Human robot relations

[tk102]

Thank you for the definition Ray Jones. Now i would like a defnition for what a robot is.

 

Eiganjo, you could look it up yourself.

 

Goodness, if we trusted Ray for everything...*shudder*

[Rev7]

I knoe this is not wiki, but...

ro·bot

Pronunciation: \ˈrō-ˌbät, -bət\

Function: noun

Etymology: Czech, from robota compulsory labor; akin to Old High German arabeit trouble, Latin orbus orphaned — more at orphan

Date: 1923

1 a: a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b: an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically

2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

3: a mechanism guided by automatic controls

[Jvstice]

So other than the cellular part, machines could be made to replicate all of those functions.

[John Galt]

Personally, I think true sentience should be the only qualifier for recognization of a "person." Simple, purpose-built labor machines are one thing, but self-aware artificial intelligences represent a massive ethical conundrum, the proper solution to which eludes me.

[Jvstice]

John Galt: Sentience seems a better standard and more relevant standard to apply than determining whether a machine has involved into an artificial life form (performs the functions of a living being; i.e. growth, reproduction, cellularity, ingestion, digestion, excretion, etc) to me too. Expecially since we already have technologies in the works that could be developed to mimic each of those functions other than being cellular.

 

example: it has been suggested to develop a method of self replication for nanites involved in organ or tissue repair, so that they could continue their functions indefinitely once the person they'd be injected into was restored to equilibrium health. They would be powering themselves from nutrients brought into their host. They would reproduce on their own once set up. Presumably there would be some waste product to be carried away by the blood stream of their host.

 

Such a construct would not be sentient, but would meet several of the definitions biologists classically give to living beings.

[Ray Jones]

Goodness, if we trusted Ray for everything...*shudder*

You mean like if someone trusted in me and made me mod and the LF total post count would drop to 37 because I thought I'd remove all non porn related posts or something? Hm. ^^

 

Thank you for the definition Ray Jones. Now i would like a defnition for what a robot is.

tk102 is right, Eiganjo, just enter "robot" into Wikipedia's search function for instance and you'll have a good starting point.

 

Is it a requirement for a robot to be made out of metal, or could a robot be produced out of organic material too?

My LEGO robot kit is pretty plastic made, except some cable and motor parts, and the electronics of course.

 

So current robots must, to some degree, consist of metallic components (at least their wires). But since they also must have electronic parts such as microchips they'll never be total metal made.

 

As for the use of organic materials, is not impossible. Especially since we have already made some steps into the field of bringing neural cells and microchips together. However, the total organic 'robot' is very, very far from what we can achieve today.

[swphreak]

I'm pretty sure once our Robot Overlords have taken over, there won't be any of this robot-human relationship/marriage nonsense.

 

 

And I get the feeling that if there is ever anything like in the article, the robots are just expensive, glorified sex toys. You can't marry a dildo. So, I doubt the government will recognize a "human-sexrobot marriage."

[SilentScope001]

Okay then.

 

Since it is rather likely that gay marriage will offically win the culture wars, it means that marriage is now the sole provision of whatever the state wants it to be. And if AI becomes advanced, you can be certain some will demand for the same rights us meaty organics have. So, I'm bumping this thread now and ask you this question:

 

Should Robots Have the Right To Marry Humans?

[Arcesious]

Robots simply aren't humans. They have no emotion, nothing, not even a bit of organics in them will change that. Just metal, wires, a few circuits, maybe some organic things, and programmed responses and adaptive programs. How exactly would anyone hope to truly make a robot sentient? AI is just that- Artificial. It's not real.

 

We don't know how to truly make a robot sentient, yet. And until the day comes when we do that, if ever- robots will not be sentient, not matter how advanced. They'll never understand love, until we can make something beyond programming.

 

(this topic is little bit ridiculous, IMHO.)

 

Edit: I will, however, change my position on this if I see solid proof of a truly sentient robot. I won't be a 'robot racist' if I see proof of a sentient robot.

[JCarter426]

You never took middle school hygiene! You never saw the propaganda film!

 

http://www.videosift.com/video/Futurama-Dont-Date-Robots

 

Don't date robots!

 

But back to more serious matters...

 

Should robots be able to marry? If they're as smart as humans, they should know better. The fact that you have to ask means that there's a chance they should be able to. And if there's a chance they should be able to, then odds are they will be able to, even if no one can prove it either way. Better safe than sorry.

[Arcesious]

Better safe than sorry.

