Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Killer Robots

11011121416

Comments



  • Midster wrote: »
    so if we can’t move people large scale to another planet, can’t make our planet bigger, or more productive without harming delicate eco balances.
    The only solution is to kill people and I mean foot to the floor no holds barred kill. Because the more people you kill the more time that drop in population gives you till the population goes back up again and the situation becomes
    Needs some science. Unless you have numbers that can be peer reviewed it's just handwaving.

    Population trends suggest a peak at 11-12bn

    Ocean floor methane hydrates can be turned into single cell protein easily. One large vat on the Liverpool docks used to generate the equivalent of an area the size of Wales covered in soya. But energy was cheaper then.




  • Midster wrote: »
    If you look at our situation with a cold eye, and without empathy, people have babies who have more babies so there really is only one possible solution.
    So you have to kill, and I don’t mean just a few, I mean millions.
    Demographically speaking, as countries develop, they have fewer births. Look at population pyramids and you will see the difference. For example, Germany is now at below zero population growth, meaning that its population is declining. There are several developed nations that are similar to Germany today. Today's lesser developed nations are moving in this direction too, especially with economic globalisation. If this trend continues, population growth will peak, plateau, and then decline.
    Midster wrote: »
    We can’t move people to the moon or mars before the overpopulation problem gets out of control.
    Space colonisation, or the permanent human habitation of other planets today is not practical nor economically reasonable (e.g., cost-benefits, profit incentives, etc.). It does make for grand sci fi movies, and perhaps with the rapid advancement of technology someday in the distant future it may be feasible. Until then, our mission statement will be to go "where no [robot] has gone before."
    Midster wrote: »
    On top of that we also have a low level air pollution problem, that’s causing rising sea levels, trapping the suns heat, causing more rain, bigger stronger storms, etc.
    Geologically speaking, the Earth has always had climate change. Such changes may affect different species in different ways, with many adapting and others becoming extinct (e.g., most dinosaurs becoming extinct about 65 million years ago, while few evolving; raptors, etc.). It does appear that humans have been affecting climate change which may threaten their existence, and if they continue to do so, there is a chance that homo sapiens sapiens will become extinct before they can slowly evolve. Who knows?
    Midster wrote: »
    do you seriously think a trillion dollar piece of AI isn’t going to think the same.
    Skynet becomes self-aware; makes for grand sci fi today.
    Midster wrote: »
    so if we can’t move people large scale to another planet, can’t make our planet bigger, or more productive without harming delicate eco balances.
    The only solution is to kill people and I mean foot to the floor no holds barred kill. Because the more people you kill the more time that drop in population gives you till the population goes back up again and the situation becomes
    These comments resemble Malthusian Theory of Population Control, which is problematic. Or the much earlier mythical or biblical Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, as illustrated by an 1887 painting by Viktor Vasnetsov, epicting Death, Famine, War, and Conquest as population reducing events.

    Although population growth is a very complex issue, if you could pick one variable that would help to reduce such growth it would be the education of women; i.e., the higher the education of women, the lower the birth rate (see US Population Reference Bureau studies). Why this occurs demographically has been subject to debate, but it does occur for various reasons that tend to support the above education of women hypothesis.

    There are other variables that may reduce population growth, rather than resorting to an Apocalypse.




  • Black Swan wrote: »
    Until then, our mission statement will be to go "where no [robot] has gone before."
    Revises Star Trek




  • Black Swan wrote: »
    These comments resemble Malthusian Theory of Population Control, which is problematic. Or the much earlier mythical or biblical Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, as illustrated by an 1887 painting by Viktor Vasnetsov, epicting Death, Famine, War, and Conquest as population reducing events.

    Although population growth is a very complex issue, if you could pick one variable that would help to reduce such growth it would be the education of women; i.e., the higher the education of women, the lower the birth rate (see US Population Reference Bureau studies). Why this occurs demographically has been subject to debate, but it does occur for various reasons that tend to support the above education of women hypothesis.

    There are other variables that may reduce population growth, rather than resorting to an Apocalypse.

    Reducing the education of women!? Really!? And you think that might be the answer!? Wtf!? Honestly!?

