/sci/ - Science & Math

sexbots

Infantile escapism fantasies are not science.

>>5541821
OP is gathering data

FTL travel.
science pls

>>5541822
What hypothesis does he want to test and how does he justify his experimental design?

>>5541821
I'm looking forward to a unification of quantum mechanics and gravity, and an explanation for how dark matter and dark energy work.

If all goes well, we'll be burrowed into the moon, hooked up to fusion-reactor sustained life support systems.

>>5541819
My A.I. + Your sex bots= sexist human extinction ever

>>5541832
Probably giving his geometric model for how long it took for you to sage a spin.

>>5541832
hes obviously using the work of sir francis galton to predict the rate of future scientific advancements.

In addition to testing galtons conclusions hes also gathering important knowledge about the future.

>>5541838
Do sexbots count as human? I mean, we created them, they are derived from us, much like we are derived from our ancestors. can't we just call it the next step in evoltuion?

>>5541838
I don't think that would cause human extinction, but I do think that would solve the population crisis very, very nicely.

>>5541848
only if we can reproduce with them.

I was meaning more of a Skynet situation with sex bots rather than robo Arnolds

>>5541858
In response to
>>5541848

>>5541826
no

>>5541826
Never going to happen as long as space craft have mass

>>5541812
Being immortalized as a GLADoS like robot.

Preferably on the moon.

That way I can browse the internet for all eternity and never have to worry about holding another conversation again.

Living the dream.

>>5541821
>Infantile escapism fantasies
>futurism
>sci-fi

>>5541883
cant we do something about that with them higgs bosons?

>>5541924
Nah, the higgs field doesn't really handle most mass

>>5541812
First close images of Pluto, Ceres, and all of Mercury
Fleet of asteroid prospecting space telescopes. Followed by first mining factory sent to the most promising one.
Private space stations, after ISS is decommissioned.
50% of vehicles sold worldwide are electric.
First liquid fluoride thorium reactor (hopefully within a century of the last one).
First fully-automated legal corporation. Not sure if it will be a real AI, but it will be a successful economic entity.
The first Great Legal Refactoring, applying lessons in software maintenance to the crufty body of law.
A world-wide plague, starting from a pathogen accidentally trading genes with drug-resistant staph in a hospital, and spread via air travel.

In my life time:
1. Real time, photo realistic 3D graphics at 60 frames per second for video games

2. the widespread application and use of graphite.

Realistically, 2 is definitely not going to happen (or at least not in my life time) and 1 MIGHT happen given that we have steady economic growth for the coming decades and there are no major world catastrophes.

>>5541958
>graphite
OMG PENCILS!

Perhaps you meant graphene, the carbon sheet technology derived from buckyballs and buckytubes? agreed, lots of promise in this area!

>>5541929
Well what the fuck was the point?

>>5541812

To bad you wont see true A.I in your lifetime.

>>5541978
Haha, sorry and yeah I meant graphene. I've been keeping up with research in that field for a while now and it's really exciting stuff.

AIfag here. Doing my masters in AI now.

True AI seems pretty improbable at the moment, but by the time I finish my PhD we'd be pretty fucking close to simulating it.

Someday I'll be comfy

>>5541873
pls

FTL travel.

Full body augmentations, we're getting there.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/a-sensational-breakthrough-the-first-bionic-hand-that-can-feel-8498622.html

>>5541812
FUCK YEAH TIME TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE
LONG LIVE ORWELL
MORE JOBLESS PEOPLE
MORE MONEY FOR THE RICH
GET RID OF THAT DEMOCRACY
PUT ALL DNA DATA OF PEOPLE ON THE NET
SCAN THEIR BRAINS
HACK THEIR MINDS
SO CHINA DOESN'T NEED TO INVADE
NEWER IS ALWAYS BETTER

I'm still waiting for flying cars.

It saddens me to know that idealistic 50s based future is probably never coming.

>you will never live like the Jetsons

>>5542467
The technology is there, it would be too dangerous for the average person to operate in three dimensions.

>>5542467
>infantile cartoon

Full immersion in virtual reality simulation. Fuck augmented reality, I want something like existenz.

I think the key isn't even computational power, theoretically you could use the brain cluster to do most of the work.

You fags realized that most problems in society are caused by human idiocy and not technology, right?

>>5541832
>What hypothesis does he want to test and how does he justify his experimental design?

This is a discussion channel.
It is not a technical group, it doesn't approve or criticize specific plans, and it is to be assumed it has no expertise.
It's just discussing science-related topics.

