/sci/ - Science & Math

I dont understand the hype
These machines are highly expensive and trash compared to any biological lifeform. There's nothing about them that gives any advantage. They still die to a bullet, they cost more to run, they aren't better at movement, they are energy inefficient and most importantly, they will never be equal in terms of athleticism. I do not believe it's a matter of tech, and I say this seeing the improvements over the years.
The base materials that they are made out of is simply inferior. It's not as good at movement, energy efficiency, or really anything else as carbon-based biological cells are. The fascination with them is a matter of tech fetishization.
You're never going to build a machine like these ones that move as well as a squishy biological animal, it's not a matter of time it's a matter of matter (lol). I dont get why so many people fetshize these metal machines when theyre worse in almost every way.

>>10073395
If I wasn't feeling lazy I'd take your post and convert it to be a 1900s luddite's rant about aeroplanes, but I'll just leave this implication instead.

>>10073395
I agree with all of that. But, they are more durable in the short term than biological materials. Long term, the biological materials can repair themselves while the non-biological ones can't. Manufacturing more biological ones is also far easier. They are their own factory for making more of themselves. they can merely eat materials to turn it into a new unit. Non-biological can't do that and will never be able to do that while being able to do anything else noteworthy.

>>10073406
I think you misunderstand exactly what the limits are for both AI and technology. You really need to get your head out of the sci-fi clouds and think clearly for stuff like this. Real world application is nothing at all like your imagination which is based on so many sci-fi versions.

>>10073406
Yes except it's not equivalent and your comparison is a sign of brainletism.
BTW, planes don't fly as efficiently as any animal, so it doesn't even work there, and land movement isn't as easy as movement through the air where there are no restrictions and you don't need to move around objects etc.
Sorry, you're wrong and your machines aren't ever going to make it.

>>10073414
>what the limits are for both AI
Anything a self-assembling 20 watt pile of goo can do a silicon chip can do too. It's just a matter of working through the details. That might take decades yet, but there is nothing fundamentally impossible about it.

>>10073425
>Anything a self-assembling 20 watt pile of goo can do a silicon chip can do too.
Nope, they are not isomorphic.
Besides, we are talking about movement and matter. You will never have metal that can more as gracefully as muscle and water, this is not a matter of limits of technology, it's just physics.

>>10073415
The reason aeroplanes cannot do everything biological platforms can is that biology relies on nanotech to do macroscopical things like propulsion while human built mechanisms are still constrained in macroscopic form. But your statement doesn't even make sense without specifying what "efficient" means.

Show me one fucking bird that can carry as much as a C5 Galaxy can. Or even the smallest of Cessnas.

>>10073432
a simple servo motor and a gearbox can move as gracefully as muscle and skin
>but only in one direction

>>10073432
>Nope, they are not isomorphic.
The silicon chip and its instruction set are Turing complete so yes, it can.

>>10073446
The reason muscle can do some niche shit that we can't do yet is because it's literally working at the molecular level, fuckface. There is no magic about it, just tedium

>>10073425
>20 watt pile of goo can do a silicon chip

That's science fiction, anon. You were told specifically to get your head out of that shit, but you shoved it right back in so you could spew normie non-sense.

>>10073454
No, the reason it can is because the bonds between the atoms of these things simply make different structures that you will never get using other materials. It has nothing to do with the size or anything like your fantasies, it's just chemistry.
Different atoms and molecules made from those atoms have different properties that you can not substitute. It's just chemistry and physics.

>>10073444
Can the C5 Galaxy grow back some of its panels if it loses them or shed them when they are a bit too worn or old? A bird replenishes its feathers all the time to make sure it is in tip top shape.

>>10073468
And? That doesn't mean we will never be able to manufacture them retard. Just because you can find a naturally sharpened rock doesn't mean sharpening other rocks to be sharp is somehow invalid.
>>10073473
How is that relevant?
>technology at this point in time cannot yet do every single thing some living organism can do therefore it's useless

I hope this is all lazy baiting because the only alternate conclusion is that you are retarded.

Humanoide robots are useless, Honda cancelled Asimo and Google sold Boston Dynamics. Except for cool looking 30 second internet videos they are good for absoluetely nothing.

>>10073491
>That doesn't mean we will never be able to manufacture them retard.
Except it literally does. You will never make nitrogen as conductive as copper, you will never make iron as squishy as carbon, you will never make helium as ready to bond as hydrogen.
Learn how the universe works, dude. You can not substitute any element for any other, this is not how it works. The metals and fibers have advantages and disadvantages to muscle and proteins, they can not be worked around they are to be accepted and utilized for their advantages.
Energy efficiency and graceful movement are not the advantages, and they NEVER will be.

>>10073491
>strengthn discussion points established earlier
>refute anon's argument point
>anon regresses to "troll trolly troll troll" as reply
>spews out yet more ignorance

You are out of your depth and pretending to know it all, yet it is from a science fiction perspective to top it off. Just fuck off. This is, "/sci/ - Science & Math," not, "/sci-fi/ - Science Fiction & Fantasy."

>>10073496
Humanoids are good for using things that humans already use without needing to have two separate things for robots and humans. That's all. They are only good for things humans can't do as fast or can't work in the location due to hazards. Even then humans are controlling waldos and they are not fully AI controlled.

