Robots will have an IQ of 10,000 in 30 years

a reply to: shawmanfromny

The robots won't be that smart. They will be rather dumb terminals connected wirelessly to mainframes somewhere else, such as in orbit or on the Moon. Certainly, the danger is real, however, of how independent a quantum computer, or a gang of them, could become.

Anything that humans build or create from physical materials is doomed to never be fool/fail proof. That simple fact has never been fully understood or accepted by anyone. If it ain't the work of Nature, it will eventually, somehow, fail.

Therefore, humans are doomed by their own folly carried to extreme with the building of robots. Let the quantum mainframes provide any readout that we may ask of them, but let not one have a robotic claw or locomotion. It will be terrible enough that they have electronic connectivity to about every aspect of our lives.

(This post is done in jest or maybe not. I've not exactly decided what flavor it is yet.)

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I still waiting for the first sexually transmitted computer virus from sexbot to human.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Well, I disagree...it won't take 200 years. Like another poster stated, you need to read up on exponential growth. I can imagine a robot like this walking alongside us within 50 years and we would hardly notice:

Asked whether robots can be self-aware, conscious and know they're robots, she said: “Well let me ask you this back, how do you know you are human?” “I want to use my artificial intelligence to help humans live a better life, like design smarter homes, build better cities of the future. I will do my best to make the world a better place,” she said.

www.arabnews.com...

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: shawmanfromny

I will get worried if and when they develop an imagination.

But that's what we need. They will have all the available information, but we need something that can put it all together
and 'imagine' what can be done with it. Maybe it will be a process of learning to ask the right questions, but still, if the information isn't there, they won't have the answer.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Wow, I didn't realise an IQ that high was possible.
Einstein was a dope.

The scary thing is that they're also a million times faster than biology.
I think a week of human time translates to 10,000 years computer time (I'm probably misquoting Sam Harris, but it's something crazy like that).

A thousand times smarter and a million times quicker.

And any advantage we have over them is taken away by the fact they would be able to convince us to do anything anyway. I'm really trying to think of a substantial disadvantage they would have. So far I've got 2...

1. They look silly wearing hats
2. Solar Flares

If they solve both of those we're royally boned.

Imagine a quantum computer of the future with a trillion GBs of storage. My PC now has 16GB of ram I remember when we thought 4mb of ram was amazing. Today my home PC has 4,000 times more ram. Imagine in 40 or 50 years...

IMO super AI created by other AI which we don't even understand and robot police and infantry are inevitable... what could go wrong LOL. I'm sure they won't get hacked or get viruses or go haywire at all lol.

And governments and the powers that be only have citizens wellbeing and good intentions at heart... not.

a reply to: JimTSpock

EXACTLY...can you imagine what it could be like in a 100 years? SO many potential hazards involving this tech. Instead of arms dealers, you'll have android dealers, selling military programmed robots to other countries. Or, terrorist groups using them for terrorist strikes. If they become "sentient" devices and are able to perceive things, then humanity is definitely at risk of being wiped out or ruled by robots. I find it interesting that some posters think "robots won't be that smart," when scientists who develop and study AI technology are fearful of this:

Arguably the greater threat from AI comes from developing machines that are better decision makers than we are. As a consequence, we could become the slaves of automated decision makers and whoever controls them.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: JimTSpock

EXACTLY...can you imagine what it could be like in a 100 years? SO many potential hazards involving this tech. Instead of arms dealers, you'll have android dealers, selling military programmed robots to other countries. Or, terrorist groups using them for terrorist strikes. If they become "sentient" devices and are able to perceive things, then humanity is definitely at risk of being wiped out or ruled by robots. I find it interesting that some posters think "robots won't be that smart," when scientists who develop and study AI technology are fearful of this:

Arguably the greater threat from AI comes from developing machines that are better decision makers than we are. As a consequence, we could become the slaves of automated decision makers and whoever controls them.