You don't need to be a dick and pretend everyone has to stick to scientific processes as though we're pretending to initiate actual tests in the real world.

>>5541848
>Do sexbots count as human? I mean, we created them, they are derived from us, much like we are derived from our ancestors. can't we just call it the next step in evoltuion?

Of course not; there is no connection at all to the devices.
They do not evolve from us in any way.

Mechanisms created in our form are not related to us in any genetic way.

Mechanisms we build have no evolution at all, do not have any part of any evolutionary process (except metaphorically).

>>5541924
>cant we do something about that with them higgs bosons?

We've barely verified the damn things exist at all,
and yet again someone is suggesting we might manipulate them?
Soon, even?

>>5542610
What do you mean? if it exists we can manipulate it. LHC is just like the old spark-gaps people used to play with hundreds of years ago, not useful for anything but marveling at.

>>5542617
>What do you mean? if it exists we can manipulate it. LHC is just like the old spark-gaps people used to play with hundreds of years ago, not useful for anything but marveling at.

That is a bizarre and unjustified arrogance.
At some level manipulating a force or principle may be entirely impossible.

Look at it this way: fundamentally, there could be a principle that everything is based on, something which all other forces are connected to and which must be true for other forces to work.

There are, today, many forces we do not alter.
We work with them, we work around them, but we do not change them.

>>5542643
We dont change electromagnetism either, we just use it.

>>5542654
Well, that's correct,
but would 'using' the principles of the Higgs field and bosons not just be accepting gravity as we always have?

The kind of manipulation people are talking about is nothing less than turning OFF the principle, so that gravity, or inertia, or momentum, or mass, is not a bother.

>>5542673
I tend to think of it as something along the lines of when that guy discovered that an electric coil made his compass needle twitch. Before that electricity was considered entirely separate from magnetism, then suddenly people realized they could use one to influence the other.

We just need to find something that manipulates the higgs field, more likely now that we know there is one.

>>5542684
That's a point; if there is a tradeoff to be made,
then there may be a lot we can do to manipulate.

Let me remind everyone that most of the things we have learned that are more fundamental than electrons and ions have remained outside of our manipulation.

>>5542718
Weve not really known about them that long.
It was over two thousand years between the first documented observations of electrical phenomena and the connection to magnetism.

computer sci major here, final year.
Op, A.I. will never be able to think, even with quantum computers, because we can't create random processing algorithms to get the superposition of the computer.

>>5542744
This. We can't program true random algorithms because that defies what randomness is, so it's not a matter of lack of resources, it's just not possible.
We will be able to create robutts that can process data through optics and hearing and shit, but they will never attain sentience.

endlessly euphoric virtual reality, like btl in red dwarf

>>5542751
>>5542744
fuck this gay earth

>>5542751
That means its not morally wrong to force one to love me, right?

>>5542751
Seriously, that's the problem you see?

You can't do randomness in software from a perfectly deterministic machine, but generating randomness in hardware is extremely easy. It's only tricky, and then not terribly, when you want perfect unbiased randomness.

>>5542751
>>5542744
ITT 2 retarded 18 year olds who don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about.

>>5542606
>Mechanisms we build have no evolution at all, do not have any part of any evolutionary process (except metaphorically).
What do you mean by metaphorically? Cuz genetic algorithms exist.

>>5542744
>>5542751
Why would you need true randomness or even simulated randomness as a prerequisite for AI? As far as we know the human brain doesn't use it.

>>5541958

>2 is definitely not going to happen (or at least not in my life time)

Are you like, 70 or something?

>>5542809
>generating randomness in hardware is easy
no, because it is just pseudo-randomness, randomness can't be created by instructions(aka, algorithms)

>>5542939
Don't you consider nuclear decay to have true randomness? Or pretty fucking good: white noise?

>>5542742
>Weve not really known about them that long.
>It was over two thousand years between the first documented observations of electrical phenomena and the connection to magnetism.

True, although the 2000 years part (and all distant histories) is completely irrelevant.
We may learn how to position or bind a hadron.
We may learn how to change spin states.

But it makes some sense if the most foundational principles of the universe are immutable.

>>5542944
>implying uncertainty principle = randomness

>>5542952
How isn't it?

>>5542972
No

>>5542960
Bro, do you even determinism?

>>5542944
>Don't you consider nuclear decay to have true randomness?

Aren't we talking about computer circuitry?

>>5542976
Does it matter? emissions are measurable

>>5542978
It does in the sense that computers do not have such a device (measuring radioactive decay and producing a value from it).

