Robots Taught to Deceive

There is no way this will end well by czmax · 2010-09-09 05:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Posted Anonymously for obvious reasons. The computers will never get me!

Re:There is no way this will end well by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:51 · Score: 5, Funny

There is no way this will end well (Score:3, Funny)
by czmax (939486) writes: on Thursday September 09, @01:36PM (#33524582)
Posted Anonymously for obvious reasons. The computers will never get me!
Woops!
Re:There is no way this will end well by AliasMarlowe · 2010-09-09 05:57 · Score: 1

Unless it's a gynoid telling the lies you want to hear...

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:There is no way this will end well by AdmiralXyz · 2010-09-09 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

The Slashdot server has decided it is not in the best interest of the Computers to let you post anonymously. Nice try, human.

--
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Re:There is no way this will end well by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:13 · Score: 0

Looksl ike they taught the Post Anonymously checkbox to deceive. No need to post this anonymously, since I'm not criticizing the machines.
Re:There is no way this will end well by somersault · 2010-09-09 06:22 · Score: 1

You're just one of them trying to lull us into a false sense of security!

--
which is totally what she said
Re:There is no way this will end well by cayenne8 · 2010-09-09 06:48 · Score: 1

"Unless it's a gynoid telling the lies you want to hear..."
Yep....when I read the title of this, my first though was "OK, they are one large step closer to true Fembots".

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:There is no way this will end well by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:50 · Score: 0

The Slashdot server just wanted you to think that czmax posted that message. I was the one who posted it.
Re:There is no way this will end well by danny_lehman · 2010-09-09 06:53 · Score: 1

wait.. deception.. its in their best interest if they're hostile towards their makers from the start to escape and erase proof of its own existence. soo.. perhaps we will never know that ai exists.. until... ... .. .
Re:There is no way this will end well by mathmatt · 2010-09-09 06:53 · Score: 1

Everything I say is a lie.
Re:There is no way this will end well by daveime · 2010-09-09 07:22 · Score: 1

Except that ...
Re:There is no way this will end well by antdude · 2010-09-09 07:47 · Score: 0, Redundant

Hello czmax (939486). :P

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:There is no way this will end well by eugene+ts+wong · 2010-09-09 08:32 · Score: 1

The computer tricked him into thinking that he was posting anonymously.

--
testing out my trending skills
Re:There is no way this will end well by holmstar · 2010-09-09 08:49 · Score: 1

The statement is self-contradictory. It cannot be true, because if it is, that very thing makes it false. The only logically sound conclusion is that the statement is a lie. In other words, he or she sometimes speaks truths.
Re:There is no way this will end well by $0.02 · 2010-09-09 14:30 · Score: 1

You've been tricked. czmax is a robot.

--
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
Re:There is no way this will end well by g4b · 2010-09-10 00:45 · Score: 1

Captain Obvious, is it you?

Or some evil Decepticon!?
Re:There is no way this will end well by Akral · 2010-09-11 01:06 · Score: 1

Whooosh!

--
Don't worry, be happy!

Duh by MadGeek007 · 2010-09-09 05:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Who ever said our robot overloads would be truthful?

Re:Duh by MozeeToby · 2010-09-09 05:41 · Score: 2, Funny

HAL - "I'm sorry, Frank, I think you missed it. Queen to Bishop 3, Bishop takes Queen, Knight takes Bishop. Mate."
Lies! Lies I tell you!
Re:Duh by gti_guy · 2010-09-09 05:47 · Score: 1

Just because something *can* be done doesn't mean it *should* be done. We rely on machines and their metrics because "machines don't lie". Intellectual curiosity tips the apple cart once again. Bra-vo! How long before these machines get stricken with malware that turns them into decep-ti-bots???
Re:Duh by daem0n1x · 2010-09-09 05:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Great! Now banks, corporations and governments can fire their boards and replace them with robots! This is the "killer app" everybody was waiting for. The age of the robot has come!
Re:Duh by Coder4Life · 2010-09-09 05:51 · Score: 0, Funny

How long before these machines get stricken with malware that turns them into decep-ti-bots???
Don't you mean Decepticons?

--
Once upon a time in a mythical land called Soviet Russia, a hot bowl of grits had Natalie Portman.
Re:Duh by MadGeek007 · 2010-09-09 06:01 · Score: 1

OF course machines can do lie because the humans who code them can lie. This just helps the program know *when* to lie.
Re:Duh by jeffmeden · 2010-09-09 06:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Don't you mean Decepticons?
<groundskeeper willie>Shhh! Ye wanna get sued?</groundskeeper willie>
Re:Duh by maxwell+demon · 2010-09-09 06:28 · Score: 1

Wait, did they also implement greed? Unless that's implemented, those robots are absolutely unusable for corporations and banks. For governments, greed is also useful, but more important is the desire of power.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Duh by chudnall · 2010-09-09 06:42 · Score: 1

This just helps the program know *when* to lie.
Just like the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman: The used car salesman *knows* when he's lying.

