nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Killer Robots

Fathom

Drones occupy battlefields today. Airborne. Strike targets. Automated warfare exists today. This technology said to be an expanding "continuum." AI weapons development replacing direct human involvement. Should limits be placed on such “lethal autonomous weapons?” Computer scientist Stewart Russell at University of California at Berkeley thinks so. But is it too late? Ask I-Robot? Terminator? Sci Fi leads the way? Ref: http://www.popsci.com/big-idea-killer-robots-are-coming

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Humourous quote Capt'n. Have a nice weekend.

Capt'n Midnight

[Deleted User]

Methinks there may be alternative futures, especially with the vast delays between research discoveries, funding, scale-up from lab to manufacturing floor, as well as between early and late adopters. Coming of age and release timing can be key factors.

Fathom

Keep visualizing I-Robot sci fi movie.

Capt'n Midnight

Fathom wrote: »

Will that always be?

For the foreseeable future.

screen%20shot%202016-03-09%20at%2014.png

GO is a very simple game

Starting with black, you take turns placing a stone on a vacant grid intersection.

Any stone adjacent to a vacant intersection is alive.
Any stone of the same colour adjacent to an alive one is also alive.

Dead stones are taken off the board.

Whoever controls most of the board wins.

That's pretty much it.

There are other rules to stop the game going on too long*

* like the one where the game is over when both players pass, but
you could dispense with them by playing a game out fully, which
is what you do anyway if there is any argument about who controls
most of the board.

These other rules vary by country, China, Japan, Korea and Tibet all have
variants of GO with slightly different rules and counting schemes, and there
are Western variations too. But overall it doesn't change the score by much.
It's about the same as the handicap given to the player who starts second,
which itself has changed over the years. Or the rule that deducts two for
every living group.

But in general all the extra rules have ways of saying that you can't repeat
the previous position.
And you can decide who won by counting the stones on the board
OR by counting the spaces enclosed by the stones on the board less the dead
ones removed earlier.

[Deleted User]

Fathom wrote: »

Will that always be?

Change is a constant.

Fathom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Humans are still way better at parallel processing.

Will that always be?

Capt'n Midnight

Humans are still way better at parallel processing.

Fathom

Rubecula wrote: »

algorithms are just numbers like an age really.

Algorithms that interact, compete, and learn at quick pace may be something else?

Rubecula

algorithms are just numbers like an age really.

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

Deep learning GAI someday approximates Skynet. Notes human imperfections. Removes the social virus Matrix style. Not to worry. Just a Sci Fi extension.

Future algorithms rule.

[Deleted User]

Fathom wrote: »

Why the U.S. Is Backing Killer Robots.

Deep learning GAI someday approximates Skynet. Notes human imperfections. Removes the social virus Matrix style. Not to worry. Just a Sci Fi extension.

Fathom

Why the U.S. Is Backing Killer Robots.

“Weapons that do what commanders and operators intend can effectuate their intentions to conduct operations in compliance with the law of war and to minimize harm to civilians.”

[Deleted User]

Fourier wrote: »

Sorry I still don't understand. I know a bit about soft robotics, but I don't know of anything like the above that would allow transference. It wasn't clear from the papers above either.

We may be addressing 2 or more things, and treating them as one? The treading article mentioned above (brain living forever) was a different topic from other posts that spoke to the rapid development of human-like robots (beautiful, etc.). Sorry for the confusion.

Fourier

Black Swan wrote: »

Deep reinforcement learning of declarative and procedural knowledge as a path to artificial general intelligence in terms of how it mirrors human learning by exploring and receiving feedback from environment. Today's baby steps. Expanding not linearly, rather geometrically, with rapid and astounding developments occurring in the next couple decades integrating AGI with soft robotics and human interaction.

Sorry I still don't understand. I know a bit about soft robotics, but I don't know of anything like the above that would allow transference. It wasn't clear from the papers above either.

[Deleted User]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also
The European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for an international ban on so-called killer robots.

