Quote:
Originally Posted by Avocat 
Clearly, AI advances promise many benefits, but there are also dangers. While scientists dismiss as "fanciful fears about "singularity" "” the term used to describe the point where robots have become so intelligent they are able to build ever more capable versions of themselves without further input from mankind , ... (the reality is that) scientists are privately worried they may be creating machines which end up outsmarting "” and perhaps even endangering "” humans that they held a secret meeting to discuss limiting their research," as per an article in the Times.
In that article, entitled, "Scientists fear a revolt by killer robots: advances in artificial intelligence are bringing the sci-fi fantasy dangerously closer to fact," the Times reported of this as follows:
"The scientists who presented their findings at the International Joint Conference for Artificial Intelligence in Pasadena, California, last month fear that nightmare scenarios, which have until now been limited to science fiction films, such as the Terminator series, The Matrix, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Minority Report, could come true ... At (that) conference, held behind closed doors in Monterey Bay, California, leading researchers warned that mankind might lose control over computer-based systems that carry out a growing share of society's workload, from waging war to chatting on the phone, and have already reached a level of indestructibility comparable with a cockroach."
Moreover, Alan Winfield, a professor at the University of the West of England, stated:
"[S]cientists are spending too much time developing artificial intelligence and too little on robot safety. We're rapidly approaching the time when new robots should undergo tests, similar to ethical and clinical trials for new drugs, before they can be introduced," he said. See, http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle6736130.ece
Some examples include: robots which "learn" from their owners' behavior, open doors and also find outlets to plug themselves in and recharge in Japan, with unmanned, killer drones that can seek out and destroy enemy combatants while performing reconnaisaice/intelligence gathering missions on the battlefield already out of the movies and currently in use in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although these predator drones are currently human controlled, the US military is funding research and contests to create fully autonomous, AI devices, for obvious reasons and applications, with advances being made in that regard. South Korea's Samsung, for e.g., "has developed autonomous sentry robots to serve as armed border guards (with) "shoot-to-kill" capability ... (and which) could soon be used for policing, for example during riots such as those seen ... at the recent G20 summit".
Furthermore, major strides are being made-albeit still in its infancy--in equipping/programming robots with emotional computing. Also known as cognitive computing, experiments are well underway to study and convert emotional IQ (for lack of a better term) into programming, with "pet" robots already employed in child daycare. Programmed not only to entertain 2-year olds (similar to the Japanese pets) but also to tutor and teach humans; these "tutor bots" like Early Childhood educators interact with children, going so far as to attract kids to them by singing for e.g., thus learning which songs work and which don't (and if it does, then not to overdo it as singing the same thing gets boring overtime, or so these bots are/will for themselves and on their own learn), thus "reading" and autonomously interacting with their environment, which is unspoken, and adapting accordingly. To this end, there's already bots which are able to distinguish among humans. While cute and very beneficial (kids love learning from and playing with the robots, which are programmed to seek out and enjoy human interaction and (even) touching, striving to be the best ECE tutors and also play mates they can be), it's on its way to the next level. Efforts are underway to "teach" robots (programmed) to "read" and react to human emotions, including unspoken body language, facial expression, intimation and tone, in essence being "taught" to adapt to their environs, drawing from their experiences (collected data) and adjust as we do--i.e., programmed to seek for e.g. a smile or non-hostile response and learning how to elicit same, as opposed to anger, which on a very base level is what children and animals do, minus the chemical and hormonal responses, etc.). Various disciplines are working in collaboration on these and other projects right now (see, eg, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2247377/ ), albeit (it bears repeating) cognitive programming is still very much in its infancy; however, the US military and NATO forces are interested in bots that can learn how to react and find their way around autonomously in an unknown environment obviously, as noted.
To echo AB and others above, is this a good thing?
I fear, Blackfyre, that Isaac's Rules of Robotics may not be enough; although I most definitely agree with you and others that imparting programming rules are important (and well thought), fact is, lots can go wrong with the programming.
While it would be "easy" to dismiss out of hand attributing animistic and 'emotional' qualities to robots, I can't help but note that the scientists from every relevant discipline are not insofar as there's just too much than can go dangerously wrong. There are many answers to this, something as simple as 'programming' them to come to us for their power supply but we won't do it, kind of defeats the entire purpose of having autonomous bots and equipping them with cognitive programming in the first place (especially if for military and policing). Given this, and the dangers whether real or perceived, I agree with AB and all of you echoing the growing number of scientists who, logically and in increasing numbers are calling for tests on ethical and clinical grounds, which we do when introducing new pharmaceuticals.
Sadly, isn't likely to happen in California, though, in light of the Governator (boy did he terminate research funding and programs, and but good! ...
@ ImageWIS, and great discussion, everyone.
BTW, AB, I *really* hope the writers and producers for the upcoming Trek are reading your ideas for the reboot - they're good ones, and excellent questions/issues especially in light of all the above for our time as the arms race was for the 60s/TOS!!
