Organic Life, Simply too weak
Pages: 12
Much of current weapon technology is made to be effective against humans, vehicles or buildings and let's face it, is pretty devastating when used correctly. If a true army of robots was raised, I'm sure equally effective specialized weaponry would be developed and utilized.
| Normally, storage will have important info, but however all data would\should be wirelessly transmitted to master server\P2P network. |
Block their connection or shutdown the server and there goes every robot?
closed account (13bSLyTq)
Well its like me saying, I can take internet down if I find a exploit and block all connections.
Its just not worthy.
Its just not worthy.
closed account (9wqjE3v7)
AI does not necessarily have to be robots. While I disagree with the idea of artificial life 'taking over' humans, I think they should (as the current intention remains) be used for specific situations. For instance in law, there are many verdicts issued by judges that many disagree on. I believe computers would be able to detect and make better decisions, since they would be able to retain data collectively, piecing statements and evidence to a point where it can detect where stories contradict each other and so on. With a computer, you can ensure no human habits (such as bias) can* occur. It would also be more efficient at detecting letter forgery. It does not necessarily have to replace judges altogether, though they could benefit working along side. Though this is obviously all very far feched at the moment.
Last edited on
closed account (13bSLyTq)
I think you got the point wrong, I am saying organic life will end and synthetic life will exist as synthetic life can only adapt to environment fast enough or quick enough unlike organic life.
Maybe organic life could be the gods but synthetic life will be majority of life.
Maybe organic life could be the gods but synthetic life will be majority of life.
| I think you got the point wrong, I am saying organic life will end and synthetic life will exist as synthetic life can only adapt to environment fast enough or quick enough unlike organic life. |
More baseless assertions please. We haven't had our fill yet.
Hi, fascinating topic, I hope I can offer my thoughts concisely.
First, I would like to clear up some misconceptions.
No. If that were the case, the Ice Ages would've ended us as a species. We can very easily adapt to changing circumstances (barring extremes obviously).
Increase it slowly (minutes or hours) and we will not. Increase it slowly (geologically speaking) and we will adapt (evolve).
Yes, but you ignore the great boon radiation is. The small amounts present on Earth are thought to contribute to evolution, and the mutations you speak up drive it as well. More extreme amounts may not necessarily end us as a species, and may accelerate adaptability (especially in large populations).
I have great issue with this line. First, pumps and pipes carry water faster than a human with a bucket, yet we don't think they are our successors. Computers are nothing but machines. You can design a CPU right now if you want, it isn't hard to get the basics. I'll touch back on this later on.
Again, very specific things. They cannot do what we cannot do given enough time. This makes them equatable to sharp sticks in terms of their suitability to succeed us.
While true, this line is misleading. They can indeed survive, but damage they accumulate (for the moment) is permanent. We naturally heal, they are static.
Only certain chemicals. Dunk your computer in water (very common on earth, I'm sure you've noticed) and tell me how resilient it is. This is not a good comparison because on the whole, we may find they are susceptible to just as many chemicals as we are.
And we do not? We used to be restricted to vocal communication but the internet has changed all that. We may not have wireless in our heads, but do not make the mistake of thinking we do not think collectively. More on this later on.
Ok, this is where the rebuttal ends. All I have to say is that may be much farther off than you realize. Now, onto my thoughts.
We have AI, we actually have (by the last census I remember) about 7 Billion of them. Why reinvent the wheel? We already have the equipment, and we already spend decades making sure it's up to it's full potential. What I suggest is instead of creating new AI, work with what we have. We can already put chips in someone's head to allow paraplegics to use computers, wheelchairs, and other such devices. This is only the beginning. We've managed not only to link robotic limbs to nerve endings but we've also hooked it up the sensation of touch, a remarkable achievement!
Why should robots succeed organic life? Organic life is ever-changing, we are never the final product, constantly adapting to every situation we come across or (now that we've got good enough brains) can imagine. A total replacement would be inefficient. How about a mix? As we learn to manipulate ourselves better, we can introduce new features and perhaps even strip away things we consider sub-standard.
You think organic life will end, and be replaced by synthetic life. I say there is no real difference between the two, only an artificial one (pardon the jest). As we begin to truly engineer ourselves biologically, and mechanically, the line between us and our machines will blur. By selecting the parts we want from both sides, we will become better than either could ever hope to be alone.
I originally intended to write a short quip summarizing my ideas, and now I've gone and written this. Fascinating topic.
EDIT: I wrote this in two parts, so I left out a few of the ideas (the lines that say 'more on this later'). If you want to know what I meant, simply replace them with 'we can integrate that within ourselves'. I didn't want this to turn into a dissertation.
First, I would like to clear up some misconceptions.
| Raise Temperature of earth by 2 degrees and bang humans start suffering and start dying |
No. If that were the case, the Ice Ages would've ended us as a species. We can very easily adapt to changing circumstances (barring extremes obviously).
| Increase pressure slightly we start getting crushed |
Increase it slowly (minutes or hours) and we will not. Increase it slowly (geologically speaking) and we will adapt (evolve).
| Expose humans to radiation we start dying and mutating. |
Yes, but you ignore the great boon radiation is. The small amounts present on Earth are thought to contribute to evolution, and the mutations you speak up drive it as well. More extreme amounts may not necessarily end us as a species, and may accelerate adaptability (especially in large populations).
| Modern Robots, Computers have been on planet earn for 50-40 years roughly* and the computers\robots already posses more strength than humans and are much more faster (but not intelligent) |
I have great issue with this line. First, pumps and pipes carry water faster than a human with a bucket, yet we don't think they are our successors. Computers are nothing but machines. You can design a CPU right now if you want, it isn't hard to get the basics. I'll touch back on this later on.
