Slashdot Mirror
Robots that Lust and Reproduce
redcone writes "The Guardian unlimited is reporting that Korean roboticist Kim Jong-Hwan, who founded the robot football (soccer) World Cup, and is the director of the ITRC-Intelligent Robot Research Centre, has developed a series of artificial chromosomes that, he says, will allow robots to feel lusty, and could eventually lead to them reproducing."
I guess it's time to stock up those sound-proofing materials, I can't stand metal-grinding noise.
Seriously though, what is the incentive for robots to reproduce? If they're so smart, they would've realized that they can simply upgrade or replace parts. They might enjoying sexing, but certainly not reproducing.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
A complete Fembot ! :D
The word "lust" is forbidden on the wider Internet. The FCC, rulers of the Internet, founded by Al Gore, has been notified. Expect a DMCA take down notice shortly.
Great, now I have to watch out for my dishwasher humping my leg.
Horny Terminators.
My comments may be crap...but they are my crap...and I am brave enough to stand by them...Never post as AC!
But they better have compatible hardware.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
... The Rise of the Machines!
uh, no pun intended.
I for one cannot stand that horrid rampant humanophilia all over the net. It's only for pervbots and it's disgusting.
Regards,
Cmdr Data
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
All we would need to is stick one of those in a RealDoll, and we'd finally lose all use for the female race.
The summary says it will make them feel lusty, but that reproduction is in the future. How cruel is it to make them want to reproduce without being able to?
Not that I've ever been in their position, of course. Ahem.
Sorry.
I wish the article had more detail; I'd like to know how this is supposed to work. Is it just the control software that's "reproducing", or are these robots actually constucting copies of themselves?
Robots with emotions is a cool idea in terms of fantasy/sci-fi, but is there a practical reason for it?
What is the morality of having robots do dangerous jobs instead of humans? Kind of ruins the point of building robots in the first place.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
They are called "Promise Keepers".
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
I'm not sure if this is the direction we need to go
,then offshoot of that will lead naturally to researh into personalities. If we take the previous notion ( where we are just mimicking human behaviour ) then I guess it might just end up being another set of rule based system, or a system based on refined dependencies.
in the current state of Artificial Intelligence research. I think there are more worthy areas of research, like trying to create intelligence that works . ( It all depends on your definition of Intelligence in AI, do you mean mimicking human intelligence or do you mean capturing the principles of "intelligence" and creating devices that are TRULY intelligent )
If we take the latter notion then we need to make greater inroads in creating true intelligence in our devices
This is a bit of rant, its not meant to be, but when evaluating things like this you need to look at what our notions of intelligence really area...
Article in condensed form:
Fuzzy logic
Genetic algorithms
Control robot behaviour
"Some time in the future"
It's easy to mimic feelings. Making up new ones or the robots evolving new ones though.. That's the tricky one.
Also, cue a hundred or so futurama related jokes. In fact, I'll just hop on the bandwagon;
- If robots don't reproduce - why are they so interested in sex?
- Entirely for the perversion
great, now machines will get more luvin than the average slashdotter....
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Just what I Need to help my confidence, robots getting it more than I do.
Robot: I'm horny; I think I'll build a new robot.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is not a casual statement. If you believe that the laws of physics are the most fundamental things there are, then the logic is inescapable. You are determined by the laws of physics, chemistry, and neurology. You have no free will. What you think of as thinking is just neurological machinery over which you have no control - it controls you. There is no such thing as love; all there is is chemical machinery. All we are is machines. (The only escape from this logic is if you don't accept the premise - that all there really is is the laws of physics.)
The horror of the modern position is that we cannot accept that we are just machines. We feel that we are more, that humans are not just machines. And so we feel that we are more, but rationally we are driven to view ourselves as just machines.
If this is the modern human's horror, why do we want to take machines, and give them feelings? If it's horrifying to have human feelings, but rationally be forced to accept that you are only a machine, how horrifying is it to have human feelings, but be trapped in the body of a machine?
Note: The above analysis closely follows the thoughts of Francis Schaeffer. I can't claim much credit for it.
int main() { // We should not get here, return an error code.
while( 1 ) {
lust();
}
return -1;
}
The problem is not that we can't "re-create it". In fact we might have already. The problem is that we can't measure it.
We can't even measure it in each other, because we really don't know of any measurable physical properties that may determine the presence of consciousness. And because we don't know how to measure it, we cannot know if we've already created it. Not you, nor anyone here on slashdot or anywhere else. For all we know, modern silicon-based CPUs already have some (very) dim, glimmering cognitive awareness of sorts. We really do not know. It is completely unfounded for anyone to claim that it has not happened yet (or likewise that it has happened) if we don't even have a clue what it really is or how to measure its existence. Heck, it's so elusive we don't even have a rational definition for it.
We don't know what physical (or otherwise?) properties of the human brain result in sentience. At all. Therefore we cannot predict what physical properties (possibly already present) could give rise to sentience in man-made creations. We have no 'measuring device' to stick in the brain that 'detects' sentience. (Asking "are you sentient" is futile, because the answer to that is computational.)
In fact we probably never will know if our own creations have "consciousness" until we figure out how to measure if other humans have it.
(Unless you are referring to a computational ability to "compute" and consider the "self", but that is not related to consciousness, that is pure computational machinery, just 'nuts and bolts', the mechanics of processing the understanding thereof. This is most likely completely separate to consciousness; any self-diagnostic system is "aware" of itself in that sense, and an advanced one could conceivably answer questions "Do you exist" and "Are you thinking" purely computationally - with or without sentience.)
From http://robocup.mi.fu-berlin.de/buch/chap1/HistoryR oboCup.html :
But there was Korea and researchers there were also active organizing their own robotic league. In September 1995, Jong Hwan Kim started the Micro-Robot World Cup Soccer Tournament (MiroSot). The first MiroSot competition was held in November 1996 in Korea with 23 teams from 10 countries. Mirosot tournaments followed then every year from 1997 to 2002, sometimes in the same country as the RoboCup events, as was the case in 1998 (France) and 2000 (Australia). However, in the MiroSot league only small robots compete, there is nothing similar to the mid-size robots used in RoboCup and there was no legged league until 2002. There is of course a kind of rivalry between MiroSot and RoboCup, each one claiming to be the World Cup on Robotic Soccer, but the RoboCup events have become much larger, are better organized and publicized as the MiroSot tournaments.