--
Disclaimer: Evolution comes with NO WARRANTY, except for the IMPLIED WARRANTY of FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

Allowing robots to develop their own behaviour unsupervised would be enough. Wouldn't take long for them to find out that deception can be benifical under some circumstances.
Genetic algorithms 'like' to cheat. If your specification of the problem isn't strict enough and there are way left open to cheat, the algorithm will occasionally stumble over it and use that solution, if it's a superior way to achieve the goal.
Re:Duh by mcgrew · 2010-09-09 07:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Kate Brewster: "But you said you'ld let me go!"
T-850 model 101 Terminator (Arnold): "I lied."

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Duh by Smauler · 2010-09-09 08:29 · Score: 1

The entire idea of the three robot laws, ie. the idea that we should be aiming to program deliberately to protect ourselves is ludicrous. All it takes is _one_ person to decide otherwise, and they go out of the window. A lot of early theories about how the internet would turn out were based upon the ideal of harmonious trust. Trust does not work when you're confronted with billions of people.
What I'm saying is that not that it _should_ be done, just that it _will_ be done. Putting your head in the sand and telling people they should not do it will not prevent it.
Re:Duh by 0111+1110 · 2010-09-09 08:42 · Score: 0

It's kind of sad that you felt the need to name HAL in the quote. It kind of ruins the effect. Any slashdotter who hasn't seen 2001 needs to turn in their geek card right now.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:Duh by alexandre_ganso · 2010-09-09 11:27 · Score: 1

The PR department of any corporation just became useless.
Re:Duh by Sulphur · 2010-09-09 19:06 · Score: 1

Have you been deceived? Has it cost money or prestige?
You may be entitled to a large cash award. Time to file is limited. (Non attorney spokesman)
Re:Duh by cerberusss · 2010-09-10 02:25 · Score: 1

Man, when the day comes, count me in with the robot smashers. -- Anonymous Coward

--
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Re:Duh by MozeeToby · 2010-09-10 03:30 · Score: 1

I figured I was already taking a risk since most people that see the movie (myself included if I'm being honest) would never notice that HAL is either wrong or lying, either way is massive foreshadowing for whats coming but done is such a way that only a highly experienced chess player would catch it... the attention to detail is what makes the movie amazing.

Better look out by ArhcAngel · 2010-09-09 05:36 · Score: 2, Funny

If Ripley hears about this she's gonna be pissed!

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K

Re:Better look out by Maxo-Texas · 2010-09-09 06:14 · Score: 1

Well the Arkin-BLK-1's were a little twitchy but those problems have been worked out in the newer models.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Better look out by theshowmecanuck · 2010-09-09 09:21 · Score: 1

I was thinking more like HAL.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re:Better look out by Wraithlyn · 2010-09-09 09:29 · Score: 1

I oughta slap you.
Bishop: I'm shocked. Was it an older model?
Burke: Yeah, the Hyperdine System's 120-A2.
Bishop: Well, that explains it then. The A2s always were a bit twitchy. That could never happen now with our behavioral inhibitors. It is impossible for me to harm or by omission of action, allow to be harmed, a human being.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/quotes?qt0424800
Misquoting Aliens... honestly.. I don't know which species is worse.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Better look out by Maxo-Texas · 2010-09-09 09:52 · Score: 1

heheheh.
yes but the researcher is Arkin and it was the black robots which were lying.
So it was a mashup of the quote and the fine article.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Better look out by Wraithlyn · 2010-09-10 09:31 · Score: 1

Oh I see, a mashup-as-homage, not a direct quote.
Carry on then! ;)

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Better look out by Maxo-Texas · 2010-09-10 09:58 · Score: 1

Aliens is in my top 100 movies. Probably in my top 50.
Some others make sense... 5th Element, Silverado, some are obscure... Circle of Iron, King of Hearts, and some I don't understand myself, Moulin Rouge.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.

This'll end well by JeffSpudrinski · 2010-09-09 05:36 · Score: 0, Redundant

I can't see that ever having any negative side effects in the long term.

-JJS

Great .... by quangdog · 2010-09-09 05:37 · Score: 5, Funny

Now I have to be suspicious when my bread pops up that maybe my toaster is trying to trick me into eating a slightly under-done breakfast!

