3 ms·

Humans need ongoing support like food, cooling, and medical treatments. We give those things to each other. There's already research into machines that can repr

Humans need ongoing support like food, cooling, and medical treatments. We give those things to each other. There's already research into machines that can reproduce and self-repair, and of course software has the benefit of being able to replicate across any number of existing machines -- i.e. there is no "pull the plug" because it can exist on devices with millions of plugs around the world. So why would we think machines can't avoid a red power button?

blueflow 4y ago
> We give those things to each other We harvest, construct and research these things, paying with our sweat, blood and health. AI needs to replicate that to be independent from humans, or provide something humans need in return to humans working for and supplying it. I don't see traces of either. That self-repair and self-replication is being researched does not imply its realistically or feasible. I don't see traces of that, too.
- IceMetalPunk 4y ago
  > AI needs to replicate that to be independent from humans... No, it doesn't. We don't re-research things, or re-invent things, from scratch constantly. We have knowledge of resource use for these tasks that are already recorded by people before us. AI doesn't need to research anything in this regard, it merely needs to have an existing knowledge of how to copy itself, which requires nothing more than being built with the knowledge of how to copy itself -- something which, as I mentioned, is already in development. > That self-repair and self-replication is being researched does not imply its realistically or feasible. I don't see traces of that, too. Constructs that spontaneously seek out resources and reproduce: https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/team-builds-first-living-robots-that-can-reproduce/ https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/team-builds-first-living-robot... And a more traditional robot type that can not only reproduce itself, but also evolve: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/self-replicating-robots-in-space/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/self-replicating-rob... And those are just two examples I found on a quick Google search. I'm not saying "we currently have robots that can fully self-reproduce without any help", but there's definitely research and progress being made in that area as we speak.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    > Constructs that spontaneously seek out resources and reproduce: https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/team-builds-first-living-robot https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/team-builds-first-living-robot... No intelligence. They dont have a nervous system or something into that direction. Humans supply them and they still die out. > And a more traditional robot type that can not only reproduce itself, but also evolve: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/self-replicating-rob https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/self-replicating-rob... "created by an robotic arm" is not self-reproduction. Face it, Sci-Fi doesn't come true just because we wish for it so hard.
    - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
      > No intelligence. They dont have a nervous system or something into that direction. Humans supply them and they still die out. We have AI, and we have self-replicating constructs. Why exactly do you think it's impossible to combine them? Or are you really under the impression that "doesn't exist yet" means "can't exist ever"? > "created by an robotic arm" is not self-reproduction. Fun fact: you are not a clone of your mom or your dad. Reproduction doesn't require the reproducing mechanism to be identical to the child, it just requires copying to occur.
      - blueflow 4y ago
        > Why exactly do you think it's impossible to combine them? Complexity. I doubt its possible by intelligent design. > Reproduction doesn't require the reproducing mechanism to be identical to the child, it just requires copying to occur. So at least this kind of AI can reliably be stopped by disabling their parenting robotic arm.
        IceMetalPunk 4y ago
        > Complexity. I doubt its possible by intelligent design. Every single time anyone has ever used "it's too complicated to be possible", they have been proven wrong. Take a look at the phone you use every day, then imagine being alive in 1945. Someone describes that phone to you, what would your instinct be? "That's incredibly complicated; even if a machine COULD do all that -- which I doubt -- it certainly couldn't do it with something that fits in your pocket!" People also often use "too complex" as a reason to deny evolution, since they can't imagine anything as complex as current living creatures occurring by chance mutations. TL;DR: "It's too complex" has never been a sound argument against anything, and is always proven wrong. > So at least this kind of AI can reliably be stopped by disabling their parenting robotic arm. Sure; but then again, humans can be reliably stopped by killing them, yet evil people continue to exist because killing one person doesn't stop the people around them or their children from carrying out the same actions they did. That's why war doesn't ever solve any problems long-term (and often not even short-term), yet it continues. This is similar: you disable the parenting arm, and it stops making more bots, but the bots that already were made continue on.

blueflow 4y ago

> We give those things to each other We harvest, construct and research these things, paying with our sweat, blood and health. AI needs to replicate that to be independent from humans, or provide something humans need in return to humans working for and supplying it. I don't see traces of either. That self-repair and self-replication is being researched does not imply its realistically or feasible. I don't see traces of that, too.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
> AI needs to replicate that to be independent from humans... No, it doesn't. We don't re-research things, or re-invent things, from scratch constantly. We have knowledge of resource use for these tasks that are already recorded by people before us. AI doesn't need to research anything in this regard, it merely needs to have an existing knowledge of how to copy itself, which requires nothing more than being built with the knowledge of how to copy itself -- something which, as I mentioned, is already in development. > That self-repair and self-replication is being researched does not imply its realistically or feasible. I don't see traces of that, too. Constructs that spontaneously seek out resources and reproduce: https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/team-builds-first-living-robots-that-can-reproduce/ https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/team-builds-first-living-robot... And a more traditional robot type that can not only reproduce itself, but also evolve: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/self-replicating-robots-in-space/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/self-replicating-rob... And those are just two examples I found on a quick Google search. I'm not saying "we currently have robots that can fully self-reproduce without any help", but there's definitely research and progress being made in that area as we speak.
- blueflow 4y ago
  > Constructs that spontaneously seek out resources and reproduce: https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/team-builds-first-living-robot https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/team-builds-first-living-robot... No intelligence. They dont have a nervous system or something into that direction. Humans supply them and they still die out. > And a more traditional robot type that can not only reproduce itself, but also evolve: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/self-replicating-rob https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/self-replicating-rob... "created by an robotic arm" is not self-reproduction. Face it, Sci-Fi doesn't come true just because we wish for it so hard.
  - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
    > No intelligence. They dont have a nervous system or something into that direction. Humans supply them and they still die out. We have AI, and we have self-replicating constructs. Why exactly do you think it's impossible to combine them? Or are you really under the impression that "doesn't exist yet" means "can't exist ever"? > "created by an robotic arm" is not self-reproduction. Fun fact: you are not a clone of your mom or your dad. Reproduction doesn't require the reproducing mechanism to be identical to the child, it just requires copying to occur.
    - blueflow 4y ago
      > Why exactly do you think it's impossible to combine them? Complexity. I doubt its possible by intelligent design. > Reproduction doesn't require the reproducing mechanism to be identical to the child, it just requires copying to occur. So at least this kind of AI can reliably be stopped by disabling their parenting robotic arm.
      - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
        > Complexity. I doubt its possible by intelligent design. Every single time anyone has ever used "it's too complicated to be possible", they have been proven wrong. Take a look at the phone you use every day, then imagine being alive in 1945. Someone describes that phone to you, what would your instinct be? "That's incredibly complicated; even if a machine COULD do all that -- which I doubt -- it certainly couldn't do it with something that fits in your pocket!" People also often use "too complex" as a reason to deny evolution, since they can't imagine anything as complex as current living creatures occurring by chance mutations. TL;DR: "It's too complex" has never been a sound argument against anything, and is always proven wrong. > So at least this kind of AI can reliably be stopped by disabling their parenting robotic arm. Sure; but then again, humans can be reliably stopped by killing them, yet evil people continue to exist because killing one person doesn't stop the people around them or their children from carrying out the same actions they did. That's why war doesn't ever solve any problems long-term (and often not even short-term), yet it continues. This is similar: you disable the parenting arm, and it stops making more bots, but the bots that already were made continue on.