I mean, there is no reason that such a device couldn't be suggested, but there was no reason to assume people in the thread were already considering that.

>The human mind is special, it is centered in the heart!
>Science: It's centered in the brain.
>The brain is mysterious, we don't know how it works, the human mind is special!
>Science: The brain is a bunch of circuitry, drugs n shit affect it in predictable ways.
>Science: oh btw quantum uncertainty
>THE HUMAN MIND IS SPECIAL, IT USES QUANTUM RANDOMNESS

Have a strawman.

>>5543007
You still can't explain qualia.

>>5543002
I thought processors had a weird mechanical (rather than computated) thing in it already to generate better random numbers so to step it up to something that is, as far as I know, truly random. If you needed it, which I'm not even sure you do.

>>5543011
Recursive neuronal processing

>>5543041
Doesn't explain qualia.

>>5543044
It's a start.

Personally I'm looking forward to Elon Musk putting people on Mars in the next 10 years.
I know the ludds will tell me that it will never happen and ordinarily I'd agree. But this guy built a rocket company from scratch, launched rockets and made the first commercial flight to the ISS. He walks the walk which makes me take him much more seriously.

Peter Diamandis, founder of the X-Prize put it best when he said that the big companies and governments will drag their feet and be extremely reluctant to try such an adventure as its very risky, but entrepreneurs take risks, big risks, as part of their business strategy . No risk, no reward.
When Elon Musk was in MIT he asked a large group of students who'd want to go to Mars in the full knowledge that they might not survive or come back again. Every single one raised their hand.

Governments and the big corps are so hidebound they can't deal with any risk at all. It's the billionaire entrepreneurs who will drive this.

>>5542976
We're talking about hardware, not idealized logic gates.

In hardware, the hard part is keeping randomness OUT of the result. That's exactly why we do digital stuff and binary in particular: it's far easier if the hardware only has to stay within broad "low" and "high" levels of voltage, charge, or current, and you can ignore the variations around those levels.

Thermal fluctuations are as random as it gets, and affect everything. To let randomness into your result, you just have to stop working to keep randomness out of it.

invention of something that fixes our fucking telomerase

Immortality. I'm 23 currently.

>>5543144
won't happen in your lifetime
but full body augmentation maybe

>>5543176
No it will. Nano machines will be able to operate on DNA, we don't need to go any smaller then that, and nanotechnology is like 15 years away. Plus cryopreservation, gene therapy, stem cell research etc.

>>5543192
I don't know what you think nanotechnology is, but you're wrong.

>>5543011
>>5543044
I can. Any database-based, self-learning AI would need an internal language that represents meaning. All experiences would be 'translated' into this language, which can be combined with other bits & used to solve problems, etc. Those bits are qualia; they are data that represent meaning, nothing magical.

Say you want this AI to translate from English to Chinese. Instead of using Google Translate's word- and phrase-equivalency database, you first convert the English sentence into one or more qualia bits. Then you run this through the qualia-to-Chinese converter.

Some of these predictions are a bit reaching. I doubt spacex will be on mars in 10 years. I doubt Nanotech will break out of the research sector in the next 20. Some serious advances would be needed for either of those things to happen

>>5543207
Not the same guy, but molecular machines seem pretty likely to happen in our lifetime.

yfw all intelligent life forms in the universe died out because of their hubris, because they built their own end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_mankind#Technology
That's why there are no "aliens" - they kill themselves before they can develop crewed, deep-space-flight.
Maybe that's part of the evolution, too.

>>5542467
Today a fellow employee called in to say he got stuck in the highway because he forgot to fuel up. Imagine this with flying cars.

>>5543257
Autonomous cars wouldn't have that problem.

>>5543262
No company would take the risk of liability of both autonomy and flying for the general public.

>>5543225

20 years ago mobile phones were small bricks and the idea that you could talk in full video was outrageous. 20 years ago the idea that a computer could be the size of a large postal envelop and play game and HD movies was just silly. 20 years ago being HIV positive was a death sentence, modern drugs can reduce the virus to undetectable levels and the person is essentially free of the disease. 20 years ago prosthetic arms were inanimate sculptures with maybe one or two joints, now they are brain controlled, have multiple dextrous grips and give sensory feedback directly to the nerves.

Be very, VERY careful when saying something won't catch on or is waaaay too far into the future.

>>5543270
see:
>>5543067

Entrepreneurs embrace risk. Its big established companies that are so set in their ways that avoid risk. People never thought electric cars would be any good, check out the Tesla Roadster. Tesla is making money hand over fist and can't keep up with the orders.