>>10073331
>Dur chunks of carbon meat can make minds but silicon can’t because carbon iz magic

How much do they pay the shills to pretend robots won’t replace us?

>>10073395
the main benefit to AI and robots in general is training time.

for a robot or AI to learn how to perform a task might take a long time, but once any one of them learns how to do it, they can teach others in seconds. Humans on the other hand, it takes decades to teach each other how to do the same task.

Humans might learn how to do new/novel tasks faster than robots/ai, but robots and ai can share their knowledge quicker than any human ever will.

>>10073395
>I don't understand the hype.
>I don't understand.

See, there are people like you, who could easily destroy these machines with your vast intellect and there are people who know how to counter your intellect with overwhelming tactical superiority.

:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt5M2iJPFWk

>>10073414

>Long term, the biological materials can repair themselves while the non-biological ones can't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8KWutzdO0

>Long term, the biological materials can repair themselves while the non-biological ones can't.

Lol.

>>10073580
Literally a true statement.

>>10073593
Not even the same thing.

>>10073594
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
The butt hurt is real!

>>10073594
Carbon......is magic? You aren’t serious, are you?

>>10073598
No, carbon has different physical properties that other elements dont, just like other elements have physical properties that carbon doesnt.
This is literally just chemistry, you calling it magic makes you look like a retard

>>10073598
He is only partly correct. All materials have certain 'magical' properties.

>>10073603
>Literally a true statement.

>you calling it magic makes you look like a retard

You’ve contradicted yourself, and now look like a retard. Congrats.

Please name the characteristic of carbon that allows it to mystically give rise to consciousness that inorganic matter lacks.

>>10073606
I'm not >>10073594
I don't give a shit about computation, my argument is with the virgin who's saying that you can ever make robots that will move as gracefully as organic lifeforms.
It will never happen it's not a matter of time.

>>10073606
That can be true for steel and silicon and virtually every other element depending on the gravitational field around it.

:DDDDDDDDD

>>10073589
When I say "i don't understand the hype" I mean "I understand the underlying principles and I understand why these things will never be equivalent and therefore I don't understand why virgins has such a hard one for these inferior machines".

>>10073609
Depends on what qualifies as a robot. Could use some kind of fiendish genetically engineered synth-flesh.

>>10073606
Also, particle physics. That is what allows it to compute. Then sensory input data and complex electron data structures. The true secret to making a "golem" if you will, with free will, lies in the algorithms that govern it's calculation.
In short, you actually CAN encapsulate a soul made of pure math.

>>10073617
Souls and free will aren’t things.

>>10073604
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmS0Q7jTPsk

wait, is that material literally lighter than air, or just moving with air currents? how? are the nano-tubes so thin they don't allow air molecules to enter, essentially creating a lighter than air vacuum balloon

>>10073620
When I say "soul" it's a metaphor for a being capable of free will. Free will does exist. For example, within a set limit of data, a being aware of the data from beginning to end can choose many paths within it, despite the end being the same, the minor paths within the main system ARE the free choices made by the aware individual.

>>10073331

>OP only realized now that captcha is just labeling for google supervised training.

Do you think it's a coincidence that they are developing autonomous cars and you see captcha of street signs, cars and streets all the time?

Once they are done with that they'll move to somethign else, like they moved from character recognition before. You are just working as a human labeler for them for free.

>>10073624
There are no actual choices. It’s an illusion of choice ultimately based on the current and past states of molecules.

>>10073622
Yes. Thin enough strands actually float.
O_o

>>10073331

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTQTm7vNbY

If only you knew the amount of work being put in making autonomous drones.

Imagine a swarm of these.

Now imagine a swarm of american military drones.

>>10073626
Assume a consciousness can know the beginning and end of a system though. If a collection of molecules can see the final destination of its collective being.

The end of this universe for example. Then it is capable of making a decision/decisions, albeit narrowing in complexity at a peak point.

However, P=NP will prove if this is indeed the case.

>>10073636
You cannot know when this universe is going to end. There is no constant you can infer or refer to!

>>10073640
^-^

>>10073643
No. NO. You do not fuck me over like this and leave me with blue balls. You tell me what you know NOW you smug animu posting piece of shit! YOU TELL ME IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU KNOW. TELL ME DAMN IT!

>>10073636
>>10073640
>>10073643
>>10073648

>>10073395
he doesnt understand that the hype is all about the data they can collect and calculations they can do at mere milliseconds. think you could program this thing to read your body micro movements and then act upon this it would matter about its weakness if it knew what you were going to do before you do it

>>10073683
>>10073648

Do not delude yourself.
All things have a beginning and an end. Even this universe herself, however, I did not say that about any OTHER universe.

>>10073357
I'm dead

>>10073732
>mfw

>>10073732
Even then, they don't have to have causality and original causality doesn't need to exist at all or can happen later.

>>10073732
>All things have a beginning and an end.

No, that is a delusion brought on because of life and death of humans.

>herself

You are tipping your hand now.

>>10073788
>Ignores virtually every other example of entropy.