 

I agree with that entirely. I've already devoted a lot of my time thinking each day to considering all possibilities in debates, life, and such by considering what could happen and how to properly avoid potential problems with it. For example, I used to want to totally confron my father over this whole agnosticism thing I've converted to, but then, considering that kind of thinking, and how I'd have to argue my point, I avoided doing so... It is smart to consider these kinds of things before they happen, but I think we're a long way off from giving robots sentience...

[Web Rider]

Robots simply aren't humans. They have no emotion, nothing, not even a bit of organics in them will change that. Just metal, wires, a few circuits, maybe some organic things, and programmed responses and adaptive programs. How exactly would anyone hope to truly make a robot sentient? AI is just that- Artificial. It's not real.

Define "real". Come on, try it. The surroundings you feel with your hands are just what your senses tell you, your senses are just electrical impulses relayed to the brain through neurons in your nerve endings. Through electrical shocks or stimulation, you can be made to think you've just eaten a steak that smelled like grapefruit.

 

And if a machine can stimulate your brain to smell fried chicken, then you have to question if the electrical impulses we all believe our brain is receiving even exist, for all we know, we could be really intricate parts of a computer program like the Sims. We may think we're sentient, but maybe we're not, maybe we're just programmed to think we are.

 

It's a forum about a sci-fi series, so bringing up another series shouldn't be too far off. Look at the new "skinjob" Cylons in Battlestar Galactica. For all intents and purposes, their "wires" and "tubes" are so "perfect" they're organic. The difference between them and "real" humans? one was built by a machine, the other was "grown" by humans.

[True_Avery]

Okay then.

 

Since it is rather likely that gay marriage will officially win the culture wars, it means that marriage is now the sole provision of whatever the state wants it to be. And if AI becomes advanced, you can be certain some will demand for the same rights us meaty organics have. So, I'm bumping this thread now and ask you this question:

 

Should Robots Have the Right To Marry Humans?

Same-sex marriage is winning the culture "war" because banning it goes against their privileges as a citizen of the United States of America. Marriage is a privilege that is being made equal because it is a privilege that is being denied to some people, but not others for no valid reason at all. It is being given to same-sex couples because by denying them that privilege, you are harming them by placing them into a minority and suppressing them.

 

It is not as simple as to say "marriage is now the sole provision of whatever the state wants it to be", because the states have good reason for why they are giving equality to a state created, suppressed human minority.

 

Machines do not fit into the constitution, the bill of rights, or anywhere else for that matter. Unless we create functioning A.I. on par to that of a human and legally classify it as a "living" human, your slippery slope example is irrelevant.

 

You would need to prove that not allowing these privileges to the machines is hurting them. It would need to feel emotional and probably physical pain, and would have to do it in a way that could be defined as pain on a "human level". How would we do that? We find it hard enough to make up our minds on the intelligence and emotional range of other animals.

 

But...

 

Should Robots Have the Right To Marry Humans?

The question is interesting.

 

Look how long it took for the United States to give women equal privileges.

Look how long it took for the United States to give colored people equal privileges.

Look how long it took for the United States to give same-sex couples equal privileges.

 

We have a hard enough time giving other living human beings equal privileges, no less machines. If a great deal of humanity regards colored people, woman, and gays/lesbians as sub-humans... why would we EVER accept equal privileges for machines, AI or not?

 

I'm not sure if it is a should, or should not question because I doubt it would ever happen. I believe the United States wont let people marry their animals. I believe the United States wont let people marry their toaster oven. I also believe the United States wont ever allow humans to marry a machine unless it just displayed an absolutely fantastic AI, and even then its a low chance.

 

We humans have a massive superiority complex over everything else, even each other. We are arrogant and selfish enough to make up our own gods to justify our assumed superiority over the living creatures of this world, even those of our own species... So, why would we back off and give human privileges to our toaster, even if it could think like us?

 

It may happen, but it probably wont.

 

Should it be allowed? Not my place to make that call, because I have not been in contact with said machines and neither has anybody else on this planet.

 

Marriage is -usually- a bond between two people over some sort of emotion. Greed, lust, envy, love, etc. When a machine desires marriage, I think we seriously need to sit back and consider what we have done.

 

And if a machine can stimulate your brain to smell fried chicken, then you have to question if the electrical impulses we all believe our brain is receiving even exist, for all we know, we could be really intricate parts of a computer program like the Sims. We may think we're sentient, but maybe we're not, maybe we're just programmed to think we are.

Everything is programmed to do everything it does. All animals, including humans, have programming... even if it is extremely basic programming. We're just, as you said, organic machines. But, strangely enough, human beings are born with an extreme little programming compared to most animals of this world. We are born very much tabula rasa, and society fills in the massive gaps in our knowledge.