>>5543281
>>5543277
None of these things have huge inherent risks that majorly outweighs the benefit. A flying automated car does. Unless we make the necessary advancement in making a flying automated car that isn't so flying and isn't so automated we won't have them, especially with consumer laws being what they are today. The consumer does not want to bear the risk of progress and entrepreneurs do not want to bear the risk of liability.

That is the general atmosphere of now and will be for quite some time.

>>5543300

What makes you think the flying car maker has any liability?? People who are shot with a gun can't sue the gunmaker. People who get hit by a car can't sue the carmaker.

Your general atmosphere may be one of risk aversion, but don't lump everyone else in with you.

>>5542021
Thought it was a clever joke about a nuclear apocalypse, I'm slightly dissapointed to say the least

>>5543247
Or they simply have no use for travel as they've created self contained artificial worlds and thus don't really need anything besides a viable power source

>>5543310
If your gun was autonomous and shot people the gun maker is responsible, if your car was autonomous and you hit someone the car maker is responsible. Also flying cars are called planes.

>>5543325

>plane crashes 'cos of structural problems.

Plane manufacturer is only liable if it was caused by them, not by bad maintenance, intentional damage, human error etc.

>flying car crashes due to bad programming, computer error, GPS failure

Gotta prove that it is actually the maker's fault man. Anyone can screw up a navigation system, intentionally or not. Thats what insurance is for and doing it deliberately is called 'fraud'. And thats illegal.

Oh and flying cars are actually called "Personal Air Vehicles by the FAA.

>>5541835

Dark Matter
person 1 "hey that galaxy has more gravity than it should have"
person 2 "it probably has some matter that we can't measure"
person 1 "why can't we measure it?"
person 2 "well if it doesn't radiate light in some way, we can't see it"
person 1 "what could we call this missing matter?"
person 2 "Let's call it 'dark matter,' because it doesn't let out any light"

I imagine dark energy is a similar hypothesis explaining the difference between how much energy is expected in the universe, and how much we measure.

TL;DR dark matter is just matter that should be there, but we can't see. dark energy is energy that should be there but we can't see.

also I find your imagine hilarious.

>>5541883
With bent space-time, you could travel great distances in a short time, effectively reaching a destination before light. You wouldn't be travelling faster than the speed of light per say, but you would achieve the same goals as such.

>>5543353
Autonomy is in the realm of the manufacturer's liability. Autonomy removes user's control. Autonomy is a large risk for manufacturers. Flying cars cannot be trusted to the general public without autonomous system creating standard procedures for flight and on diagnostic and maintenance which would fall into the liability of the manufacturer, or introducing flight training for users and trusting that the general public will be able to follow procedures and upkeep of the vehicle. Also users of flying cars would need to consider fuel, weight, and flight distance.

But we have small aircraft for this purpose. And otherwise a land terrain vehicle would bill the need more efficiently.

There is no future in flying cars. It's a large fiscal, social, and engineering risk to everyone involved with little benefit. Especially when land vehicles have not yet come near their limitations.

The reason electric cars are able to enter the market is because structurally the cars are the same, the risk is inherently the same, and there is no real change in society to facilitate the adoption of it.

post scarcity society + sexbots

everyone gets to be a NEET wizard with a harem of 10/10 robo GFs

>>5543420

Well we already have personal flying vehicles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrafugia_Transition

Never said EVERYONE will have one. Again, rich guys who want flying cars for themselves will get one, like Aston Martins or yachts. Elon Musk wanted better rockets that were cheaper to build and operate than the space shuttle. Boom. He built a company from scratch to do so. If someone like him wants a flying car, Boom, the same thing will happen.

>>5543449
>I'm still waiting for flying cars.
>It saddens me to know that idealistic 50s based future is probably never coming.
>>you will never live like the Jetsons

This was the original post. The whole argument is whether flying cars for the general public is reasonable. The answer is no.

Rich people will always do whatever the fuck they want. I knew a slightly well off guy that hired people he knew in highschool to be his office furniture for a day. "Just because I can." He told me.

>>5543223
>tfw nobody wants to argue about consciousness anymore

Cheaper prosthetic limbs that are more than glorified peg-legs.

I also want hover-boards and flying cars, but I'm not going to start bitching about it until 2015.

>>5543458

>I knew a slightly well off guy that hired people he knew in highschool to be his office furniture for a day. "Just because I can." He told me.