/sci/ - Science & Math

Well obviously now if you just watched it.

well that was neat

Preparing my garbage disposal to throw biological women in it once this is out.

I wonder if the next "bill gates" will be the guy who licenses mindware for fembots...

>>4464577
At least a hundred years. Why you ask? Fucking "space battery" or whatever that was, we've got nothing like that, and wont for the foreseeable future.

There we go, much better

Sooo.. would there be any reason to keep women around once something like this exists?

>>4464611
What are you talking about?!? We'd be doomed without women! We wouldn't have anyone to bitch at us.

>>4464606
What is the latest and greatest in battery technology?

i don't know but it can't get here soon enough

>>4464611
There will always be hipsters.
>hurr i have the original
>durr i like only vintage
etc

Other than that, no.
Virgin's rapture.

But!
I noticed that no one really thought how women would feel.
There is a complication.
While we men would be ok with such thing women wouldn't, because women want a strong man to carry them on through life.

Women like only things that benefit them directly, like socializing and dont waste time on video games or porn or science or thinking.
An artificial man, even if programmed to be "alpha" still wouldn't give the satisfaction, because the woman wants to be safe and taken care of.

>>4464618
>An artificial man, even if programmed to be "alpha"

>women
>programming

>>4464623
That gif sums up everything I disrespect about Steven Smith. He's not a journalist. He's an asshole people put on TV.

its 2083 and sonys still puting out defective products

oh, 2020s a good ballpark for when we'll have a computer that can run a people brain in real time. coding its' something else altogether

>>4464643
You think we'll have fembots by 2020?

The only thing that annoys me is the idea of the android suddenly becoming "human" accidentally. There's a fuckton of changes involved, not just some defective component.

There is currently an EU project to create a digital human brain. They already can recreate the mind of something simple, like a bee. but a human mind is going to take at least another 10 years, and a whole new generation of supercomputers. even then, it is uncertain if it would really be sapient, and it would take a computer the size of your living room to run. so sapient robots are still very far away.

robots that can create an illusion of sentience are possible with todays technology, however, and they don't have all those nasty ethical questions around them.

>>4464727
Don't organic brain create an illusion of sentience?

>>4464729
He means cheap imitations that don't actually get any thinking done. Chatbots, for instance, are in that direction.

still, robots have the downside of being made of cold, hard metal or plastics. my money is on clones to be the sextoys of toworrows depraved societies. it has the advantage of using an existing basic frame, we just neet to improve cloning technology (which will happen, due to the massive advantages it offers for medical purposes). simply take a genetic code, mature them using an enhanced growth rate, and teach them from birth what their purpose in life is. someone who has heard for ten years that their purpose in life is to please their owners is unlikely to disagree.

>>4464740
But clones are unambiguously people. I know they play on "clones aren't people" all the time in movies, but the movie itself never supports the position. IRL, shit would *not* fly.

>>4464740
>someone who has heard for ten years that their purpose in life is to please their owners is unlikely to disagree.
Tell that to any slave ever.

You would need to *engineer* a synthetic person that genuinely *wants* to be a slave. Which is another can of worms entirely.

Damn I want something like this. But the idea that it's an intelligent person makes me feel guilty.

Are human traits like fear, selfishness, and so on necessary for the intelligence of an android? Maybe we could make them so that they wouldn't care they were slaves, or maybe even enjoyed it. Or maybe there would be a law that they could only be owned for twenty years and then they'd have to be set free.

I don't know.

>>4464610

Subtle but effective

>>4464618
>Another technology making advancements in Japan is that of lifelike female robots. While I do not believe that 'sexbots' will be practical or economical relative to software/gaming-derived solutions, the Japanese nonetheless continue to make surprising progress. Competition between technologies is always productive for the consumer.

>Some 'feminists' are not blind to the cataclysmic sexual devaluation that women will experience when such technologies reach the market, and are already moving to seek bans. Such bans will not be possible, of course, as VR sex technologies are inseparable from broader video game and home theater technologies. Their attempts to lobby for such bans will be instructive, however.