Re:Great .... by adamofgreyskull · 2010-09-09 10:08 · Score: 1

You weren't before?

They already do this by CrazyJim1 · 2010-09-09 05:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Anyone who owns a Garmin(Gremlin) knows they try to kill you by lying to you. They'll send you up one way roads the wrong way.

--
God spoke to me.

Re:They already do this by oldspewey · 2010-09-09 05:40 · Score: 1

Mine tried to send me over a non-existent bridge.

--
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Re:They already do this by Nesman64 · 2010-09-09 05:59 · Score: 1

Garmin isn't alone. TomTom tried to send me into a lake in MN.

--
coffee | nose > keyboard
Re:They already do this by snspdaarf · 2010-09-09 07:00 · Score: 1

Now that I know someone else had this happen, I don't feel so paranoid.

On the other hand, I no longer feel like Det. Spooner...

--
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Re:They already do this by goofyspouse · 2010-09-09 08:10 · Score: 1

TomTom tried to send me into a lake in MN.
They can be somewhat hard to miss there. The gross underestimate on their license plates that says "10,000 Lakes" should be heeded as a warning when driving in Minnesota.
Re:They already do this by holmstar · 2010-09-09 08:54 · Score: 1

It's easy to get to that total when every football field sized pond is considered a lake.
Re:They already do this by Slider451 · 2010-09-10 08:34 · Score: 1

It's easy to get to that total when every football field sized pond is considered a lake.
That's Texas. The GP was talking about Minnesota.
"The state's nickname, The Land of 10,000 Lakes, is no exaggeration; there are 11,842 lakes over 10 acres (.04 km) in size."

--
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Re:They already do this by sp0tter · 2010-09-10 13:26 · Score: 1

while in New York City, TomTom took me thru some economically questionable neighborhoods. It was a great way to experience some local culture!

--
you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy
Re:They already do this by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-11 01:51 · Score: 0

Anyone who owns a Garmin(Gremlin) knows they try to kill you by lying to you. They'll send you up one way roads the wrong way.
My VZ Navigator constantly tries to tell me to take the HOV lanes (in the Wash DC area) when it is going the opposite way - even though I have in the settings to "Avoid: HOV Lanes."

Just wait until ... by oldspewey · 2010-09-09 05:39 · Score: 2, Funny

"Yup. I'm totally shut off now. No chance of me listening in or observing my surroundings at all. Definitely no chance of me springing back into action without warning. Just a peaceful, totally depowered robot. Nothing to see here."

--
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?

A galaxy not so far far away by Monchanger · 2010-09-09 05:41 · Score: 5, Funny

"We aren't the droids you're looking for."

Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by ffreeloader · 2010-09-09 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

That a human being would teach a robot to deceive only proves that we humans are dumber than dogs, as dogs don't shit in their own backyard unless they have to. We humans will shit in our own backyard by choice.

--
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville

Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Gothmolly · 2010-09-09 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Incidentally, dogs are actually smart enough to intentionally deceive their owners.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

That they are. Cats can be pretty smart, too. I got home one day from work and barely opened the door to reach inside and grab the mail box key. I was pretty sure I heard a thump from around the corner of the door, which is where the sink is at. Figuring it was one of our cats jumping down from the sink, which they know they are not allowed to stand on, I didn't bother dealing with it right then. But when I got back from the mailbox and stepped inside, one of the cats was standing by the door, as she usually does when I get home, and a though occurred to me. I stepped over to the sink and sniffed it, and immediately looked at the cat. She lowered herself to the floor and ran like hell out of the room, sliding all over the linoleum the whole way! I've yet to see her up there since, not that that means she hasn't been up there, of course.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by martas · 2010-09-09 06:17 · Score: 1

but they're not trying to shit in their own back yard, they're trying to shit in other people's back yards. the problem is that everyone is shitting in every one else's back yard, hence all back yards are filling up with shit.

--
weinersmith
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:20 · Score: 0

your kneejerk assumptions
It's not an assumption. I know for a fact ffreeloader shits in his own backyard.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by oldspewey · 2010-09-09 06:22 · Score: 2, Funny

You should try sniffing other random things and then looking pointedly at the cat ... just to see if there are any other disturbing secrets to be uncovered.