 

But, unless we are hooked up to the Matrix, I think your example goes a little far in saying that our senses are lying to us. Unless you are stating that we are actual computer programs.

[Arcesious]

Define "real". Come on, try it. The surroundings you feel with your hands are just what your senses tell you, your senses are just electrical impulses relayed to the brain through neurons in your nerve endings. Through electrical shocks or stimulation, you can be made to think you've just eaten a steak that smelled like grapefruit.

 

And if a machine can stimulate your brain to smell fried chicken, then you have to question if the electrical impulses we all believe our brain is receiving even exist, for all we know, we could be really intricate parts of a computer program like the Sims. We may think we're sentient, but maybe we're not, maybe we're just programmed to think we are.

 

It's a forum about a sci-fi series, so bringing up another series shouldn't be too far off. Look at the new "skinjob" Cylons in Battlestar Galactica. For all intents and purposes, their "wires" and "tubes" are so "perfect" they're organic. The difference between them and "real" humans? one was built by a machine, the other was "grown" by humans.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm not going to be willing to accept machine sentience as a strong possibility until I see conclusive proof of it. See, thing is, this entire thread, and it's facts and opinions, are all mostly based on loose, unsolid theories. The most ridiculus theory beinh assuming that one day, we'll make machines so advanced that they're sentient. But we have no proof that we will ever truly make the them sentient.

 

Do you honestly want to conclude that it could be a likely possibility, based on on only one factor- human technological advancement? Just because we have potential in our future to become much more advanced, that doesn't guarentee that we'll make sentient robots. It's a fun fantasy to entertain, but it hsn't happened yet. I'll accept robot sentience only when I actually see proof of it, not on a hunch based on fictional TV shows/movies. See, we're jumping to conclusions here about this. We're overestimating how advanced we are/will be, and overestimating how advanced robots are/could or will be.

 

Thinking that we're in a matrix like situation- seriously... No one smart is going to beleive that without proof. Our knowledge and complex understanding of such possibilities is a factor against that, in some ways; and since there is no proof of that, why worry about it so much? I don't think any robots have been ruining my life, so if I am in a computer simulation, I don't honestly care, as long as I remain happy in it... Once I see some guys with machineguns come out of thin air or soemthing else really wierd, only then will I beleive the matrix theory as a strong possibility.

[Web Rider]

I'm not going to be willing to accept machine sentience as a strong possibility until I see conclusive proof of it. See, thing is, this entire thread, and it's facts and opinions, are all mostly based on loose, unsolid theories. The most ridiculus theory beinh assuming that one day, we'll make machines so advanced that they're sentient. But we have no proof that we will ever truly make the them sentient.

but we have no proof we won't. I'm sure in the middle ages they didn't believe we'd harness the power of the atom, much less that atoms existed. The idea that we will make sentient robots is simply based on the fact that people are trying and that technology is constantly advancing.

 

Do you honestly want to conclude that it could be a likely possibility, based on on only one factor- human technological advancement?

Since I believe most anything is possible if humanity works hard enough for it, yes.

 

Just because we have potential in our future to become much more advanced, that doesn't guarentee that we'll make sentient robots.

I thought we were talking about possibilities, not guarantees.

 

It's a fun fantasy to entertain, but it hsn't happened yet.

which would be why we're talking about future possibilities yes?

 

I'll accept robot sentience only when I actually see proof of it, not on a hunch based on fictional TV shows/movies.

Isn't that the idea? Robots aren't sentient now, but when they are, you'll say "ok"?

 

See, we're jumping to conclusions here about this.

no, not really.

 

We're overestimating how advanced we are/will be, and overestimating how advanced robots are/could or will be.

possibly, but it's the future, something we don't know about. maybe *diety* made us to make super-advanced robots.

 

Thinking that we're in a matrix like situation- seriously... No one smart is going to beleive that without proof.

Actually, the hypothesis was simply that saying that something is not "real" is not proof of existance.

 

Our knowledge and complex understanding of such possibilities is a factor against that, in some ways; and since there is no proof of that, why worry about it so much?

it was a hypothetical existential, anhd mostly rhetorical question.

 

I don't think any robots have been ruining my life, so if I am in a computer simulation, I don't honestly care, as long as I remain happy in it... Once I see some guys with machineguns come out of thin air or soemthing else really wierd, only then will I beleive the matrix theory as a strong possibility.

I never said it was a bad thing, only that our perceptions do not determine reality.

[Arcesious]

Ah, I see your points now. That makes sense.