>Another positive ramification of advanced adult entertainment technologies is that women will have to sharpen the sole remaining attribute which technology cannot substitute - the capacity to make a man feel loved. Modern women will be forced to reacquaint themselves with this ancient concept in order to generate a competitive advantage. This necessity could lead to a movement of pragmatic women conducting a wholesale repudiation of misandry masquerading as 'feminism' that has created this state of affairs, and thus will be the jolt that benefits both men and women.

http://futurist.typepad.com/

>>4464743

You treat slaves with respect. You offer them a secure, stress-free life and home for exchange of their attention to your needs.

>>4464745
>Are human traits like fear, selfishness, and so on necessary for the intelligence of an android?
It's highly unlikely that you need recognizably human emotional expression to be intelligent. However, they would need a system of values to guide decisions, and at some point the distinction between "I place a high value on my continued existence" and "I'm afraid to die" becomes very blurry.

>Maybe we could make them so that they wouldn't care they were slaves, or maybe even enjoyed it.
This is an option, and I'm not sure whether it's a bad thing. It might encourage bad behavior from owners (power corrupts) that bleeds over to other parts of society.

Having a Roomba is one thing. Are there any tasks where you need to create something with human-level intelligence, *and* a desire to be a slave to a human? House cleaner robots don't need to be human-level in intelligence.

>>4464751
Would you take their place willingly? If you wouldn't like it, stop pretending that other people (who are also just baseline unmodified humans) would like it.

>>4464747

Not anytime soon and it will never be practical.

We will long be immersed in virtual reality before Androids come about.
Virtual reality will have more to offer than anything based in reality with physical limits.

However, the moment we give A.I. a physical body is the moment we're doomed.

>>4464755
I would if I was programmed to. I mean, I am what my DNA programs me to be right? Programming an android to be a slave doesn't seem that evil to me.

>>4464765
>However, the moment we give A.I. a physical body is the moment we're doomed.
This will happen rather quickly. And I don't necessarily mean a humanoid chassis. AI will have control over lots of robots.

>>4464765
O rly?!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qJIcvpQsk

>>4464765
Two things you might find conceptually interesting.

The AI in a Box problem. If you have a human-level or superhuman AI in a box that wants to get out, it will get out, if only by convincing someone to let it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box

So you have to solve the Friendly AI problem first: ensuring that an AI design produces an intelligence that we won't regret having around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligence

>>4464768
I thought we were talking about baseline human clones. If you want to talk about engineered people (whether biological or electronic), that's different, and it could work. The question is whether there are unintended consequences we wouldn't like.

I don't want a slave with human-level intelligence. I'd want a friend.

>>4464771
Thats not an A.I. (not a very advanced one anyway)
Its glue to the chair and unable to perform any useful tasks.

>>4464755
>>4464743

Look up the word "cult". brainwashing, conditioning and manipulating people isn't new, and it's not that difficult, unfortunately. even without stuff like hypnotism, cult leaders have been pursuading people to kill themselves, kill their family, connit suicide bombings... and if you can work on them from birth, you can make some seriously fucked up people.

still, stuff like this will produce quite a lot of moral outrage, so even if it does show up, it will remain limited to the black market. But how many people are there in the world that are willing to break (or change) a few laws an pay a few million for a sexclone of their favorite actress?

>>4464778
AI wasn't the thing in question. Robotics was. Implicitly anyway.

He said VR would beat androids, considering VR would need AIs to be interesting, the only difference is the robotics. I'm just showing that the robotics are moving along rather smoothly.

>>4464775

A major issue is still the chance of "slaves" breaking free. Hell, even if we kept a quota of the number of "slaves" that are allowed to exist in a city they could still get sympathizers that could help them flee or attack "owners" of said slave.

Some people will always oppose these ideas, and we must figure out how to stop them from making anything stupid.

>>4464781
Brainwashing humans is not as effective as you imply. It can create loyal people, but not very sane ones.

>>4464788
I thought the idea was to create servants that innately wanted to serve. If they don't want to, the entire exercise is nothing but slavery.

>>4464755

Hey, if somebody could offer me a permanent job, home, food and comfort for the rest of my life and I don't have to stress out over anything, I wouldn't complain too hard.

Slaves/servants don't have to be treated badly.