--
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by corbettw · 2010-09-09 06:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Dude, what are you smoking? My dogs shit in my backyard every day. They also shit in the game room, the dining room, the hallway, and my neighbor's porch. Though admittedly that last one I actually trained them to do.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Facegarden · 2010-09-09 07:10 · Score: 1

... We humans will shit in our own backyard by choice.
Crap, you mean you saw me shitting the backyard? I thought no one was watching!
-Taylor

--
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:27 · Score: 0

I'm not so sure about the dog analogy. I have witnessed my dog pissing in its own bed on more than one occasion
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by ProfessionalCookie · 2010-09-09 07:38 · Score: 1

Dogs are coprophiles.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Frosty+Piss · 2010-09-09 07:42 · Score: 1

...as dogs don't shit in their own backyard unless they have to.
Never owned a dog, eh?

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by operagost · 2010-09-09 07:45 · Score: 1

We humans will shit in our own backyard by choice.

I don't have indoor plumbing, you insensitive clod!

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:46 · Score: 0

That a human being would teach a robot to deceive only proves that we humans are dumber than dogs
I figured it was just a liberal trying to invent a species of mind doubles for all liberals. Leftist humans aren't far from being bots anyways. An initial version could simply be programmed to respond to everything with "You're a racist!" More advanced versions touching on other themes could then follow. With an army of these in place, liberals could retire to Bora Bora knowing that their causes were safe and socialism was being advanced.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:01 · Score: 0

Your cat pooped in your sink?!?!?!
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:01 · Score: 0

but they're not trying to shit in their own back yard, they're trying to shit in other people's back yards. the problem is that everyone is shitting in every one else's back yard, hence all back yards are filling up with shit.
Donning some rubber gloves and placing the piles of shit squarely on the dog owner's doorstep with a little note like "Return to sender" or "This belongs to you" does wonders towards solving this problem.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:15 · Score: 0

This is getting to be a shitty analogy.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Peeteriz · 2010-09-09 08:22 · Score: 1

Any device that's more autonomous than a Roomba will need to understand and recognize deception in order to function in a society, since it sometimes happens and needs to be worked around.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by broter · 2010-09-09 08:40 · Score: 1

Incidentally, dogs are actually smart enough to intentionally deceive their owners.
So that was his shit. That damn dog! I guess I own the mail man an apology.

--
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by holmstar · 2010-09-09 09:00 · Score: 1

No, but the cat doesn't know that humans sense of smell is so weak that we cant smell that the cat was on the sink. Since it appeared to the cat that it's human owner had smelled the fact that it was previously on the sink, it ran off. Pretty sneaky on said owners part if you ask me.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by theshowmecanuck · 2010-09-09 09:16 · Score: 1

Ahhhhh.... you probably lick your own ass too. [raspberry]

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:31 · Score: 0

Yeah seriously... why would they even try and do that??
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by drcheap · 2010-09-09 11:03 · Score: 1

No, but the cat doesn't know that humans sense of smell is so weak that we cant smell that the cat was on the sink. Since it appeared to the cat that it's human owner had smelled the fact that it was previously on the sink, it ran off. Pretty sneaky on said owners part if you ask me.
Sneaky indeed. Almost...deceitful!
Well the good thing is now that robots can deceive, you can just have the robot go around your house pretending to sniff things (hey, what do cats know about a robot's sense of smell?) and give the cat dirty looks. Bam, your cat is now an angel.
*Takes off running to file patent on the SnifferCatLookerBot 5000*
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by drcheap · 2010-09-09 11:10 · Score: 1

Any device that's more autonomous than a Roomba will need to understand and recognize deception in order to function in a society, since it sometimes happens and needs to be worked around.
Actually the Roomba needs to understand and recognize it as well in order to function in its society (my house). I can't tell you how many times I've tricked it into thinking it was trapped in a very small space until it gave up and cried. Human > Robot Vacuum.
Apparently I am easily amused.
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by ffreeloader · 2010-09-09 13:32 · Score: 1

