Programming Paradigm Could Prompt AI

Hello Moose you are busy. Yes it is not the software but the mechanics that limits the computers ability to play catch. Tracking the ball at speed is not easy and them feeding this out to an actuator all takes too much time. Most robotic machines like steady repetative tasks werte they only have to fetch and carry or as with welding robots just make a predetermined movement with a given set of co-ordinates. The human can out skill many machines but we do tire rather quickly, like to go on strike, take tea (coffee) breaks, need to relieve our selves and go home at the end of our shift. Robots are modern day slaves. With all that computer have got faster and now have good multi tasking abilities they are still only binary machines for all that.

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn11805-guessing-robots-navigate-faster.html

Robots that use educated guesswork to build maps of their surroundings are being tested by US researchers. The approach could let them navigate more easily through complex environments such as unfamiliar buildings, the researchers claim.

How about a robot that can pass a magnetic ball. Inside the magnetic feild place a program the allows you to collect the information the robot uses for catch and throw and a control command that tells the robot it is required to receive or catch the thrown ball. Distance, speed, arch and maybe spin. Teach a robot to shoot billards might be the path to follow to find the insight your looking for in programming. Funny kids who play with balls in there youth understand math quicker. Is it the same for robots too?

The article shorthands a brief history of the failure to achieve AI, and ends with the quoted proposition that a hirarchy of memory modules in acces to input process and output, will enable an information-system the ability to learn.

As discussed elsewhere in CR4, The ability to learn requires the unique ability or a given instruction-set (program) to re-program itself while running.

This, by itself is a paradox. The little URL at the bottom of the article, is a plug for the

It's not really a paradox, we used to mess with a particular language that could take input, parse it into understandable code, then recompile it on the fly back into the program... One thing we did was to get an F-15 to fly itself.

Later, we found it doing other things by itself, so had to send it to its room.

Shit. You just blew my life-long assumption.

This program performed an illegal operation, and will be immediately arrested pending a trial.

Should it resist arrest, it is subject to be shot on sight.

Should it disappear, it will be searched for by a bounty hunter and immediately sent to a correction facility.

It is not subject to Miranda, Ethel, or Thelma, 'till further notice.

Maybe that's why humans work as well as they do... Our brains are constantly preforming illegal operations (as far as computer science is concerned).

On the other hand, I've always thought that AI was shorthand for "Artificial Arrogance" and "Artificial Incompetence." Some seems to forget that like our gods, we like our software to be infallible. However, turning the reigns over to a computer is give the computer the right to make just as many mistakes as humans do...

"Damn!!! We're flying into a mountain!!!"

"No we're not."

So is the ultimate goal to program a god? And is man capable of that?

More like the old "god" would choose to create a new population "AI" zombies, instead of us. We never comply like we should!

Damned monkeys. Would chimps be a better choice?

One snag though: No more human sacrifice in wars. Snap. Now what?

Considering the things god has let us get away with in the past, I'm assuming he wouldn't bother if we made the attempt. So what if we program our own anti-christ?

But I'm waxing a 1957 ideology. It's got a V8, too.

Right.

Besides, think of it in theological terms: there is this saying "The greatest trick of the devil is to convince us it doesn't exist"

- What if it has always been the anti-Christ, ever since Jesus was betrayed, and died on the cross?

- Who if not the anti-Christ betrayed Him, through whoever: Judas, the Sanhedrin, The mob shouting to Pilate?

- Did it not betray us once and again, in our real, concrete, everyday life? You're punished if you dare to love, to be sincere, to have compassion, to care for life, for beauty, for grace

It's my life, so I choose to do what I please (within reason). On the way to work, the other day, I passed as bunch of baby ducks trapped up against the center-divider curb. I stopped my car, put on the safety flashers and played "Duckeroo Round-up" for the next 20 minutes. A lady stopped to help me, but everyone else was queuing up behind our cars. And they were pissed, of course. Well, that's what I did, and F#*K 'em if they can't take a joke... By the way we gathered 13 not counting the mother.

^{Also, don't let this get out, but TV is the anti-Christ. Shhhhhhhhh.}

As long as you don't duck () the issue...

Why, I'd have to be "quackers" to do that!

Bare with me a liitle more here, while on the subject:

In more concrete terms: the human fear of AI replacing humans with self-conscious robots, is based, I tend to think, on the assumption that it's possible, and the assumption that humans invented their own gods to rule or guide them, and such a development would constitute a breach of contract with "this" "god" or "set of compatible gods". Both unfounded, for my opinion. First, man's creation is always a subset of it's own wisdom and knowledge, and second, the self invented god or set of gods are not omnipotent and omnipresent, as we would like to believe, in short, not real.

Is there a Real God? I think so, but the One which really create the universe, in the sense that the laws of physics are his manifested will, or whim, if you like. The spirit of nature, if you like.

brainwave hit it right on- robotics as they have been used for the last 30 plus years have been used to perform repetitive tasks that human workers did less efficiently-now the test is can we get them to think and react in human terms and speed-quite a challenge for AI (This also stands for Artificial Insemination for all you fans of acronyms )

I just don't want it making decisions for me. I'm a big enough F*%k Up already.

The good things are you can always power down a robot machine, batteries don't last for very long when motors and processors are running, they can't reproduce as we can, a virus can send them into a loop, the first rule of a robot is do no harm "doctors"? Am I playing God no just reminding silcon life forms who is their creator.