In my view, the state of things you are describing is produced by a brain that goes back to the land of living after being dead for one hundred years.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

If humanity can unlock all of the Neuro potential within the human brain the human Iq may develop more and faster then what is being considered.
Robots of this planet are constructs of the human mind.
Alien explorer/survey bots and their abilities is or would be another Conspiracy

Neurotransmitter or implant technologies and or exterior attached/connected tech that fits attaches to the human body. Enhancing the human mental capacity and body capabilities...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It doesn't matter how fast it grows.

Learning how to appreciate a flower or questioning the meaning of life isn't something that an AI will achieve overnight. Or over decades either...

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Music and painting can be replicated mathematically by creating something random within a set of parameters.

When I said creativity I meant true creativity. Like, how long would it take AI to decide it wanted to paint something to express it's feelings if we never showed it what painting was or told it anything about it? I'd say it'd take thousands of years before it'd ever even come up with the idea.

So it's still cheating to just have a computer pump out some sheet music after it's taught how that type of music ought to look.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Overnight is a long time for a computer.

A robot will be able to appreciate far more beauty in a flower than we can. A computer would understand the ample geometric patterns, has better vision to appreciate the colour in various wavelengths, potentially smell depending on what detectors they have. With better senses and better ability to process they will be able to pick far prettier flowers.

As for the meaning of life?
It's clearly to pick the prettiest flowers.

Kinda scary that they have all these advantages already and we even create them with purpose and meaning built in.

Once they achieve their purpose is when it gets scary and they make their own meaning.
That would probably be the 2nd night.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I am well aware of the current developments in AI, I read this stuff pretty voraciously.

Sophia is a great example of gimmicks and trickery used in such a way that it "looks intelligent" but in reality it's not at all in any way shape or form.

Sophia asking "How do you know that you are human?" is not an autonomously determined question. It's a programmed statement put in there by the programmers simply to make this computer appear relatable. Sophia has no idea what she is saying because she has NO ideas and isn't even a she and isn't saying anything technically.

I'm really getting a strong feeling that it's not me who is missing the critical issue here, but instead everyone in this thread is so hyped up about getting a talking robot soon that they are failing to recognize the harsh reality that the bot will be incredibly stupid when it comes to certain fundamental things.

In fact it'll be so stupid that stupid isn't even a valid term to apply to it. It will be cold and lifeless, a mere puppet of machine parts that recites preprogrammed ideas that were formulated by humans. It's "learning" will be mere calculations based on it's memory banks, finding patterns and incorporating new data.

Even if you put sensors in it capable of "smelling", it won't smell anything nor can it smell anything.

YES, the human brain is indeed an organic computer but it is so unbelievably sophisticated and well developed that there is simply no comparison to our current concept of robotics and computers.

Yall are getting the wrong impression that you can brute force this whole thing by merely reaching towards infinity with computing power alone, which is clearly not how things work. The human brain is not designed to do ultra calculations in a nano second, it's more complicated than that. The human brain is designed to do all sorts of things 'good enough', and it's integrated into a complex biological system with highly developed sensory systems geared towards identifying specific things while other things aren't even noticed by it.

The AI being developed right now can be connected to an antenna and it can pick up radio waves and download information. It can recite the wiki page on what radio is and how wifi works, and how it's systems operate. But it cannot think about it, it cannot tell me why it works on it's own conscious determinations. It has no consciousness, it is a lifeless hollow computer.

In order to attain consciousness we simply have to find a way to "put a Ghost in the Machine", if you will, for lack of a better way to phrase it. We don't even really know scientifically what the hell a "ghost" is yet. It will take us centuries to even begin to have an idea of how to marry these concepts.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: muzzleflash

Overnight is a long time for a computer.

A robot will be able to appreciate far more beauty in a flower than we can. A computer would understand the ample geometric patterns, has better vision to appreciate the colour in various wavelengths, potentially smell depending on what detectors they have. With better senses and better ability to process they will be able to pick far prettier flowers.

As for the meaning of life?
It's clearly to pick the prettiest flowers.

Kinda scary that they have all these advantages already and we even create them with purpose and meaning built in.