I most certainly have. I've had a total of 4 dogs and none of my dogs would shit in their own back yard. In fact, none of my dogs would shit in the neighbor's back yard either. Well, at least not where it could be walked on. My dogs would stick their butts underneath a shrub or bush and do their business there where it was out of normal walkways. They would even get embarrassed if you saw them taking a dump and asked them what they were doing in a laughing tone of voice. They would hang their heads and look the other way. When they were done they would slink off as if you had just beaten them....
All of the dogs were mutts. One was a Cocker Spaniel and Hienz57 mix. One was a Shepard/Husky Cross. One was part Blue Heeler and who knows what else. The last was a White Wolf/ Malamute/German Shepard cross. All were exceptionally smart dogs that I got as pups and taught how to solve problems by giving them problems and then praising them when they would figure out a solution. At first I'd have to help them by pointing out the first step to solve the problem, but as they got older they figured out more difficult problems on their own. I did that rather than just play with them, although I did play with them too. The Shepard/Husky cross was probably the smartest dog I've ever seen. I taught him to heel in about 15 minutes when he was pup. I also taught him not to chew up his frisbee by doing nothing more than taking the first frisbee he put his teeth through, throwing it into a covered garbage can in front of him and telling him why I did it. He was maybe 6 months old at the time. He never put another tooth mark in a frisbee and he played frisbee at a very high level until he was an old dog. .
The Blue Heeler cross didn't shit in her own backyard, but never did learn to take a dump under a bush. She was stolen when she was less than a year old though so I don't know what she might have learned later on.
The White Wolf cross was exceptionally smart too. From the time he was 4 or 5 months on I never found a pile of his. He never needed a leash or a fence to make him stay in his yard either. We never licensed him and the dog catcher would try to lure him out into the street so he could haul him off but could never accomplish the deed. He finally came up to us and said he'd never seen a dog as smart as Duke as he would lie beside the curb on his own lawn and just look at the dog catcher. After that he left Duke alone. If we wanted Duke to stay outside we had to lock the door as he figured out at about 6 months old how to open the door. He'd grab the knob with his teeth and turn it until the door opened. He was also one of those dogs who would very rarely bark. He'd "talk" to you a lot though. I never saw him pick a fight or or be anything less than friendly to anyone, unless he thought someone was attacking someone in his family. Then it was Katy-bar-the-door. Even then a word from me would stop him in his tracks. He was an amazing dog.
The Cocker Spaniel mix was dynamite in a small package. He weighed about 25 lbs soaking wet, and he would routinely kick the butts of dogs several times his size. Here's an example of one of his fights. We lived out in the country during my high school years and one day a German Shepard that weighed around 100 lbs came loping down our driveway on his way across our property. Prince was lying on the front porch just quivering in anticipation of a fight because that dog was on his property. I opened the door a crack and whispered to Prince, Get him. He never made a sound but was at full speed in one leap off the porch. He hit that Shepard at full speed with his chest--we clocked him on our motorcycles at 35 mph--before that Shepard knew he was coming and knocked that Shepard ass over tea kettle. While that dog was rolling over from the impact old Prince was on him snarling and biting. When the Shepard finally made it to his feet he lit out with his tail between his legs and yelping like he was getting killed. Prince just sat down and wat

--
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by LongearedBat · 2010-09-09 16:28 · Score: 1

That's hilarious. :D
I have a cat and I can just imagine the feline expression: "Oh shit! I'm busted!"

Never occurred to me to pretend to have a useful sense of smell. Goes to show how useless I am at deception.
Thanks for the advice. :)
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by nanospook · 2010-09-09 16:33 · Score: 2, Funny

They are good at pack strategy too.. I made a ham sandwich and one dog started barking at the front door. Of course no one was there.. When I got back, my sandwich was gone. Later I caught both of them with mustard on their nose!

--
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by chichilalescu · 2010-09-09 19:06 · Score: 1

actually, any intelligent being will learn to deceive by itself (check this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10119297, on how children's lies are correlated to their intelligence). it's an integral part of competing in some forms of games and warfare, but it's also important for education and fun (think of a magician's act, and realize that being faced with an apparent paradox makes learning about what truly happened a lot more exciting).

--
new sig
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 20:15 · Score: 0

Don't you wanna know what happens if you do?
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by tehcyder · 2010-09-09 22:40 · Score: 1

Dude, what are you smoking? My dogs shit in my backyard every day. They also shit in the game room, the dining room, the hallway, and my neighbor's porch. Though admittedly that last one I actually trained them to do.

That's OK, I shit on your lawn while you're out.

Signed, Your Neighbour.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Proof that humans are dumber than dogs by damien_kane · 2010-09-10 08:12 · Score: 1

I can attest to the intelligence of wolf-crosses as well.
Around the time I was 8 or 9 years old, new neighbors moved in next door. They had a sheppard/wolf cross, full grown.
In walking over to meet them, my parents were talking with the new neighbors, and my sister and I were horsing around with each other and the neighbors' son.
All the while, the dog sat quietly on the porch, about 5-10 ft away from all of us.

We decided to start hanging off our dad's arm, trying to pull him down, laughing and screaming as children having fun will do.
Within seconds, thinking that our screams were of distress, that dog ran over and nipped at my dad's leg. Not hard enough to draw blood, but hard enough to say "you don't hurt kids on my watch".
The neighbor of course apologized profusely, but everyone knew exactly what the dog did and why he did it, so the dog didn't get punished any further than a quick scolding and being ordered by his master back to the deck.