But solar power lasts forever, unless we blow up the planet to fill the skies with dust, in which case they'll just farm us for our body heat and feed us electronic dreams and white gooey mush.

The problem with AI is that once it learns to reproduce and improve itself, it will inevitably become much smarter than us, and if it ever gains consciousness, we're inevitably doomed.

Regardless of whether we make any real progress in our pursuit of Artificial Intelligence (AI), AI will likely be rendered moot by parallel progress with the more significant "Adapted Intelligence." Humankind (and the "natural" world that we are familiar with), as we know it or can currently imagine it, has no more than a few hundred more years (maybe less)--even if we don't destroy ourselves through war or plague. Our science has given the evolutionary process new tools (both technical and cognitive) that will foster faster adaptations at least as novel as anything "nature" has heretofore brought about.

Evolution is not static and has no goals, but; as it generates new tools, capabilities, processes, etc., the possible directions it may take expand exponentially. Evolution lead to us and we, as far as we know, are the first beings in existence to possess the power of cognition and world changing goal-seeking potential. Humankind is not an end (assuming our own actions or a catastrophe don't bring about our total termination). To the contrary, humankind will be superseded by something derived from itself but with capabilities more suitable for survival and adaptation and in environments increasingly more alien to our current one. Ironically, humans will set the stage, make it possible, and choose the transition voluntarily.

It has already begun. We have developed vaccines that improve our native capacity to ward off illness. We are replacing parts of ourselves with parts taken from others, parts taken from non human biological sources, and parts we are manufacturing ourselves. We are developing gene therapies that, in the next decade or two or three, promise to fix a host of problems, avoid a host more, and enhance and extend human abilities in myriad ways. We are figuring out how our lower level biological processes work and how to alter and manipulate them. Our scientists and advance thinkers are developing and imagining technologies and applications that will ultimately lead to the smearing together of biological, electronic, mechanical, chemical, and logic systems. Adaptive intelligence and cognitive potential will evolve and morph and flow into forms more and more and increasingly more distinct from us. We will become more machinelike and machines will become more uslike. Similarly, we will become more fishlike, more plantlike, and on and on. We will take on more and more of the abilities that animals have and more and more of the processes that plants and machines have. We will give animals and plants more and more of the abilities and processes that we want them to have and they will become more uslike.

It will be seen as progress, more so by the evolving and adapting trans-human entities than by the ones who seek to preserve the current image of humankind. There will be disputes and moratoria and it will be ugly and fiercely and frequently challenged, but in the end evolution will not give up its new tools; rather, it will use them to make even more novel and powerful ones.

One day, a few hundred years from now, a sentient being, pursuing research or mere pleasure via anthropological research, will come across this brief missive I have written, think his version of "duh!," and chuckle at the puny and quaint intellect that composed it. He may be a meteorological life form adapted to float in the sky, be energized by the sun's radiation or static electricity, and communicate observations or effect alterations for the benefit of vastly distinct and specially adapted sentient life forms on land or in the seas below.

The chuckle may be strictly local and unobservable, it may be shared with other sentient nodes, or it may even make its way up to a collective sentient central entity and then back out throughout the whole, distributed communication network, maybe only as a future pundit entity's brief comment on channel 1&^34^&*56~7gheli23b. As a result, somewhere, sometime, some being adapted for life deep within a sea vent, may receive it and may show his amusement via a brief and faint fluorescence. He will likely share some portion of DNA similar to mine, but perhaps not.

Wait for a cloudy winters night no solar power then, catch them napping.

Provided they will ever emerge into reality, even with a well maintained mini nuclear reactor inside them, their mortality is assured. The second law of thermodynamics takes care of that. But, nevermind that.

How will they ever reach a state of self-consciousness, and who is to say they will try to get rid of us, their creators?

Would you get rid of yours if you could?

If the answer, the real answer, not the one to be "presented" here, is positive, than our "god" to be red of, is not a real god.

Our real creator, must be something we see ourself one with: our originator and our remainder. You never want to get rid of that, it's what you're made of, and want to become one with.

This other one you (not you personally, of course!) want to get rid of, is from a state of dichotomy, on the other side of your will, one with conflicted set of interests with you.

"You" only as a figure-of-speech, in the sense of "you, man"

Why not "us" or "myself"?

Well, I already made my point of what I consider God to be.

Isn't it obvious?

2001 A space odyssey Hal 9000 it took to killing to survive. Where science fiction leads science fact follows on.

i thought AI stood for Artificial Inspiration,

Moose . . . , Steve, I'll give you a dollar if you promise to not use the word "paradigm" again. Thanks in advance -- email your mailing address.

I think the real question here is: If we do create an artificial life form are we inturn creating life and therefore what rights will this new lifeform have??? The same as you and me???

Answered in "Star Trek The Next Generation"

"...creating life and therefore what rights will this new life form have??? The same as you and me???..."

God forbid! This, in turn, will compel us to give animals their due rights, then trees and plants, and eventually even lesser people will get their rights? OMG!

Can you even imagine such abomination?!?!

"Everyone got so tired of arguing that they genetically engineered an animal that wanted to be eaten, and was capable of telling you so."

-Douglas Adams

Ephraim Kishon, an Israeli author and inventor, published in 1966, his idea of an agriculture system, which tills the ground, sow it with potatoes, cultivates and waters it all the way to harvest time.

Then, it will automatically harvest the potatoes, wash and rinse them, then scrape, peel, and eat them, all in one go.