This universe will collapse. I am telling you. The forces it is generating will eventually fizzle out. However the radius of electromagnetic attraction between mass increases as temperature decreases thus when the temperature reaches infinite low it will have a radius of infinite attraction and the mass collapses again. (With possible explosive results)

Also, yes. Her. As in the birth mother of all creation. Or you can view it as "him" as in the maker of us through robotic ingenuity, however even a universe is likely small to a god. So why not make it female? Either way, it is and so is entropy. Watch it burn.

>>10073331
>emp blacks your path
Heh, nothin personnel

>>10073923
That's science fiction. It is pretty easy to shield against such things.

>>10073609
>my argument is with the virgin who's saying that you can ever make robots that will move as gracefully as organic lifeforms.
they can move MORE gracefully,
No material or shape in the human body is the optimal solution for any task, nor for a generalized being.

Make THE exact same structure as the human body, make the bones out of titanium, make muscles out of carbon fiber, make nerves out of optical fiber, make tendons, skin and circulatory system out of kevlar, and modify cells to carry the corresponding elements to where you want them.

Bam, instant superior human. and a human being is not by any longshot the most efficient shape you can givce those materias

>>10073357
I am dying.

>>10073357
woah, this should be investigated as a launch vehicle cause my sides are now in orbit

>>10074233
>they can move MORE gracefully,

Robots? Are you on drugs?

>Make THE exact same structure as the human body

You can't. The materials do not work or function the same.

>make the bones out of titanium

Which isn't the exact same as the human body. Bones can flex to a certain degree, titanium is brittle.

>make muscles out of carbon fiber

That's now how carbon fiber even works. The muscle is the motor that produces the work.

>all the rest

You prove to know nothing about either biology or materials science.

>>10074273
>Robots? Are you on drugs?
nopey nope, im correctly correct beating all over you. are you wrong? dont answer, the answer is yes little boy

objective science fact science fact objective truth question:

Can robots move more gracefully?

objective science fact science fact objective truth answer:

Yes, yes they can, it is possible (which is the meaning of the word can)

forever ever ever answered you cannot literally cannot say anyhting unless youw ant to confirm with each letter you type that you want to prove youre inferior

>>10074273
>Which isn't the exact same as the human body. Bones can flex to a certain degree, titanium is brittle.
nopey nope, make a bone out of titanium it will withold all force that you impart on the same bone bone madfe out of boen
>>10074273
>That's now how carbon fiber even works. The muscle is the motor that produces the work.
muscle is ropes that contracts, carbon fiber is stronger and can contract on electric impulse
>>10074273
>You prove to know nothing about either biology or materials science.
the only thing i dont know about is this stupid fad of yours of literally saying the opposite of what actually is (which is that i know more)

>>10073331
Technology more advanced than the Daleks.

>>10073395
It's very expensive to train animals to do what we want, even then trained animals aren't always reliable. Animals have expensive upkeep costs and cannot operate in extreme environments. It is particularly difficult to send a trained animal to another planet because of the need for food and air. If you don't mean animals and wish to make robots out of biological cells, we cannot make animals or body parts to order. We cannot even keep disembodied body parts alive for all that long.

>>aren't better at movement
We don't understand movement. Once we understand movement then we can start designing them to be more efficient. And in fact it is possible to be more efficient than biological systems. Electric motors are 90% efficient while muscles are 30% efficient

>>10074303
>>10074309
Christ you are a fucking popsci idiot.

>>10074446
They fly.

>>10074452
>even then trained animals aren't always reliable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usrKK4FqiVg

What is research for 5$ you retards

>>10074446
The Daleks can levitate. They just float to the top of stairs.

>>10074483

>>10074477
Nobody is saying that the technology is perfect right now. It's the potential in the near future that people are excited about.

>>10074492
The main problem here will be power density of their power supplies.

>>10074233
>Make THE exact same structure as the human body, make the bones out of titanium, make muscles out of carbon fiber, make nerves out of optical fiber, make tendons, skin and circulatory system out of kevlar, and modify cells to carry the corresponding elements to where you want them.
It would not even be close to the organic counterpart.

>>10073432
>>You will never have metal that can more as gracefully as muscle and water,
define gracefully
>>this is not a matter of limits of technology, it's just physics.
which physics?
>>10073454
And why does working at a molecular level make things more graceful? Unless you're making an octopus, contraction of muscles results in rotation of a joint. One can create the same motion using rotary electric actuators and other mechanisms. Could the following not be considered more graceful?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m76NmLypo1I
>>10073468
>>Different atoms and molecules made from those atoms have different properties that you can not substitute
and pray tell, what are these properties you cannot substitute?
>>10073504
>>you will never make iron as squishy as carbon
in general graphite is not very squishy. You can make iron quite squishy by making it into a foam, or even better a structured microlattice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACXe6iQFI6U

>>10074273
>>titanium
>>brittle
No. Does pic related look brittle to you? You prove to know nothing about materials science.

>>10074477
that's a problem that can be fixed with engineering we understanding relatively well.

This makes way more sense to leave most of the computing these guys need in the cloud. Especially if they will need to make a cooperating strategy or something else high-level.

