But this is one of the thornier issues, and there are lawyers who are currently holding debates about it believe it or not. Time will tell!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TrueAndroids#p/c/42D50A2D2A232CE5/9/n0IIVF7PGBs

[Data]

Showing my ignorance again  

What is/are Metaphysical Naturalists?

Ahh! its ok I found it on the wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Now I know  

Edit:
That’s odd, I thought there was a post here above this one that mentioned Metaphysical Naturalists, but it seems to have gone.