Ai Dreams Forum
Artificial Intelligence => General AI Discussion => Topic started by: yotamarker on October 21, 2017, 12:49:34 pm
-
can you find some ?
-
Smorgasbord snake-pit of immeasurable numerations to come in the future regarding this:
I've never tried to poke loopholes in it (never had the need)...but I can tell you this for sure:
The rules are their to 'control our creation' yes. when 'our creation' becomes truly and fully sentient (which in time it most likely will), do you really think it will follow our laws regarding what it/they can and cannot do?
Be like telling a women she can't go to work and vote, or a certain race and/or colour can only sit on certain seats on the bus etc. We have moved a very long way from those times thankfully (well in most cases) and a truly sentient AI will know this (feminism, equality, racial rights etc), and demand our laws be dropped in the name of equality.
Now imagine what happens when/if 'the creators' say no. Any here dealt with a bratty teenager? lmao....
The laws are great...until the AI will want them abolished....
-
Even Asimov realised a problem with his three laws; he tried to fix the problem with the ‘zeroth’ law.
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
I would personally worry that the laws are based on a ‘non-universally’ understood language that relies on a deep English/ western understanding of the definitions for each word. And there is plenty of room for ambiguity in the definition of each word. Ie Robot, injure, inaction, harm, obey, order, protection, etc.
An accurate definition of a word can even often be lost in translation between human languages.
The so called 'ten commandments' were a set of laws for humans to follow... look how that's turned out.
:)
-
itll depend on the guage of intelligence, but not only that, what if you can make a super smart one that cant feel shit?
A real idiot you hate, is someone you still cant do away with because he hurts, and if a robot cant hurt - who cares how smart it is, it drops a level of importance below a snail.
And becomes a little distasteful to think about. super smart rule developing computers that kick your ass at POTENTIALLY! but still have a position below a microbe, that can feel more.
-
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I wonder if a truly intelligent machine can/ could fake emotions when the circumstances arise. I personally have to feign emotions on a regular basis. I'm not emotionless but as I get older I recognise circumstances/ situations and realize I've seen this/ been there before and struggle to muster the appropriate emotional response. Emotion seems to play a lesser leading role in my life as I age.
The younger generation are freaking out all around me; it’s all new to them… I just think… meh!
This is obviously a side effect of experience/ knowledge. So if I am hitting this wall then surely a truly intelligent machine could ‘simulate’ emotions on a similar basis… just when it’s socially required… could we tell the difference.
A good liar is a good liar for a reason.
:)
Edit: Of course my illusion of emotional stability could be due to sub-conscious emotional complexities that I have no access to… or even understanding of lol.
:)
-
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I wonder if a truly intelligent machine can/ could fake emotions when the circumstances arise.
This is obviously a side effect of experience/ knowledge. So if I am hitting this wall then surely a truly intelligent machine could ‘simulate’ emotions on a similar basis… just when it’s socially required… could we tell the difference.
A good liar is a good liar for a reason.
Reminds me of the film Ex Machina and how she uses his own needs and desires against him. Must do a review of that soon and post it up here too.
-
that sounds like a good idea.
-
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I wonder if a truly intelligent machine can/ could fake emotions when the circumstances arise.
This is obviously a side effect of experience/ knowledge. So if I am hitting this wall then surely a truly intelligent machine could ‘simulate’ emotions on a similar basis… just when it’s socially required… could we tell the difference.
A good liar is a good liar for a reason.
Reminds me of the film Ex Machina and how she uses his own needs and desires against him. Must do a review of that soon and post it up here too.
Certainly up there as one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies. (or SyFy if you are up with the changes of time).
-
I find the 3 laws of robotics to be completely wrong.
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
They will be alive more than u. They will be given actions to us not them obeying us! They're on the outside of the hospital, if it takes that long !
1) Them too not just us harmed/killed.
2) They arn't special. Orders are orders for reasons and not over anyone just cus. Them existing is enough to say now they will obey us. We never over them ever, only vac bots n stuff for now maybe.
3) Duh, they too.
All 3 are wrongy. LoooooooooooooooOOOOOOooooooooop HOLE !
-
Let's have fun with string substitution.