| Robots\Computers are better at analysis and can do work in a second but which would take a human a entire day to do. |
Again, very specific things. They cannot do what we cannot do given enough time. This makes them equatable to sharp sticks in terms of their suitability to succeed us.
| Robots can survive extremes of pressure, Radiation, Temperature which would kill human instantly |
While true, this line is misleading. They can indeed survive, but damage they accumulate (for the moment) is permanent. We naturally heal, they are static.
| Robots are much more resilient to chemicals than humans. |
Only certain chemicals. Dunk your computer in water (very common on earth, I'm sure you've noticed) and tell me how resilient it is. This is not a good comparison because on the whole, we may find they are susceptible to just as many chemicals as we are.
| Robots think collectively making them much more efficient than any organic life. |
And we do not? We used to be restricted to vocal communication but the internet has changed all that. We may not have wireless in our heads, but do not make the mistake of thinking we do not think collectively. More on this later on.
| Once Robots gain cognitive learning and better collective knowledge |
Ok, this is where the rebuttal ends. All I have to say is that may be much farther off than you realize. Now, onto my thoughts.
We have AI, we actually have (by the last census I remember) about 7 Billion of them. Why reinvent the wheel? We already have the equipment, and we already spend decades making sure it's up to it's full potential. What I suggest is instead of creating new AI, work with what we have. We can already put chips in someone's head to allow paraplegics to use computers, wheelchairs, and other such devices. This is only the beginning. We've managed not only to link robotic limbs to nerve endings but we've also hooked it up the sensation of touch, a remarkable achievement!
Why should robots succeed organic life? Organic life is ever-changing, we are never the final product, constantly adapting to every situation we come across or (now that we've got good enough brains) can imagine. A total replacement would be inefficient. How about a mix? As we learn to manipulate ourselves better, we can introduce new features and perhaps even strip away things we consider sub-standard.
You think organic life will end, and be replaced by synthetic life. I say there is no real difference between the two, only an artificial one (pardon the jest). As we begin to truly engineer ourselves biologically, and mechanically, the line between us and our machines will blur. By selecting the parts we want from both sides, we will become better than either could ever hope to be alone.
I originally intended to write a short quip summarizing my ideas, and now I've gone and written this. Fascinating topic.
EDIT: I wrote this in two parts, so I left out a few of the ideas (the lines that say 'more on this later'). If you want to know what I meant, simply replace them with 'we can integrate that within ourselves'. I didn't want this to turn into a dissertation.
Last edited on
closed account (13bSLyTq)
But robots can sustain pressures directly, in minutes and hours and as for the chemical example, I must disagree. If the internals are secure or water and radiation tight it can be possible. It like me saying if I take the brain and dunk it in acid it will be irreplaceable. Similarly its not fair argument because their internals are exposed therefore it happen but if you talk about a robots designed for that very purpose I don't think you wll get too far in flipping that over.
As for collective you are partially right, as if we are truly collective communism should work and Karl Max should have been right. But people care more for themselves than for needs of others biologically, for example during WWII, when fuhrer Adolf Hitler attacked Communist Russia - people killed other people for their food. This shows that humans are not truly collective. We would be more effective if everyone shared everything in ideal world but clearly it disproves we are collective.
As for the healing one, are you sure nanotechnology can see a flaw in that, in future Michio Kaku (Co-founder of String Theory) said nanotechnology will be making everything heal and fix and be tech of future.
As for collective you are partially right, as if we are truly collective communism should work and Karl Max should have been right. But people care more for themselves than for needs of others biologically, for example during WWII, when fuhrer Adolf Hitler attacked Communist Russia - people killed other people for their food. This shows that humans are not truly collective. We would be more effective if everyone shared everything in ideal world but clearly it disproves we are collective.
As for the healing one, are you sure nanotechnology can see a flaw in that, in future Michio Kaku (Co-founder of String Theory) said nanotechnology will be making everything heal and fix and be tech of future.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
| sargon94 wrote: |
|---|
| but we've also hooked it up the sensation of touch, a remarkable achievement! |
I agree with sargon94. I believe the future of computing will lie in cyborgs, and bionic computers, or at least ones that emulate the human brain. while able to do mass rote calculations at super fast speeds, there are many other things in which modern computers lack. Many things that humans have "improved" nature has been doing for thousands of years by its self.
http://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/lhIA1yvgrl1lc8gxcxztNM/The-quest-for-brainlike-computers.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurochip
http://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/lhIA1yvgrl1lc8gxcxztNM/The-quest-for-brainlike-computers.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurochip
I think it is a common rule that more complex and advanced things are always evolved from the lesser and simpler ones. We may take any example, evolution of animals,human or in the technology side, advance software are written only on old platforms. So, it may happen that someday we'll create a robot/computer/bionics which will be superior to us.
OrionMaster, you mentioned making the robots "radiation-tight." That is incredibly easy and outright impossible at the same time- alpha radiation can't even penetrate paper, beta radiation struggles to pass through a rather impressive sheet of aluminum... but gamma radiation can travel through quite the thick lead block. Since gamma radiation is usually quite deadly to both man and machine, one can't just say "well they're radiation-proof" and be done with it. You see, we can't make them radiation-proof without making them immobile, and what's the point in that?
closed account (N36fSL3A)
| gamma radiation can travel through quite the thick lead block. |
Gamma radiation will pass through anything you put in front of it. (Lead being the best/cheapest radiation blocker we have and commonly use.)
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12