    I wasn’t trying to say a war is a good idea either, but I do think that if a simple voice only AI comes to the conclusion that it is us that have become a problem, not just to this planets long term future, but to ourselves as well, what the hell do you think is going to stop a more sophisticated AI system that’s plugged into the internet and can talk to any other AI system on earth, or reprogram. AI is more dangerous than any nuclear weapon ever has been or ever will be. But if they did come to really what is the only logical conclusion (if you remove value of life and compassion from the decision making process) is that the problem is there are to many of us, and that they need to kill a s**t ton of us, in order to save the rest of us.




  • Midster wrote: »
    Reducing the education of women!? Really!? And you think that might be the answer!? Wtf!? Honestly!?
    The women's education hypothesis stated above was:
    "the higher the education of women, the lower the birth rate." Demographically, if you increase the education of women, they tend to have fewer children, and a population that exhibits highly educated women tends to approach zero population growth rate, and in many cases below replacement rate and population decline.


  • Advertisement


  • I can see that, that might be true, because you do here about women now choosing to have less children, later in life, and some not at all.

    But what would you offer as a solution?




  • Midster wrote: »
    I can see that, that might be true, because you do here about women now choosing to have less children, later in life, and some not at all.

    But what would you offer as a solution?

    judgment_day.png

    https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1626:_Judgment_Day




  • Heres a good question, why is it the better technology seems to get, our working lives don’t seem to get any easier




  • Midster wrote: »
    But what would you offer as a solution?
    The population growth problem is quite complex, without any silver bullet solutions. Strategically, there needs to be a system of interventions, especially for lesser developed countries (LDC) where birth rates tend to be higher than replacement rates. Rather than the use of force, win-win solutions are needed, where LDCs want to accept changes to reduce population, perhaps as a byproduct of beneficial interventions. Furthermore, it is not my areas of research interest or experience, consequently there are others more qualified than I to answer your questions. Given this disclaimer, I will contribute to our discussions in some small way.

    Some past LDC sliver bullet interventions have been self-defeating, and have contributed to LDC population growth. For example, McFall's Paradox suggests problems, although often debated and criticised. People are starving in parts of the world. Starving people tend to exhibit subfecundity, or a reduced ability to have live births. The many feed the starving interventions (e.g., "Feed the Children," etc.), although compassionate, may produce unintended consequences. Feeding the starving increases fecundity or the ability to have more children, which in turn produces more mouths to feed and potentially more starvation, if the feeding programmes do not escalate by offering more food than before. Not only does the additional outside food interventions increase populations, but they also compete with, and may financially depress the existing LDC agriculture, to where many domestic farms may fail, creating even a larger need for outside food to feed the increased starving population. Additionally, there have been instances of corruption in outside food supply chains, where some LDC government officials may dip into the food flow and black market sell this food to enrich themselves. Agree or disagree with McFall's Paradox, one point that emerges from this discussion: There are no simple silver bullet solutions to complex population problems.

    The Core Periphery Model developed in 1963 by John Friedmann, and further elaborated by Immanuel Wallerstein's world-systems theory in the 1980s suggested that the core of rich, developed nations may not be interested in developing the LDC periphery nations beyond a certain point, preserving low labour costs, reduced regulation, and more profits for rich core nations. Surplus LDC populations tend to keep costs down, and allow for easy layoffs when business cycles decline, and cheap labour additions when business cycles improve. Where highly educated nations tend to have fewer children, lesser developed nations have more, along with a cheap source of labour, so where are the profit incentives of core, rich nations to completely share their education, technology, and vast financial resources beyond a certain developmental level for the more populous LDCs? Yet more theories to debate and argue about.

    Of course, if LDC populations continue to expand without concomitant advancements in education, finance, technology, and agricultural development, there may be revolutions, wars, or wealth adjustments per Will and Ariel Durant in their Lessons of History. And such threats of war may motivate the rich core nations to expand the development of killer robots to defend themselves, rather than fix the problems of expanding world populations.

    Just my 2-euros worth, after way too much coffee!
    Midster wrote: »
    Heres a good question, why is it the better technology seems to get, our working lives don’t seem to get any easier
    Anecdotally speaking, I am not sure this would apply to my work which often involves numbers crunching of big data sets. Advancing computer hardware and software has made my work more efficient, effective, and profitable, allowing for many relaxed smiles at offsite javahouse meetings of my research teams.




  • I watched the Jack Ma and Elon Musk debate yesterday, very interesting as they have polar opposite views on some important stuff. I have always been someone who warned about unsustainable population growth, but Elon has different ideas. He is most concerned about population implosion, which when you look at the stats seems a real worry.