Materials are not interchangeable in terms of their physical capabilities. You can't just replace bones with titanium, for instance, and expect the resulting structure to be "superior" to what biological organisms naturally use.

However, it's also disingenuous to state that existing biological materials and structures are an end-point. It's questionable whether you can produce an entity of inorganic design that is as capable of awareness and thought as most mammals, let alone humans; it's unlikely any suite of materials and inorganic nanotechnologies could reach the same capacity for autonomous regeneration and replication seen in carbon-based life. But nevertheless, there are countless useful materials and structures humans have discovered that are *not* naturally found in life. Carbon is the wonder-element, but life does not remotely take full advantage of its capabilities or that of other materials; titanium is not suitable to replace bone, but titanium is a material with advantages and drawbacks that might be used to supplement bone for certain purposes. Silicon-based computers might not produce a mind as we know it, but the same structures and materials could be integrated into biological brains to produce something with much greater capabilities.

Wheel-based locomotion is not something we've observed evolution is capable of producing, and yet it's an extremely efficient design that humans were able to discover and exploit for a variety of purposes from the very beginnings of civilisation. Humans have and will continue to discover structures and designs more efficient than what nature has developed by evolution; the same applies to our material sciences. Why does it matter whether or not our inorganic materials are capable of producing a certain vision of robotics when we can also use organic technologies with proven capabilities? Is a robot that uses meat and blood within its design -- whether to a small or large degree -- any less of a robot?

>>10073331
What you described is an old idea called cloud robotics. Computing power is nice, but one of the main advantages is learning good responses from all the data you have coming in and being able to keep track of all the responses you ever have. For example, computer voice assistants could potentially be run locally, but aren't because it's google or amazon can continuously learn from all responses people ask their voice assistants. That and they have engineers help the voice assistants. Robots could do similar things, now instead of having a robot learn on it's own how to pick up a can it can just look up how to do so online. The problem is that is is basically the biggest privacy violation ever aside from streaming your thoughts to google. A robot would not only stream sensor data to the cloud like what it sees or hears, but could also move so as to gather more information for these services. Do you really want to have amazon, google, or some other tech company running a robot with 3d object recognition in your house?

>>10074571
>You can't just replace bones with titanium, for instance, and expect the resulting structure to be "superior" to what biological organisms naturally use.
yes, yes you can. materials engineer here. There are a lot of wonder materials which are better in every fucking way, titanium is one of them.

That's why you cant make wooden spaceships. I love how you talk about materials like some sort of left wing poet "ohh, its not interchangeable, le every material is different"

yes yes they are, materials have a set of defined numerical known physical properties that are hard numbers discovered by smart people and written in serious books, it doesnt care about your "lel every material is different" delusions.

so its a simple matter, please ploxy ploxy plooooooxiuuss pleasi please stateinform what objective characteristic that can be measured by a number of physics (real physics of serious people, non invenitng please)

tensiles strenght? titanium is better, compression force? titanium wins. what? in which axcpet is titan lower than boner

>>10074524
Compared to healthy bone, yes, very brittle.

>>10074571
>it's unlikely any suite of materials and inorganic nanotechnologies could reach the same capacity for autonomous regeneration and replication seen in carbon-based life.
bullshit. Why wouldn't sufficiently advanced molecular nanotechnology be able to regenerate or replicate? And why should we only make inorganic nanotechnology? Carbon and hydrogen are pretty useful, why would we exclude them in our nanotechnology. In addition, many systems don't need to self-heal or replicate. Industrial robot arms are good for more than 10 years of continuous operation, after which one can probably buy a better robot arm.

>>10074531
If that were true.... lol nevermind, kid.

>>10074599
prove this is not the case.

>>10074583
>The problem is that is is basically the biggest privacy violation ever aside from streaming your thoughts to google

You've heard of these things called, "smartphones," right?

>>10074600
...it would have happened already.

>>10074598
>molecular nanotechnology

Sci-fi. That is shit you tell your investors and never deliver after ten years. then you tell them something else for 10 more years of fun mon....funding money.

>>10074603
Smartphones aren't streaming 3d sensor data continuously, neither are smartphone's capable of independent motion.
>>10074606
Why would it have happened already? It takes time for technology to improve does it not?

>>10074610
If you haven't heard, artificial molecular machines are starting to become a thing now. We aren't able to make very complicated ones, but this is enough that we're starting to see useful applications for them. Now this doesn't seem like much, but artificial molecular machines are being used to relieve stress in lithium ion batteries with silicon electrodes.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i30/Polymer-pulleysboost-Li-ion-battery.html

>>10074595
which bone? You gotta a stress strain curve you want to compare to?

>>10074588
You're a retard. I never said that all materials are equal. You're blowing it out of proportion because I attacked the idea that you can just replace bone with titanium and get something at least as good (an idea that I'm guessing was yours, you arrogant sperg bitch). No one ever asserted that you can make "wooden spaceships", or that titanium isn't an exceptionally strong material. The point is that you can't replace bone with titanium 1:1 and expect the same results. You would have to radically change the design of the structure/"skeleton" and introduce hypothetical nanotechnologies capable of emulating the self-repair and growth capabilities seen in organic matter; that's the most critical shortcoming of titanium compared to bone. We ALREADY HAVE titanium alloys with properties far superior to bone in other respects, like carbotanium, but the point was always in relation to actual biology and designing robots that shared the most important qualities of biological organisms, you mouth breathing shit guzzling neanderthal reject cock brained insect man.