Killer robots prevail.

But some countries - including Israel, Russia, South Korea and the US - opposed new measures at the August meeting, saying that they wanted to explore potential "advantages" from autonomous weapons systems.

Capt'n Midnight

Black Swan wrote: »

Read a treading article about living forever by transferring all that is stored in the brain to a future AI robot. Scary!

Like the argument for teleportation. What you get is a copy of the original. Something that behaves like you and has your memories. But you die.

Also
The European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for an international ban on so-called killer robots.

[Deleted User]

Deep reinforcement learning of declarative and procedural knowledge as a path to artificial general intelligence in terms of how it mirrors human learning by exploring and receiving feedback from environment. Today's baby steps. Expanding not linearly, rather geometrically, with rapid and astounding developments occurring in the next couple decades integrating AGI with soft robotics and human interaction.

Fourier

When you say "all that is stored in the brain", do you mean the brain itself or the information?

[Deleted User]

Fourier wrote: »

That's only a sci-fi idea currently though, there's no indications from real science that it's remotely possible. Non-destructive scanning of neural tissue seems incredibly difficult, I'm not even aware of it being theoretical viable for any substance outside simple polymers.

Universities about the world are funded and advancing AI and soft robotics at an impressive pace. You might want to review some of the following scholarly sources?

Fumiya Iidaa and Cecilia Laschi (2011), Soft Robotics: Challenges and Perspectives, Procedia Computer Science, Volume 7, 2011, Pages 99-102.
Rolf Pfeifer, Rolf Pfeifer, and Fumiya Iidaa (2012), The challenges ahead for bio-inspired 'soft' robotics, Communications of the ACM, Volume 55 Issue 11, Pages 76-87.
Carmel Majidi (2014), Soft Robotics: A Perspective—Current Trends and Prospects for the Future, Soft Robotics VOL. 1, NO. 1.
Cecilia Laschi and Matteo Cianchetti (2014), Soft robotics: new perspectives for robot bodyware and control, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, published online.

And a very readable magazine:

Matt Simon, The WIRED Guide to Robots: Everything you wanted to know about soft, hard, and nonmurderous automatons, WIRED 17 May 2018.

Fourier

Black Swan wrote: »

Androids are the future methinks, rather than clones. Read a treading article about living forever by transferring all that is stored in the brain to a future AI robot. Scary!

That's only a sci-fi idea currently though, there's no indications from real science that it's remotely possible. Non-destructive scanning of neural tissue seems incredibly difficult, I'm not even aware of it being theoretical viable for any substance outside simple polymers.

Rubecula

Black Swan wrote: »

Indeed. So why not start off with everything shiny new? Soft robotics is advancing quickly, and someday it may produce Blade Runner androids that cannot be easily differentiated from their human counterparts. Oops, sorry for the pun.

I see cyborgs as evolution and androids as revolution I think. at least it seems that I do.

[Deleted User]

Rubecula wrote: »

constant replacements and upgrades may lead to a robotic person you mean?

Indeed. So why not start off with everything shiny new? Soft robotics is advancing quickly, and someday it may produce Blade Runner androids that cannot be easily differentiated from their human counterparts. Oops, sorry for the pun.

Rubecula

constant replacements and upgrades may lead to a robotic person you mean?

[Deleted User]

Rubecula wrote: »

I ould have thought cyborgs not androids myself, cyborgs are in reality already here.

Perhaps. Then again, a shiny new soft robotics body with AI is new, unlike the ageing parts that we humans all encounter, even if having some of those parts replaced overtime.

Rubecula

I ould have thought cyborgs not androids myself, cyborgs are in reality already here.

[Deleted User]

Rubecula wrote: »

they are clones not robots lol
but point taken on that score. sadly I can not equate gender with machinery for some reason no matter what it looks like.

Androids are the future methinks, rather than clones. Read a treading article about living forever by transferring all that is stored in the brain to a future AI robot. Scary!