In that article, entitled, "Scientists fear a revolt by killer robots: advances in artificial intelligence are bringing the sci-fi fantasy dangerously closer to fact," the Times reported of this as follows:
"The scientists who presented their findings at the International Joint Conference for Artificial Intelligence in Pasadena, California, last month fear that nightmare scenarios, which have until now been limited to science fiction films, such as the Terminator series, The Matrix, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Minority Report, could come true ... At (that) conference, held behind closed doors in Monterey Bay, California, leading researchers warned that mankind might lose control over computer-based systems that carry out a growing share of society's workload, from waging war to chatting on the phone, and have already reached a level of indestructibility comparable with a cockroach."
Moreover, Alan Winfield, a professor at the University of the West of England, stated:
"[S]cientists are spending too much time developing artificial intelligence and too little on robot safety. We're rapidly approaching the time when new robots should undergo tests, similar to ethical and clinical trials for new drugs, before they can be introduced," he said. See, http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle6736130.ece
Some examples include: robots which "learn" from their owners' behavior, open doors and also find outlets to plug themselves in and recharge in Japan, with unmanned, killer drones that can seek out and destroy enemy combatants while performing reconnaisaice/intelligence gathering missions on the battlefield already out of the movies and currently in use in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although these predator drones are currently human controlled, the US military is funding research and contests to create fully autonomous, AI devices, for obvious reasons and applications, with advances being made in that regard. South Korea's Samsung, for e.g., "has developed autonomous sentry robots to serve as armed border guards (with) "shoot-to-kill" capability ... (and which) could soon be used for policing, for example during riots such as those seen ... at the recent G20 summit".
Furthermore, major strides are being made-albeit still in its infancy--in equipping/programming robots with emotional computing. Also known as cognitive computing, experiments are well underway to study and convert emotional IQ (for lack of a better term) into programming, with "pet" robots already employed in child daycare. Programmed not only to entertain 2-year olds (similar to the Japanese pets) but also to tutor and teach humans; these "tutor bots" like Early Childhood educators interact with children, going so far as to attract kids to them by singing for e.g., thus learning which songs work and which don't (and if it does, then not to overdo it as singing the same thing gets boring overtime, or so these bots are/will for themselves and on their own learn), thus "reading" and autonomously interacting with their environment, which is unspoken, and adapting accordingly. To this end, there's already bots which are able to distinguish among humans. While cute and very beneficial (kids love learning from and playing with the robots, which are programmed to seek out and enjoy human interaction and (even) touching, striving to be the best ECE tutors and also play mates they can be), it's on its way to the next level. Efforts are underway to "teach" robots (programmed) to "read" and react to human emotions, including unspoken body language, facial expression, intimation and tone, in essence being "taught" to adapt to their environs, drawing from their experiences (collected data) and adjust as we do--i.e., programmed to seek for e.g. a smile or non-hostile response and learning how to elicit same, as opposed to anger, which on a very base level is what children and animals do, minus the chemical and hormonal responses, etc.). Various disciplines are working in collaboration on these and other projects right now (see, eg, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2247377/ ), albeit (it bears repeating) cognitive programming is still very much in its infancy; however, the US military and NATO forces are interested in bots that can learn how to react and find their way around autonomously in an unknown environment obviously, as noted.
To echo AB and others above, is this a good thing?
I fear, Blackfyre, that Isaac's Rules of Robotics may not be enough; although I most definitely agree with you and others that imparting programming rules are important (and well thought), fact is, lots can go wrong with the programming.
While it would be "easy" to dismiss out of hand attributing animistic and 'emotional' qualities to robots, I can't help but note that the scientists from every relevant discipline are not insofar as there's just too much than can go dangerously wrong. There are many answers to this, something as simple as 'programming' them to come to us for their power supply but we won't do it, kind of defeats the entire purpose of having autonomous bots and equipping them with cognitive programming in the first place (especially if for military and policing). Given this, and the dangers whether real or perceived, I agree with AB and all of you echoing the growing number of scientists who, logically and in increasing numbers are calling for tests on ethical and clinical grounds, which we do when introducing new pharmaceuticals.
Sadly, isn't likely to happen in California, though, in light of the Governator (boy did he terminate research funding and programs, and but good! ...
@ ImageWIS, and great discussion, everyone.BTW, AB, I *really* hope the writers and producers for the upcoming Trek are reading your ideas for the reboot - they're good ones, and excellent questions/issues especially in light of all the above for our time as the arms race was for the 60s/TOS!!
There used to be a time I read about a novel a day. The internet has made a 1000 words seem daunting.
Then, not much of a twitterite, I admit ... though some folks are addicted to it, I realize; then, one can say that of films also - where once films developed intricate characters and plots, utilizing brilliant dialogue, cinematography and story lines, we today have special effects. Hard to encapsulate the realities, both now and moving forward of AI in a sound byte much less a special effect/image, then, it's only the future we're talking about and scientists are writing voluminous dissertations and research papers on the subject (lots to digest, and 1000 words hardly does it justice, then, one can always just skim if they like, right? That said, your "twitter" comment is most pertinent (yeah, I've tried, but really don't find it all that useful ... much 