Fix your fucking English.

>>10074598
Did you bother reading what I said, dumbass? Organic nanotechnology is by far going to be the most productive and fruitful branch of nanotechnology we'll develop, that's the entire point. No other element is as useful as carbon is in terms of producing self-regenerating or replicating systems like what we see in biological life, and that's going to extend to the nanotechnology we develop in trying to surpass the "nanotechnology" of natural life.

Self-healing and replication are the holy grail for a reason. It's not *just* self-healing and replication, it's the same kind of elasticity and adaptability and robustness, the figuratively "organic" quality of organic life; it's what makes organic systems so superior to inorganic ones, what allows an organism to operate in analog where our computers and robots are forced to operate in complex digital.

>>10074651
all that words and you havent provided a single numerical number or objective fact to prove your argument. You must be studying literature probably because of numbers you dont know shit

>>10074651
>Self-healing and replication are the holy grail for a reason. It's not *just* self-healing and replication, it's the same kind of elasticity and adaptability and robustness, the figuratively "organic" quality of organic life; it's what makes organic systems so superior to inorganic ones, what allows an organism to operate in analog where our computers and robots are forced to operate in complex digital.

imagine this, it would be so fucking revolutionary.

nowadays you have to bully a trillion teens into wasting their golden years to get a degree constantly, skip like 5 years of that and say a factorie that makes tv stops working, many times it stops working forever

but imagine an organic factory, it just keeps doing it by itself, future of laying ont he couch while robots bring me things that i enjoy and like HERE WE UFCKIN GO

>>10074598
>>No other element is as useful as carbon is in terms of producing self-regenerating or replicating systems like what we see in biological life
No other planet except earth is as capable as producing life. We only know this to be the case, because the only life we know is made of carbon. Other self-replicating chemistries might exist using elements aside from carbon, or even the elements that biology traditionally uses
>> it's the same kind of elasticity and adaptability and robustness
silicone polymer can be pretty flexible and robust without containing any carbon. We really shouldn't get too attached to any single set of elements when making technology that doesn't exist. A great example of how inorganic materials could be useful is that we can realize many of the stiff rigid structures we want to make out of diamonoid with iron sulfide. Iron sulfide is quite stiff, meaning that it should be possible to construct positioning systems from iron sulfide who's thermal positional uncertainty is less than that of an atom. However, unlike diamonoid iron sulfide can be produced in an aqueous solution at basically room temperature.

>>what allows an organism to operate in analog where our computers and robots are forced to operate in complex digital.
Analog isn't any simpler than digital. We use digital computers because we understand how to engineer digital computers that do the things we want. We can make quite complicated analog circuits, We do not understand how what brains or brain cells do, making them pretty damn hard to copy.

>>10074678
sure it's great and all, but how are you going to do it? Why should an organic factory be any more reliable than current factories? Also if you mean organic as in living, I must remind you that organisms tend to die or get cancer.

>>10074666
I'M NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. I'm saying the simple fact that titanium isn't bone. I'm saying that we can't make titanium behave like biological matter yet, if ever.

>>10074692
>Why should an organic factory be any more reliable than current factories?
Imagine a tree that instead of fruits gives out smartphones. Then imagine a synthetic person with low intelligence who gets an orgasm each time the tree gets tended. Tehre you have why its superior

>>10074692
>I must remind you that organisms tend to die or get cancer.
that is a stupid argument made popular by people who dont use their own reasoning.

Cancer and death is a result of badly programmed and copying errors. Once you have that level of biological editation it is trivial to include a failsafe that ensure that the genetic code of whatever you made will never change unless you want to.

Seriously, say for example one of your artificial cells is required to get together with 20 others and check bit by bit that its genetic code is flawless or it cant reproduce. If you turned the entire matter of the universe into that cell the possibilities of even a single error ever happening are less than 0.0001%

>>10074695
>I'm saying that we can't make titanium behave like biological matter yet, if ever.
bone isn't biological matter, it's rock, its dead it has no living cells inside, not inside the strucutral part, like hair and nails, once its done its dead. Just teach the cells to build out of titanium rather than boend

>>10074745
>>Imagine a tree that instead of fruits gives out smartphones.
and how do you make a tree that gives out smartphones? After all the materials used in smartphones like glass, metal, lithium, semiconductor grade silicon, are quite different that anything found in biology.
>>Once you have that level of biological editation it is trivial to include a failsafe that ensure that the genetic code
Do you have any evidence that this would be the case? Perhaps this level of biological editing and engineering is impractically far off.
>>check bit by bit that its genetic code is flawless or it cant reproduce.
in general, biology consists of a bunch of chemicals randomly bouncing around. This means that biology is noisy. Such check operations will either need to permit errors(causing cancer) or make cell replication incredibly slow due to the long amount of time it takes to average out the noise. In addition, even if we have DNA error checking our artificial organism can still die if errors accumulate faster than cells replicate. After all, a single error in the DNA would mean that the cell wouldn't be able to copy right?
>>10074749
>>Just teach the cells to build out of titanium rather than boend
and how would you do that? This is particularly difficult to do as titanium reacts with water and air and it is quite difficult to reduce titanium oxides to titanium.