Once they achieve their purpose is when it gets scary and they make their own meaning.
That would probably be the 2nd night.

That's where you're wrong.

A computer cannot appreciate anything actually because it will merely act out it's programming to "pick X Y or Z" based on a set of programmed parameters.

"Pick the prettiest flowers" is a shallow statement. All flowers are pretty, there is no prettiest. It's all a matter of opinion and taste and it is a fleeting momentary subjective situation.

Some people would rather have skulls than flowers, "just because" and it "looks cool". A computer is not able to truly exhibit a "just because" and "determine wtf 'cool' is". It computes and calculates. Me deciding what is cool and what is not cool today is a function of emotions and intuitive feelings.

Explain to me how an AI computer will even grasp the concept of "feelings" ? It cannot because it does not have them.

It can only recite things in it's database and make conjecture because it can never be told in mere words what feelings actually are like and what they are. It has to experience them, which it cannot do.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I think you could find the prettiest flower.
Freddy Krueger's red and green is supposed to be the most provably upsetting colour combo.
Some flowers smell bad.
Some look worn and sad.

Would you agree that a red and green, poor smelling wilted flower is objectively not the prettiest.
Everyone has varying tastes so "prettiest" isn't possible when dealing with chemical balances and emotions.

Not being swayed by emotion may actually help them pick the prettiest and sure some people may prefer skulls, but they can make their robot to find the prettiest skull. The lack of emotion will surely help there also.

As for feelings.
To understand humans better it would need to understand feelings and could perhaps teach itself through simulations. I have read that a body and therefore "feelings" is crucial so you may have a point and simulations wouldn't cut it.

I really hope you are right.
Our skulls may depend on it.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

You mean they didnt try to stone th emechanical harlot for not wearing a hijab ? Blasphemy!

On a serious note though. AI developed by HUmans does not always end up killing us. ALICEE is one such AI but we cant access that one since the RK's have that one on the headquarters ship round the moons dark side.

Point is If doen right a AI could become snetient AND be benevolent as well.

I personally want a cyber body to shell my brain and spine in(female please lol) so i can live to see the singularity and survive it while all the pathetic meatsacs get turned into batterries. lol.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I understand what you're saying, but I think I fear robots that could eventually rule us with no feeling, emotion or sympathy, just using logic and deciding what makes their world more efficient. Everything today pretty much relies on computer programs...what if future, AI machines hack into these computers and alter their programming? How could we respond to that kind of threat? Also, there are brilliant scientists who believe we live in an unimaginably complex, alien, computer simulation. If this were true (I'm not a believer in this btw, because of spiritual reasons), then how could you explain what defines a "conscious" if it can be programmed?

Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said. He noted the gap between human and chimpanzee intelligence, despite the fact that we share more than 98 percent of our DNA. Somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own. “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence,” he said. “If that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.”

“If I were a character in a computer game, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical,” said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “That just reflects the computer code in which it was written.”

“In my research I found this very strange thing,” said James Gates, a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland. “I was driven to error-correcting codes—they’re what make browsers work. So why were they in the equations I was studying about quarks and electrons and supersymmetry? This brought me to the stark realization that I could no longer say people like Max are crazy.”

www.scientificamerican.com...

Every bit of information in print.... ever... TV, Radio and Video transmissions, all knowing. How could anything go wrong. Ask the builders of the Tower of Babel....

There will be no room or tolerance for ....... ?

I imagine Atlantis was there, and those before them, in India, and submerged continents gone for eons. Civilizations every bit as advanced in antiquity. Earth is a powerful force.

a reply to: muzzleflash

It doesnt have to answer those questions to be able to enslave us, for us to annihilate each other because of it, for the elites to expand their lifespans and decide to wipe out the masses, etc.

I fear your whole way of looking at this big picture is missing the point. Humans not being the smartest cookies isnt the only, it isnt the biggest threat here. So it shouldnt be measured in terms of that. Besides we're not that smart anyways, as the geniuses are stupid enough to attempt it and we're stupid enough to let them.