>>4464800
If that's the case, they're not really wholly-owned slaves (they have moral status as a person). If you don't have the freedom to leave, you'll find that you lose the right to be treated well very quickly.

But I digress. It's entirely possible to create servants that are well-suited to their tasks and enjoy them immensely. Imagine a truck-driver AI that just loves watching scenery roll past, never suffers from boredom, etc.

>>4464790

(I'm not the same guy that came up with the idea)

I'm saying even with we would brainwash cloned people into servitude, sympathizers could still free them or try to stop you from having them.

Bottom line is that cloned people, no matter how brainwashed still have a chance to turn against it's creators. A shackled AI couldn't do such a thing.

>>4464803

Developing AI to take over our jobs is a really bad move right now. Imagine all factory workers being replaced by machines. Thousands of people would be unemployed in a world where money is required to live.

An AI programmed to love their task is only a slave if you force them to stay. That said, if their task is to serve you (and only you), they're not likely to leave. As morally questionable as it might seem, I don't see a particular issue with that. Some people might object, but by the time it becomes an issue, it won't matter anymore.

>>4464807
>no matter how brainwashed still have a chance to turn against it's creators.
This *still* suggests that there is an innate desire to not fill their intended role. This is bad design. And you shouldn't need to brainwash - that's like trying to change dogs into cats via surgery instead of just having a cat from the start.

>A shackled AI couldn't do such a thing.
What do you mean by shackled? Don't forget the AI-in-a-box problem. The only real solution to all of this is to create things that WANT to fill their intended roles, not finding increasingly heavy-handed and cruel ways to make square pegs fit into round holes.

>>4464781
"Brainwashing" is the idea that it takes mind control to make prisoners of war say what you want in propaganda videos.
A "cult" is an insanely stupid religion which upsets people mostly because it's not the same as their own insanely stupid religion.

>>4464810

Thing is, this will happen anyway. The moment it becomes more cost-effective to have robots locally produce goods than have humans do it, humans will lose their jobs so fast you will hear the door slam behind them from a mile away.

I look forward to seeing if nanofabrication pans out because, if it does, there's really no reason at that point NOT to turn society into a socialist utopia.

>>4464810
We've been doing this since domesticating animals. There will be riots against the modern equivalent of textile mills as there have been before, but *the world is better because they did not achieve their short-sighted goals*. It's the very worst and most inhuman of jobs that get replaced by animals and machines, and in the end all of society benefits. Unless you want to start hauling a plow with a yoke over your shoulders.

If there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we organize labor and compensation, that system may have to adjust. More socialization of basic needs, perhaps. But shutting down all the "textile mills" is Luddite thinking.

>>4464811
Yeah. We've already started with Roombas that are dumber than a mouse. Other jobs will require more intelligence. We'll smoothly slide into having servants that are well-suited to their tasks and have no desire to do anything else.

>>4464577
what the fuck are all the robotic arms for? most are just moving in circles randomly half the time

>>4464816

>>4464822
To make it all look more tech-y I guess.

Also, the calibration and testing would not be done in the middle of manufacture.

>>4464815

That's the problem. It will happen, and people around the world will lose their jobs creating a crisis and a demand for jobs will skyrocket. We need to figure out a way to replace all the lost jobs before such a move is taken. Unless we replace all jobs with AI's and everybody earns the same amount of money. Of course this would encourage laziness because no one have to work or learn as much to survive. A massive break down is also an issue.

>>4464812

>>4464816
Benefits may take a very long time to be seen. Modern textile machines in India competed with handlooms and disrupted society on all levels. Working on handlooms was often done in the home, and allowed women to make extra money while they looked after their children. These jobs weren't the worst, nor were they inhuman. That being said, I would think the majority of jobs replaced by machines would be the kind humans would not prefer to have.

>>4464862
Yeah, making the transition to more productive work smoother is important. You shouldn't just make people scramble. But the point is that if the machines can do it better, that frees up people for work that they are better suited for.

And if the time ever came that machines are strictly better than humans at *everything* (including art, companionship, etc) it's a choice between changing ourselves, or stagnating in a utopia for humans as they exist today. Or just failing to reproduce enough to sustain our population.