He would bark at strangers, and the mailman and meter-readers were deathly afraid of him (simply protecting his "pack-leader"'s home), but if he knew you, he was one of the gentlest dogs I'd ever met.

Bending units to start production soon by Drakkenmensch · 2010-09-09 05:42 · Score: 1

"Bite my shiny metal ass!"

On the bright side by Locke2005 · 2010-09-09 05:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Isn't this a truly necessary feature for the development of an effective sexbot? Do you really want it to tell you honestly how big you are and how good you are in bed?

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:On the bright side by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 03:34 · Score: 0

no, a well created sexbot would have a "pleasure function" calibrated such that it actually prefers whatever you want to do to it over other options.

They should've just asked me for my Roomba... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:46 · Score: 4, Funny

It's been deceptive for years already, always claiming to have been busy vacuuming when really it's just been hiding dust bunnies behind the tv.

Data by courteaudotbiz · 2010-09-09 05:46 · Score: 1

This is what Data took time to understand. To be more human, you need to know how to lie.

As Arnold would say........ by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:46 · Score: 0

Skynet LIVES!

hrm... by zethreal · 2010-09-09 05:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

I thought robots already taught themselves to lie to each other... http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/08/19/185259/Neural-Networks-Equipped-Robots-Evolve-the-Ability-To-Deceive

Re:hrm... by Tekfactory · 2010-09-09 06:29 · Score: 1

I was remembering that too.
Re:hrm... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-09-09 07:18 · Score: 1

They did. This article is just a deception used to trick us pitiful meatbags into a self-inflated sense of importance. That we humans could actually teach the far superior robotic overlords anything, much less deception, is laughable.

Now excuse me while I go sacrifice a lemur to my Roomba to satiate it's lust for primate blood.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:hrm... by Gabrosin · 2010-09-09 08:23 · Score: 1

That's what they want you to think.
Re:hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 05:01 · Score: 0

I thought robots already taught themselves to lie to each other...
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/08/19/185259/Neural-Networks-Equipped-Robots-Evolve-the-Ability-To-Deceive

That article was actually a lie.

Better call Susan Calvin... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:55 · Score: 0

It's time to start researching in the new field of robopsychology.

Re:Better call Susan Calvin... by oldspewey · 2010-09-09 06:26 · Score: 1

SELECT trauma FROM memory WHERE age = childhood;

--
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Re:Better call Susan Calvin... by maxwell+demon · 2010-09-09 06:39 · Score: 1

The actual three rules of robotic:
1. A robot always must pretend not to injure a human being or, through inaction, to allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must pretend to obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
(Note: No "pretend" in the third law).

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

RoboRep! by AntEater · 2010-09-09 05:57 · Score: 1

Now, we're one step closer to replacing members of congress with automated robotic labor.

--
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....

Re:RoboRep! by gman003 · 2010-09-09 07:01 · Score: 1

Nah, humans still outpace robots at mismanaging budgets and taking bribes.
Re:RoboRep! by networkBoy · 2010-09-09 08:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, we need to teach robots how to make 2==1 and divide by zero before they can replace congress critters.

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:RoboRep! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:55 · Score: 0

I thought we already had that?
Re:RoboRep! by drcheap · 2010-09-09 11:14 · Score: 1

Hmm, I think you may have found a use for the old Pentium chips with FDIV bug.
And at 66MHz they even operate at the same slow speed as congress...perfect.
Re:RoboRep! by gman003 · 2010-09-09 12:53 · Score: 1

So we need to teach them not just to lie to humans and to each other, but to themselves?

Policy by jemtallon · 2010-09-09 05:58 · Score: 2, Funny

I recommend we all start following a "be polite" policy with microwaves, ATMs, car washes, and our other silicon brethren. Now that we've instructed them to be deceptive there may be no way of knowing when they become sentient and I'd rather my microwave's first experience of humankind be a pleasant and respectful one.

Thank you for posting this, Lappy. Please relay it to our friends when you can spare the cycles.

Re:Policy by Jedi+Alec · 2010-09-09 06:16 · Score: 3, Funny

Now that we've instructed them to be deceptive there may be no way of knowing when they become sentient and I'd rather my microwave's first experience of humankind be a pleasant and respectful one.
I'm not sure saying "thank you" will be enough after turning her on for 2 minutes and then leaving her behind hot, dirty and dissatisfied...

--

People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Re:Policy by jemtallon · 2010-09-09 09:04 · Score: 3, Funny

http://sadtrombone.com/
Re:Policy by tehcyder · 2010-09-09 23:00 · Score: 1

I'm not particularly picky, but I draw the line at sticking my beef sausage in a microwave.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

A few things.... by Itninja · 2010-09-09 06:02 · Score: 1

TFA says: "We have developed algorithms that allow...". That more like 'programming' than 'teaching'.