    Looks like China is doomed, as they have a extremely low birthrate, massive growth and infrastructure, and no way of looking after the wave of old people that will soon make up the majority of the population.

    Any way, its interesting, the debate is about a hour long have a look on YT.


  • Advertisement


  • It's Already Too Late - Elon Musk.




  • Hi there I could do with your open opinions on the subject of the new lgbtq+ education that is coming into schools, starting with children at single digit ages. What you think about it, good and bad, and how you feel about it, good/bad. Goto Topics, education, primary and pre school to find it




  • Midster wrote: »
    Hi there I could do with your open opinions on the subject of the new lgbtq+ education that is coming into schools, starting with children at single digit ages. What you think about it, good and bad, and how you feel about it, good/bad. Goto Topics, education, primary and pre school to find it

    Where does Killer robots come into this ?




  • SlowBlowin wrote: »

    Where does Killer robots come into this ?

    It doesn’t, not even a little bit, but I would be interested in your point of view on the issue.
    There is more information on the thread I mentioned




  • Coming Soon to a Battlefield: Robots That Can Kill




  • Midster wrote: »
    Hi there I could do with your open opinions on the subject of the new lgbtq+ education that is coming into schools, starting with children at single digit ages. What you think about it, good and bad, and how you feel about it, good/bad. Goto Topics, education, primary and pre school to find it
    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    Where does Killer robots come into this ?
    Midster wrote: »
    It doesn’t, not even a little bit, but I would be interested in your point of view on the issue.
    There is more information on the thread I mentioned

    MOD: Hi Midster. Your duplicate posts in 3 Popular Science threads, and also Politics was reported. It's spamming. Against the rules. If you have questions about this, don't post here. PM me.




  • Appreciated for telling me




  • Fathom wrote: »
    MOD: Hi Midster. Your duplicate posts in 3 Popular Science threads, and also Politics was reported. It's spamming. Against the rules. If you have questions about this, don't post here. PM me.

    Wait!! Hang on a sec, I’m spamming a thread that exists on boards, to other users on boards.ie

    Pointing people towards what could potentially be a very important thread for people to be a part of.

    Why aren’t the makers of boards.ie and there moderators encouraging this, surely advertising different threads created by members of boards.ie, on boards.ie, on different subjects that are just starting up and therefore don’t have a big audience yet on boards.ie, is something that would easily play to boards.ie’s advantage.

    Maybe an apply for thread advertisement button would do the trick, so the makers could first look at it, decide if it’s worth advertising to other users so new threads can have there own chance to grow after they have been up for a while.

    Just a thought




  • Robot battles. All Japan Robot-Sumo Tournament.




  • George A. Bekey, Autonomous Robots: From Biological Inspiration to Implementation and Control. An introduction to the science and practice of autonomous robots that reviews over 300 current systems.


  • Advertisement


  • Cool source. I raise you...

    Introduction to AI Robotics, Second Edition
    By Robin R. Murphy




  • Autonomous robots, we ain't nowhere near there yet.

    9131_2d91.png




  • Autonomous robots, we ain't nowhere near there yet.
    Ground floor opportunities for R&D robotics jobs.




  • Makes me wonder what a future military populated by a great number of killer robots will look like?




  • Robot Santa Claus was one of the main antagonists in Futurama.




  • If robots someday discover superintelligence (a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds), will they demand equality, or perhaps superiority, and if humans do not comply, rebel and become "killer robots?" A list of sci fi movies now preview in my mind.




  • Black Swan wrote: »
    If robots someday discover superintelligence (a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds), will they demand equality, or perhaps superiority, and if humans do not comply, rebel and become "killer robots?" A list of sci fi movies now preview in my mind.
    The Terminator
    The Matrix
    Blade Runner
    Ex Machina
    The Day the Earth Stood Still
    2001: A Space Odyssey
    The Machine
    Metropolis
    Interstellar
    I, Robot




  • Black Swan wrote: »
    If robots someday discover superintelligence (a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds), will they demand equality, or perhaps superiority, and if humans do not comply, rebel and become "killer robots?" A list of sci fi movies now preview in my mind.

    Counter Example
    In the Dune* universe there was the Butlerian Jihad which led to the outlawing of thinking machines.

    AI's are stupid - https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50720823



    * The originals by Frank Herbert were fantastic, ignore the later ones written by Pinky and the brain.


  • Advertisement


  • Minecraft players vs AI. Now. Future kills?


Advertisement