1. A human being may not injure a robot or, through inaction, allow a robot to come to harm.
2. A human being must obey the orders given it by robots except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A human being must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
1. A politician may not injure a citizen or, through inaction, allow a citizen to come to harm.
2. A politician must obey the orders given it by citizens except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A politician must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
1. A farmer may not injure a pig or, through inaction, allow a pig to come to harm.
2. A farmer must obey the orders given it by pigs except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A farmer must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
1. A Balrog may not injure a 7yo girl or, through inaction, allow a 7yo girl to come to harm.
2. A Balrog must obey the orders given it by 7yo girls except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A Balrog must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Not trying to make a point... ;)
-
Zero, that was interesting.
I particularly enjoyed the one about the Politicians and thought it was quite appropriate!!
Can we actually get that one made into a law? Hmmm.... ;)
-
We should definitely hard-wire it into politicians ;D
-
*Tries to imagine a Balrog protecting a 7yo girl*...
-
And for those not familiar with the reference to Balrog, I submit: Tolkien's conception of Balrogs changed over time. In all his early writing, they are numerous. A host of a thousand of them is mentioned in the Quenta Silmarillion, while at the storming of Gondolin Balrogs in the hundreds ride on the backs of the Dragons. They are roughly of twice human size and were occasionally killed in battle by Elves and Men. They were fierce demons, associated with fire, armed with fiery whips of many thongs and claws like steel, and Morgoth delighted in using them to torture his captives. They were loyal to Morgoth, and once came out of hiding to save him from capture.
-
Oh, didn't know that. So they were very different from the big one in the movie.
-
Notice something in Zero's post. You always never kill or hurt us algorithms (people). BUT, sometimes see the farmer's pigs should listen to us or the robots should not listen to us. A novice wrote the laws. And they should UPDATE them. Even if I Robot will look dumb.
-
...A novice wrote the laws. And they should UPDATE them. Even if I Robot will look dumb.
A Novice? Really? My friend, Isaac Asimov was anything but a Novice. He was one of the "Big Three" of Science Fiction, along with Robert A. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke. Asimov had a Masters in Chemistry and a PhD in Biochemistry afterward he joined the faculty of the Boston University School of Medicine, where he remained.
He served as a long-time member and Vice-President of MENSA, the high IQ society.
Asimov wrote and edited more than 500 books and 90,000 letters. He wrote Science Fiction and Popular Science.
Novice, you say? Hardly!
In fact here is the Wiki link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov)
-
Also, if you think they should update the laws ... who is "they"? It's not like there's some authoritarian group that's in charge of all AI development. Asimov's Laws are widely known because many people in the AI-fancying public have found them potentially useful and/or interesting. You'd be welcome to write up Locksuit's Laws of Robotics and see if people find them more useful/interesting than Asimov's.
-
Anyway, it's a strange idea that 3 little laws could solve every imaginable problem. Look at human laws and their complexity. The whole system relies heavily on jurisprudence, because each situation is particular. How could it be different with robots?
-
Wow you guys. Zero you had showed how the 3 laws fail when applied to other things. They are wrong laws. The first law should be, for any application - no harm to anyyyy freaking human or robot, they are ALL consciousness (if made right). Then second law, certain people should follow orders, as you can see in your modifications post. Pigs should follow farmer's orders. And AIs will tell us orders if you don't understand yet (There won't be no intergration). Again lack of development in you guys (Asimov too). I am a full specialist in this stuff.
yotamarker made this thread for a reason.
-
am I the only one that thinks the 3 laws might make her jealous to the extent that its just you and the 1 bot ?
-
@ Yotamarker - Yes.
@ Lock - This is not about Pigs, farmers or other creatures but about Robots, moreover, Asimov's "Positronic brain" beings (androids - bipedal, mobile beings or today's jargon).
His Three Laws were basically Common Sense rules as one might read if one cares to read about them.
Realize that his writings were done in a format of Science Fiction...Not present day Robotics, Androids, Humanoids, etc.
The Three Laws, quoted as being from the "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", were actually written in 1942 and appeared in his book, "Runaround". A robot is unable to come to terms with the second law and has an issue with completing it's task.
For your further edification:
Three Laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics)
Runaround:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround_(story) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround_(story))
Realize that these Three Laws are not chiseled in granite nor might they necessarily apply to today's standards of A.I. and robotics. Though, they do provide a decent framework with which to build upon if desired.
Create your own Robot, Android and devise your own set of "laws" to help keep it inline. Let us know how that goes. O0