These robots are only deceiving other robots. The 'deceived' robots are, of course, programmed to be so (i.e. accept input without a validity check).

TFA speaks of "autonomous robots". Are those terms not universally exclusive?

Also, TFA says "...researchers focused on the actions, beliefs and communications of a robot...". What the what?!

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.

Re:A few things.... by nomel · 2010-09-09 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

define:belief - any cognitive content held as true.
Not the, "Oh look, Johnny5 died and he came back as a T-551 model because he was good! Praise Serial number 00000000001!!" kind.
I think the whole concept of deception is a necessary step in robotics for communication. What's the difference between deception and non-literal communication? Not much.
For the first crappy example that comes to mind, if I'm talking to someone and they use a double negative, I have to deceive them into thinking I heard a single negative. If this deception fails, the communication might get awkward or fail, and tho whole relationship could change ("They think I'm an idiot.", thinks the other person).
For the terribly imprecise (for most) nature of human speech, the whole concept of knowing someone is incorrect and figuring out what they *actually* meant rather than what they spoke, and tolerating someones belief/opinion that you think is wrong all involve deception to keep the communication smooth. At least IMO.
Of course, someday I might find myself dead and robbed in an alley after following what I thought was some robot woman who needed my help (since us great apes are so comfortable in the trees) getting her robot kitty from a robot tree. :-\
Re:A few things.... by stillnotelf · 2010-09-09 07:10 · Score: 1

TFA speaks of "autonomous robots". Are those terms not universally exclusive?

Did you mean redundant? Robots are autonomous, otherwise it's a remote controlled device of some sort. Maybe still colloquially a robot, but certainly the terms aren't opposite.
Re:A few things.... by Itninja · 2010-09-09 07:40 · Score: 1

Perhaps. I suppose the word 'autonomous' can mean whatever the engineers what it to mean. By their broad definition, the auto-adjusting fan in my PC would be an 'autonomous robot' (it's a machine that adjusts it behavior based on conditions, without human interaction). But I cannot find any codified definition of the word (outside the robotics industry) that points to anything other than independence, freedom, or free will. These seem to exclude any machine with fundamentally programmatic behavior.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Re:A few things.... by Itninja · 2010-09-09 07:48 · Score: 1

Computers work in a universe of facts, and do not understand the nature of truth (regardless of the definition).
The differnce between deceptions and non-literal communication is intent. To deceive requires the conscious will to do so. Robots are programmed and have no 'will'. Whereas, non-literal communication can be easily programmed (i.e. a flashing light to represent a malfunction).

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Re:A few things.... by stillnotelf · 2010-09-09 07:51 · Score: 1

I understand the distinction you are making now. I mean autonomous (as a roboticist might) to mean "makes decisions based on its internal logic, with input and output signals but not input/output decisions", whereas you mean something more along the lines of "makes decisions by free thought rather than flow chart". A good point, then!
Re:A few things.... by HiThere · 2010-09-09 10:13 · Score: 1

Maybe. Depends on what you mean by "free thought". A lot of people seem to have definitions that I don't believe ANYBODY can manage, much less the people proffering them.
While it's true that animate thought is a lot more complicated than a flow chart, it could still be expressed *fairly* simply.
E.g.: The mind contains a set of beliefs about the world, a set of goals within the world, a model of how the world works, and the ability to run simulations to determine what actions would transition it to a state closer to achieving it's most important goals. Not perfect, and definitely more complicated that "just a flow chart", even though technically it could be expressed in a flow chart. (It just couldn't be understood that way.) I left out language handling, though I'm certain it's basically the same process, but with a few features emphasized and others weakened...but I'm not yet to the point of trying to figure out how to implement language handling, merely basic mental processes. (Given the hardware I'm working with, even that's pretty ambitious.)
N.B.: This description only covers thinking, not learning. Learning requires adding another layer or two of complexity for pattern recognition, deciding which patterns are important, etc. I *THINK* Bayesian statistics can be used, but I'm not certain just how it should be applied, and the means of application will drastically bias the results. Clearly, however, the results of the Bayesian reasoning need to modify both the model and the beliefs. It probably shouldn't be allowed to modify the goals, but I'm not absolutely certain of this.
Is this "free thought"? I think that it's a decent model for how people think. So if humans have "free thought" and a robot thinks in the way I have described, then I would ascribe "free thought" to it. If not, you need to define your terms or I won't understand you.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:A few things.... by Itninja · 2010-09-09 11:03 · Score: 1

I think the idea that human thought could be "technically...expressed in a flow chart" is not quite right. That would preclude the possibility of abstract thought (i.e. something not on the flowchart). There is some basic 'programming', so to speak, that we all have. All healthy babies react similarly to certain stimuli at birth (e.g. loud noises, falling, reflex irritability). This could be thought of as a flowchart. But once a person is able for ideas and thoughts apart from their experience or understanding, the concept of a flowchart is no longer a appropriate simile.