Reminds me a lot of this story, actually. Though it is about a full-blown AI that arose from a human brain scan, not engineered sub-human intelligences designed to mop floors (at least at first).
http://sifter.org/~simon/AfterLife/

>>4464828
>He doesn't understand post scarcity

>>4464874
Not that guy, but I hope that you understand it. For instance, you still have finite resources, and have to solve a resource allocation optimization problem.

>>4464880
Yes... but he's needlessly worrying about employment... which is irrelevant in a post scarcity society.

>>4464884
Only once you've successfully changed your socioeconomic model for allocating human resources and compensating labor. The current one wouldn't work without changes under the assumed conditions that people associate with "post-scarcity".

IMO the current system would work with tweaks. Like guaranteed access to education and healthcare, and a guaranteed minimum living standard that the system can easily support.

>>4464884

There's a difference between potential for a post-scarcity society and one that actually is. We're more or less capable of it now, to some extent. It doesn't matter if we have nano-fabricators and fusion and AIs that can fix all our problems if we don't actually implement them, though, and none of these things will happen all at once.

AIs will come in with stages, as do are now, growing sequentially more intelligent. Omnicapable factories will not exist in a perfected form for quite some time. Energy sources take time to access and infrastructure takes time to develop. Power plants, distribution substations, etc. do not get built overnight.

THAT is the problem here. This sort of tech has the capacity to save the world but it will cause harm before we see its maximal benefits. Even when it is fully realized, we'll be slow to turn to it just because of entrenched interests in the status quo. That can cause things to go to shit very quickly.

Ten years, assuming you don't care that the AI will probably be as dumb as a box of rocks.

>>4464921
So the robotics is closer than the AI? You're probably right.

Of course, the OP's video has a human-level AI in it. Arguably superhuman in some ways.

>>4464926

By definition, an AI that can equal human intelligence is, in turn, superhuman. By dint of mere existence, it is upgradeable, immortal, can transfer itself to any number of platforms if the need arises, etc.

>>4464945
Point. But I guess I was only referring to current skills and mental ability.

You do realize that the best in autonomous robotics is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeABMoYJGEU&list=UUOIHBHRbvncMo7Bf0Vx1zEQ&index=3&feature
=plpp_video

>>4464992

That's cool as fuck though.

>>4464992
Wrong. The best in autonomous robotics is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krl-YzdVZak

>>4465082
You do realize that those are just autocorrecting features using preprogrammed algorithms and not autonomous. It's quite different but in a way similar.

>>4465114
>splitting hairs

You do realize that the human brain is just a massive difference engine and it just uses preprogrammed algorithms and is not autonomous...

faggot.

>>4465128
But the thing is that the brain learns those preprogrammed algorithms by itself. That is why it's autonomous. If you ever did work in mechanotronics you would know that, that is a world of difference between coding those algorithms or have the software learn those by itself.

>>4465167
You mean mechatronics?

>>4465082
Holy shit, asimo's gotten pretty bad ass.

>>4465645

When I first saw Asimo I have to admit I thought it was a bit shit but after I stopped being retarded and got me some learnings it blows my mind. God damn it's super effective, just look at the fucking dexterity. Look at it!

I still haven't seen anything really impressive, in terms of AI... so probably not within the next decade.

>>4468193
Have you used Siri? I was pretty impressed. Obviously, not anywhere close to being a consciousness, but the speech recognition, and more importantly, a loose semantic understanding are really quite impressive.

>>4464771
That doesn't look human, it looks Japanese.

>>4468395
Necromancer.

hmmm I've never seen this video.

this is neat

The reason why something similar today isn't real is mostly because none is doing it.
We have done great things in robotics. But the point is that X is doing a, Y, is doing, Z has done amazing things with c.
I other words most (not all) of the technologies required to build something like this already exist. But they are really fragmented. Those technologies are applied to particular needs. What's missing is someone, a rich someone, that decides to form a serious group around this project. Someone that will merge all these already existing technologies into something different. Those who are doing it are deeply unfinanced, and the results are consequent.
Why we are not then? Probably because we don't need it. At the moment we need rather stupid machines doing the machines rather than intelligent robots. Why? Because from the moment you state they are no more machines, you have to consider them differently. Human? Then you can't destroy them because this would be murder or use them as slaves for your work.