>>10074695
If you mean self healing, what you could do is make a lattice structure from titanium blocks that you have little robots run around in. Whenever the lattice gets damaged the robots go in, remove the broken blocks, and replace them with new ones.

>>10074749
>bone isn't biological matter, it's rock, its dead it has no living cells inside

>>10074795
what happens when the little robots break down?

>>10074808
you have the rbbots tow out broken ones as waste and feed the structure new ones as nutrients.

>>10074782
dont give me that complex stuff bro, we just need it to run without human effort.

how do factories work now? with humans. what is the impediment to making something exactly like a human only it has no will for anything but work, for us. Just program it different, remove desire

>>10074810
why isnt anyone attempting this. The only "self replicating machine" i saw were shitty obviously meme projects that would never achieve absolute self replications, why isnt the military spending billions of dollars on this?

whoever does it has cornucopia techonology,

imagine this, you achieve a self replicating factory that can make every appliance. woah, you jsut have cornucopia technology of all the products, instant international capitalism win for ever. Like, no matter what happens you have ensured quality of life for everyone in your country, instant game changer, why not do it, also whoever does it first has inmenser power

>>10074816
>>why isnt anyone attempting this. The only "self replicating machine"
MIT is doing this: http://cba.mit.edu/docs/papers/17.04.11.SelfAssemSpacecraft.pdf
They're doing a fair amount of work on robots made of blocks that can put together robots made of blocks.

>>10074822
whats the veredict so far? bue like, not for spacecraft, for absolute fabricmanufacturing ofa ll.

like, robots made of blocks? sure, who makes those robots alloys, who makes its servos and minicomponents, tahts what i wanta nkow

>>10074816
because what you're proposing is pure sci fi bullshit no one has any idea how to actually do?

>>10074834
haha?= do you like being obejctively wrong?

does factory exist? yes

does human exist? yes

huamn +factory =work yes

theoretical limit to making a robot as close to possible as a human but not etical problems of exploiting him? yes

prooven that i whooped your ass in our intellectual battle:overflown with positivenes that its true yes

>>10074829
>>who makes those robots alloys, who makes its servos and minicomponents
Assembly is the most difficult step and they haven't demonstrated that their block robot is viable. To be viable they need it to make at least two children before breaking down. Once they demonstrate viability then they can consider having the robots make their own blocks, which with a little bit of effort they can probably do. It shouldn't be too hard to make something to make their actuator blocks by winding coils and putting sub blocks together out of the blocks they have. Then they can move on to figuring out how to process raw materials. They've done quite a bit of work on making stuff you wouldn't even think of from blocks like pressure vessels, but one of their best results is that they can make damn near any passive circuit element from some of there electronics blocks. This eliminates the need for a large electronics production system, at the expense of making some components quite big(pic related):
http://cba.mit.edu/docs/papers/16.07.msec.stapler.pdf

>>10074843
>ost difficult step and they haven't demonstrated that their block robot is viable. To be viable they need it to make at least two children before breaking down. Once they demonstrate viability then they can consider having the robots make their own blocks, which with a little bit of effort they can probably do. It shouldn't be too hard to make something to make their actuator blocks by winding coils and putting sub blocks together out o
woah this is very serious shit, if it works it could be the next big thing.

Go to a fucking island with a couple of containers fille dwith these fucking blocks, or even just the ores to make them.

2)-you suddenly have a factory of stuff in a remote island wihtout having to have taken workers there. i hope im alive when it hapens

>>10074851
A better application is building a factory in space. All the spaceships, space stations, and space probes we need are already in orbit, they're just in the wrong shape. Because MIT just vacuums up funding, NASA occasionally funds them to to use block tech to build stuff in space. Because at the very least blocks could unfold into a much bigger structure than any unfolding structure we could fit in a rocket. So yeah it's exciting, but don't wet your panties just yet there's still quite a bit of work that needs to be done. You have no idea just how much funding they are pulling up though, it's insane.

>>10074867
>but don't wet your panties just yet there's still quite a bit of work that needs to be done
doesnt matter, its not work that has to be done by me and ill get to watch the results on youtube while stoned. win-win.

>>10074867
>You have no idea just how much funding they are pulling up though, it's insane.
more than 200 apollo programs?

>>10074842
time for you to either take your meds or read an actual book on science

>>10073604

You not understanding their properties isn't magic.

>>10073357
why does the robot wag its tail

>>10073395
do you know how many biological processes and tissues that can be completely removed by even a simple robot? the advantage of adaptation isn't in their artificiality; it's in everything else. artificiality actually is a problem that will be present later.
>>10073585
for basic operations you're right, but with regards to the complex operations mirrored in robots/AI, it would shorten the time significantly, but not to such an extreme degree at all. I'd say the real strength is in distributed robot networks, but everyone's afraid of skynet even though it's not the same thing at all. each network would be limited in processing power relative to the number of units present.

