Sinfest

[Lasairfiona]

2) You are just jealous.

So, I think robots can actually be much better at things that humans. They can even learn to react to unknown situations (which is what the human element is there for - okay so I got that from Iron Man). However, I don't think humans will let go of that much control. We will always want some kind of human element involved whether it is a good idea or not.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

[CTrees]

Sorry, you're wrong.

It's the same reason we have soldiers getting drunk and passing out while on guard duty. People don't always care enough to do their jobs, and if there's some oversight, say, a y/n prompt before these mostly-autonomous robots use lethal force, some slacker techs will write a bit of script to automate that to always approve, so they can take longer naps.

People may *want* some degree of control to be imposed, but human laziness will ensure that when robots can be fully autonomous, they will be.

[Mr_Moustache]

Because were flawed, everything we make is?

Anyways, i dont think it would be a good idea. What would one side do in a conflict if they're human casualties would be near none? I think the threshold for war would be much lower, which is a bad thing.
_________________
When life gives you lemons, some people make lemonade. I just eat them and make a sour face.

[Michael]

GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUYS!

ROBOTS = DUMB FUCKS

FOR ANOTHER 50 YEARS

right now we can reliably make them not walk into a wall 80% of the time

seriously people

[Lasairfiona]

Shouldn't we have the rules for how we want robots to behave and other boundaries set _before_ we develop the technology to break those boundaries?
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

[tinkeringIdiot]

harumph

[Pontupo]

That certainly doesn't seem like our general approach to science. Build it first -> sort it out later.

But yeah, I think there's some real sensibility to at least considering these things ahead of time. I think it's especially important in the cases of robotics/AI and cloning because of that whole "autonomy" thing. The consequences, as science fiction has explored for us to exhaustion, could be pretty dire if we fuck it up.

[tinkeringIdiot]

[Pontupo]

I'm saying it is... but shouldn't be. I'm kinda thinking mostly about things like the atomic bomb and about half of pharmacological chemistry... but I also only half mean it because it's really a rather blanket thing to say, isn't it?

[tinkeringIdiot]

It rather is a blanket, but I agree that it is the case all too often. I work in a research department and am constantly sent chasing my tail because the design guys draw up geometry that doesn't have any analytical backing and expect it to work. We've been chasing one problem for almost 3 years now as a result.

Some systems and areas of research require a try-and-see approach, unfortunately. Two-phase flow, for example, isn't very well understood and can't be modeled to the point that experimental iteration is no longer needed. But all too often I see engineers using this as an excuse to pass the buck to the guy at the bottom of the ladder. A responsible and effective approach to new product development should require that the designers define everything that they possibly can before they start getting into specifics. With control system design this is particularly important as changing the scope of functionality slightly can involve major changes to the design details. Fully autonomous robots fall into this category. Defining what we do and do not want them to do should absolutely be done before anyone writes a line of code or sketches a bracket.

Furthermore, the direction that this technology could go (thoroughly explored by the sci-fi writers of the 20th century) represents a paradigm shift that would affect what it means to be human. The conversation defining the bounds on this technology should therefore be carried out in public, rather than in a fictional or research environment. With the very real possibility of achieving this level of robotic sophistication in the near future - made even more apparent by daily headlines like "US drone kills 11" - we need to define an ethics for the field of armed robotics.

[Lasairfiona]

To be fair, you work with some real morons. You should put that story in the Socrates was a Christian thread. Seriously.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

[mouse]

[CTrees]

Actually, Obama being a meganerd, he may just be willing to push Congress to create legislation on the relevant bits of robotic autonomy. Hrm.

[Lemontree]

[Thy Brilliance]

There's something called neurofuzzy logic guys.

That shit is cash.

It helps autonomous robots that know that they're hitting a wall, and change course.