[townsbg]

Personally I don't think that there will ever be A.I. I'll admit that we can and have programmed highly intelligent robots but to program self generating intelligence and self awareness is beyond our abilities and I really think that a robot [or some other computer system] can only ever know what we want it to.

In reality do we really want AI? There have been countless movies involving negatives to AI. Do we want those "stories" to be reality?

[Kaistar]

I generally think Sci-Fi movies about AIs going crazy are a little bit... over-the-top.

However, I would say that an AI in the future for me is definitely plausible. Perhaps even inevitable, unless we consciously choose NOT to pursue artificial intelligence. I am personally quite impressed with artificial intelligence and neural networking so far.

I think, though this is just based on pure opinion, that as humans seek to create more and more efficient computers we have nowhere to go but to go towards AIs.

I read a recent article on how the iRobot's 3 laws for Robotics is pure bull and won't work as well. Lol. So if there's a robot uprising we'd be major screwed.

[rockinteenbabe]

I generally think Sci-Fi movies about AIs going crazy are a little bit... over-the-top.

However, I would say that an AI in the future for me is definitely plausible. Perhaps even inevitable, unless we consciously choose NOT to pursue artificial intelligence. I am personally quite impressed with artificial intelligence and neural networking so far.

I think, though this is just based on pure opinion, that as humans seek to create more and more efficient computers we have nowhere to go but to go towards AIs.

I read a recent article on how the iRobot's 3 laws for Robotics is pure bull and won't work as well. Lol. So if there's a robot uprising we'd be major screwed.

Yeah but tbh films about it are pretty good ^^

[Kaistar]

Yeah but tbh films about it are pretty good ^^

Can't agree with you more. Bicentennial Man is one of my favorite movie of all time.

[townsbg]

I read a recent article on how the iRobot's 3 laws for Robotics is pure bull and won't work as well. Lol. So if there's a robot uprising we'd be major screwed.

Are you referring to the 3 laws in iRobot? If so look what happened in that movie? The master computer system followed those so literally that it decided that for our on protection we were better off locked in our homes to protect each other from ourselves and resistors where better off dead. I grant you that movies might be so far off but they could be closer than we could ever imagine which is scary.
What I was referring to was the programming of robotic systems either hardware or software. Mainly all programming does is to define if/then conditions under which the software (or hardware) operates. Although with enough conditions this can and has created some very "smart" systems we can't use such programming to program self-awareness or self-generating intelligence or thought. They basically can only know what we tell them.

[townsbg]

Hopefully to study Biology, Chemistry, Sport and somthing else that is definitely not maths.

I take it that you don't like math. There is a lot of math in chemistry and even more in physics. Actually there is some math in most science in general and in disciplines that use science such as engineering. That is why over here when you for a major in the sciences you typically get a bachelor of science degree and at most places you have to take at least one math course for a BS. Some majors require more and harder math classes than others. In short if you despise math you might want to avoid chemistry (which is much harder than high school chemistry) and especially physics. I don't believe that biology requires as much math.

[k_9]

I understand that Chemistry requires math and I'm not saying that I despise it, I just don't feel i'd be able to cope with 2 years of being bored to hell. All I am saying is that I prefer Biology because I feel I can become more specialized in that area, however I have had a look at the math requirements and I am above average for the entry level for both Chemistry and Biology. Physics is a definite no-way. I am not that smart and I can generally see my self getting very bored if I attempted to face it. I enjoy the lessons as they are very interesting, I understand the work so far, however when It comes to writing down what Iknow in the exam is where my knowledge does not come across... which is a shame. I need to improve, yes, and with so many prospects in the future I can't fail now.
We have success just to put ourselves through more hell.

[Kaistar]

Are you referring to the 3 laws in iRobot? If so look what happened in that movie? The master computer system followed those so literally that it decided that for our on protection we were better off locked in our homes to protect each other from ourselves and resistors where better off dead. I grant you that movies might be so far off but they could be closer than we could ever imagine which is scary.
What I was referring to was the programming of robotic systems either hardware or software. Mainly all programming does is to define if/then conditions under which the software (or hardware) operates. Although with enough conditions this can and has created some very "smart" systems we can't use such programming to program self-awareness or self-generating intelligence or thought. They basically can only know what we tell them.

What I was saying was the same as well, though I didn't bother to clarify myself and therefore probably caused confusion. Here's the article.

For example, in one of Asimov's stories, robots are made to follow the laws, but they are given a certain meaning of "human." Prefiguring what now goes on in real-world ethnic cleansing campaigns, the robots only recognize people of a certain group as "human." They follow the laws, but still carry out genocide.

The second problem is that no technology can yet replicate Asimov's laws inside a machine. As Rodney Brooks of the company iRobot—named after the Asimov book, they are the people who brought you the Packbot military robot and the Roomba robot vacuum cleaner—puts it, "People ask me about whether our robots follow Asimov's laws. There is a simple reason [they don't]: I can't build Asimov's laws in them."

Roboticist Daniel Wilson [and "Machines Behaving Deadly" contributor here at Gizmodo] was a bit more florid. "Asimov's rules are neat, but they are also bull****. For example, they are in English. How the heck do you program that?"

The most important reason for Asimov's Laws not being applied yet is how robots are being used in our real world. You don't arm a Reaper drone with a Hellfire missile or put a machine gun on a MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System) not to cause humans to come to harm. That is the very point!

The same goes to building a robot that takes order from any human. Do I really want Osama Bin Laden to be able to order about my robot? And finally, the fact that robots can be sent out on dangerous missions to be "killed" is often the very rationale to using them. To give them a sense of "existence" and survival instinct would go against that rationale, as well as opens up potential scenarios from another science fiction series, the Terminator movies. The point here is that much of the funding for robotic research comes from the military, which is paying for robots that follow the very opposite of Asimov's laws. It explicitly wants robots that can kill, won't take orders from just any human, and don't care about their own existences.

A Question of Ethics
The bigger issue, though, when it comes to robots and ethics is not whether we can use something like Asimov's laws to make machines that are moral (which may be an inherent contradiction, given that morality wraps together both intent and action, not mere programming).

Rather, we need to start wrestling with the ethics of the people behind the machines. Where is the code of ethics in the robotics field for what gets built and what doesn't? To what would a young roboticists turn to? Who gets to use these sophisticated systems and who doesn't? Is a Predator drone a technology that should just be limited to the military? Well, too late, the Department of Homeland Security is already flying six Predator drones doing border security. Likewise, many local police departments are exploring the purchase of their own drones to park over him crime neighborhoods. I may think that makes sense, until the drone is watching my neighborhood. But what about me? Is it within my 2nd Amendment right to have a robot that bears arms?

These all sound a bit like the sort of questions that would only be posed at science fiction conventions. But that is my point. When we talk about robots now, we are no longer talking about "mere science fiction" as one Pentagon analyst described of these technologies. They are very much a part of our real world.

[townsbg]

Maybe we are missing each other's points but my point is although we have developed very "smart" robots via programming and will in the future develop even smarter robots I don't think that there will ever be any true AI in the form of robot self-awareness and self-generating intelligence [as shown in countless movies such as bicentennial man or iRobot] but that the intelligence they get will strictly be from us due to my previous argument. In reality do we really want AI? I sure the don't!!!

[townsbg]

We have success just to put ourselves through more hell.

Too true.