>>10073732
There's no other universe, just this one, same starting conditions, same end result, every time, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over͟ a̡nd o̵v͟er ͠and ͘o͡v͜e̡r and o̡v̨er ͔̗̰̫̩̬͉͞a̹̠͉̹n̷̙̻d̡̳͔̰̯͕ ̬̜̬̝̙o̮̤̮͎͓̹ͅv̝̰̮̜̺͈e̤̭ŕ̬̭̥̺̞̱ ̣̼̻́a̟̞n̳d̰̳͕ o͍̠̫̦v͈͙̮̦̙e̡̺r͔̞̼̺ ̺̻̯ań͍d̩̮͉͘ ̠̱̝̦͎̟͎o̗̱v̰ḙ͚͇̖̻̺̭r̡̬͕ ̹͟a̷̮͚̞ͅn̦͍̝d̬̜̤̙̬͈͔ ̼o͜v̨̹͖̰̜̯̱e͓̬r̙ ͔̤̪̬á̻̥̙ͅn̠d̜͇̘͚̻͘ ̛̼̙͇͉o̧̗̘̞v̨̺͕͙̳̖͇er̴ ̞̻̞͎̠a͔̪̜ṉ̸ͅd͙̫ ͇̖̙̘o̙̺̳v̤̙̯͍è͓̘r̞ ̢̥͉̜̬͍͍̬a̳̪̩̟͠n͞d̢͓͉̟͇͍̟ o̜̥̞̟̼̭v̩͙̹̤eŕ̬̹̖̬̯̳ ̜̼͉͚̳ḁ͚̖̼̻n̹͚͕̫̟ḏ̸͎̫̱̞̮ͅ ̛̱̝ͅo͈̼͚͈̘̺͍v͍͡e̬̱̰̻̪r̙͓͕͕͖͈̯͓̰͔̬̥̞̕a̶̻͚͔̹̺̻̩n̸̗̝͍̩̪͈̕d̨̟͍̠̜̤͚ ̬̫̱̻̮̮̰o̸̤͖̫͇̰͔͟v͉̜̺͙̬̟͈͠͞ͅe̶̴̮̬̣̤̞̦̩ŕ̗͚̤͙̠̙̦̠ ̻̹̝͘͝a̸̘͈̞͚̺ń̷̟̦̹̬̖̪̺͘d̶̶̠͡ ̷̻͇͚͔̤͚̭o͉͉͙͠v̥̗̝̼̳̫͈͞è̮̠̞̣͡r̵̴̝̘̟̦͉͓̝ ̙̠͍a̰n̴̡͎̱͔͖̘̜͇͔͈d̸̷̨̤͇̮͉͙͚̗ͅ ̵͚͈̘̪͔̞͈o̖̦̝̯͔̫͢v͔̮̜̫͔͖̙̻̰e̢̘̹͚ŕ̟̟ ͔̳͓̟̖͇͠a̼̹̝̘͇ͅn̸̩̭͟d͙͚̰͚̝̩͙̱ ̵͎̰̦͍̯̩̣͞ͅo̹̠̻̰̟̞͡v̫͍̘ͅe͓̖̯̩͈̳r̪̱ ͈a̴̭͚̘̯̭͇̣̕ͅn̟̭͉d̛̥͕̀͟ ̧̹̱̦̟̠̬͈o͉̤͍v̪̕͘e̷̜͓ͅŕ̴̤̰͎̥̰͚̺͞ ̡̞͓̭͕̤̣̙̬a̰̕n̶̠̣̦̥d̛͕̱̼̰̬̦ͅ ̸̖̺͙̣͔̖̩o̹̻̠̜͇̺̠v̵̧̖̭ḙ̹̗ͅr͉̩͇̪̻̙̻̬̀͜

>>10074935
Fact that you understand and can interact with them doesn't mean it's not magic, but that you're a magician.

>>10073357

Wholesome.

>>10075031
>'same'
that means nobody would be able to tell you, because he's remembered everything in before universe and in after universe is same.

>>10073395
I've read all your replies and what's your hard on for biological matter? We're fetishizing tech, you're doing the same thing for biological matter. You realize we're technologically here after only a few years compared to the billions it took organic matter to get this intelligent?

And here:
>>10073473
What is this mess of a post? A 747 can last 30 years and your shitty bird lasts half that long in the wild or less (sorry bird). That's a complete side point though; you have such a hard on for birds getting their feathers back that you forget that birds have no intrinsic purpose besides reproduction, unlike a plane (which by the way is a billion times more efficient at carrying weight than a bird is) whose purpose is transport. You're comparing apples to oranges and acting like you're right.

Tech is better at making cars. Humans are being laid off. Tech is better than vibration engineers. They were all laid off for software. Tech is better for a billion individual things and it's only getting better at those individual things. You have a hard on for replication for some reason and that's TOTALLY not the argument. You say "there's nothing Scott them that gives any advantage" while literally MILLIONS of jobs have been replaced by them.

I'm sure you're going to deflect off the fact that machines replace MILLIONS of humans at this point, let me say that again. MACHINES. GIVE. ADVANTAGES. YOU. MORON. Economies are literally suffering for reasons that prove you're wrong.

Moron...

>>10075074
>>10073395
And one more thing to make sure the point is really hit home. I know you're gonna say "yeah but I'm just arguing the base materials aren't as good :c"

Good at what? Building cars? Because your shitty arms can't lift a chassis, but a ton of steel can. Looks like you lost your materials argument because you forget life isn't about reproduction or grace anymore. Get your head out of the clouds, you're in worse ones than sci-fi.

The problem with you transhumanist fags is that you're always Dunning-Kruger as fuck when it comes to the biological details, all because you attended a few lectures about materials science and that makes you an expert all of a sudden. Well, lemme tell you something: you CANNOT substitute one component or aspect in a biological system for another, 'better' component and expect everything to be fine and dandy like you can in a car, or a computer. Cars and computers are designed from the ground up, with modularity and upgradeability in mind. Ergo, they can be upgraded, and things can be swapped in and out. This fundamental assumption does not apply to biology; the design paradigm is fundamentally different. Biology is basically pure randomness trying to minmax physics over the course of millenia. Ergo, everything plays into everything else, everything complements everything else. There are no discrete systems beyond what arbitrary distinctions we impose in order to better compartmentalize and understand. Sure, titanium is better than bone at bearing loads and withstanding stresses. That's true, and you know that thanks to your materials science education. What you're too stupid to understand is that it's worse than bone at literally EVERYTHING ELSE BONE DOES IN THE HUMAN BODY! For fuck's sake, evolution doesn't compartmentalize! How hard is this to understand!? Bone marrow manufactures blood cells! It's in constant contact with water, iron, oxygen, and a witch's brew of catalysts, hormones, waste products, and other chemicals on top of that. It repairs itself, and interacts with literally EVERY OTHER PART OF YOUR BIOLOGY AT ALL TIMES, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY!

If you replaced it with some titatinum-based metamaterial, do you know what would happen? You'd have to redesign every other aspect of your own biology from the ground up, down to the molecular level, or else you'd die in hours of some esoteric form of poisoning that can't ever happen in healthy humans. But hey, at least you can survive a punch now, right? At least your bones won't break from a car accident! Even though your brain will still get concussed, but that's not important. Or the fact that your tendons, joints, and ligaments aren't any stronger. Or the fact that you'll drown like a bitch. Or any other number of miniscule biological details that must not be very important. No, all that matters is the DURABILITY! The TOUGHNESS! The STRUCTURAL INTERGRITY!
Fucking idiots. I swear to god, every one of you children watched Wolverine and other and thought it would actually be possible. Don't tell me, you got into materials science because you wanted to invent vibranium? You capeshitting faggots need to fucking kill yourselves if you think that cyberpunk-style surgical augmentation is a viable avenue for transhumanism.

>>10075078
so what is life about? :o

>>10075153
>>10075154
word.

>>10075074
>They were all laid off for software
nothing in this world is actually machine working, whenever you hear the word "robot" or "software" youre actually talking about a lot of very very smart people mantaining all that, it's

>>10073473
We are doing the work of the cell systems or whatever do that.We are those systems.

>>10073432
There are structures made of metals and another materials that are more already more effective to energy than human body, they can rest for long without consuming it.

>>10075241
are they capable of self replication and fixing? the biosphere, understood as a mechanism can be left alone for millions of years and it still works. We cant even make a machine that works for more than 100 years without repairs, much less an useful one

>>10073331
I dont understand why anyone is afraid of an ai housed in a human sized body. The dumbest human mind is infintely more complex and capable of interacting and understanding objects in its own enviorment at almost inverse the cost of energy. i have the smallest amount of experience in evolutionary psychology and this is easy to understand.
no computing founded in binary numbers will ever come close to the efficiency of even a dogs brain at processing its surroundings and making a decision. If humans hope to ever produce AI within the space of lets say atleast a 10x10 meter room, they will have to give up on programming on software used by the market for everything. they would need to study and almost completely understand the brain of some animal, and plagarise the hell out of it in order to make any real ground in processing with minimal load required. massive collections of solid state memory will not come close. The real threat is the ai that governs our internet logistics and algorythms. computers arent smarter than humans or even dogs. Mammals central nervous systems/brains calculate and consider more in a shorter span of time than any mordern supercomputer can be made to do using learning algorythms.

>>10075154
Except, I know a trick to make actual "vibranium".

>>10075153
>>10075154
Nice job ignoring those two arguments above which refuted your points, retard. We get it. Biology and tech don't (currently) mix. (By the way, we've been using titanium to replace bones for years, moron.)

What you're failing to understand is, again, tech has moved this far in just a couple years compared to billions, and that your hard on for organic matter replication is complete bullshit because all those things that were created by evolution are now entirely moot since evolution doesn't exist in humans anymore.

Go read those two posts, rip your head out of your ass, and actually respond.

Final point, even if it took us 1000 years to develop a system that would accept a titanium based metamaterial, we'd still be beating evolution's lazy unguided stumble by orders and orders of magnitude.

But no, you're just gonna keep ignoring these arguments, switching to new ones, and generally shitting up this board because you're made insecure by the fact that the economy is going to be violently disrupted in 10-20 years.