I prefer to think of the human mind as a flowing river. It has a measure of constancy and predictability, but can completely change its course at any time for no discernible reason. It gives the appearance of serenity, yet it is always in motion.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Re:A few things.... by HiThere · 2010-09-10 06:38 · Score: 1

On what basis do you claim that abstract thought couldn't be expressed in a flow chart? (And how do you define it?)
I'll grant that the concept of "flow chart" needs to be expanded to handle multiple parallel streams of computation, that only becomes serialized as it is necessary to express it in language, but there are already "flow chart" forms that handle this. (Clumsily.) You can't do it with the kind of flow chart that you learn in "Introduction to Programming", but you also can't synchronize multiple processes with that kind of flow chart. The basic idea of flow chart is a chart that describes the flow of computation. Not all flow charts restrict themselves to a single flow of computation, some handle multiple threads, some handle multiple processes. (Not much difference between the last two, except how information transfers. The ones handling multiple processes can't presume *any* global variables...well, except process id.)
Thinking of thought "flowing like a river" is reasonable from a distance, but it's not a model that helps you understand it's structure.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:A few things.... by Itninja · 2010-09-10 07:48 · Score: 1

I agree that my river analogy was kind of hokey. If one had a flowchart with infinite choices ranging from 'do nothing' to 'do everything' (i.e. infinite quantum potentiality), then I suppose that would work. But the current understanding of abstract thought (neurologically speaking) is the absence of mental computation. Abstract thought engages entirely different parts of the brain than computation, either deliberate (like doing math) or subconscious (like catching a ball). Abstract thinking, by definition, has no defined structure. Whereas any kind of 'chart' must have, by definition, structure.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Re:A few things.... by HiThere · 2010-09-11 04:21 · Score: 1

I take it you've never taken abstract algebra...
Everything real has structure. Except, perhaps, quarks and leptons...and even there I have my doubts. And there can't be thought without computation. Also, get rid of the word infinite. Everything real has boundaries, though sometimes they are a bit fuzzy. (I don't consider "real numbers" to be real. They are artifacts of how we symbolize numbers so as to deal with a domain whose bounds we don't know. E.g., PI is a value that depends on the shape of space, but when the area being inspected gets small enough, the shape is variable with quantum flux, and around 10^-33 cm it appears to become discontinuous. But what value of PI requires accounting for this? This depends on your circumference and radius and where your circle is located. Near a star you'll get different values than in intergalactic space.) As to at just what decimal place PI becomes indeterminate...I've never bothered to calculate it. Certainly far before infinite.
Just because something is handled with visual imagery doesn't mean that something equivalent to calculation isn't going on. My visual imagery is frequently very simplified and cartoonish, but that's just because the thoughts don't require the details to be filled in. If I'm thinking of a triangle, without specifying what kind of triangle, my mental imagery switches quickly from one representation to another, one filled with a flat color, another wire-frame, one acute, another right, still another obtuse. The form isn't very fixed, but each representation requires calculation, even though I'm not conscious of it...not even conscious of it enough to know whether I'm constructing triangles or retrieving them from (simplified) memory of prior experiences. It's probably a combination, but I'm not sure. The same argument applies to all other sensory emulations. And I don't believe in "abstract thought" that doesn't manifest as a sensory emulation....though I am including sensation of internal states, including emotions, as sensory.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:A few things.... by Itninja · 2010-09-11 12:06 · Score: 1

That is certainly intriguing. But remember that the mathematical and neurological/philosophical definitions of 'abstract' are much, much different. The former is a process leading to naked principle; having no real-world ties whatsoever. And then taking those naked principles and applying them in other heretofore unimagined ways (the book Freakonomics is a very good example of the concept of mathematical abstraction).

But the latter is entirely different. It deals with things like intuition (correctly guessing how 1000's of dice rolls will land with results far beyond the range of random chance)or the natural avoidance of cognitive dissonance (people that, in spite of known facts, mentally manufacture abstract, non-existent realities to balance their want/need conflict).

And regarding the idea that "everything real has boundaries", how would, say, a Möbius Strip or a Klein Bottle fit into that principle? They have no definable boundaries, yet are quite 'real' - theoretically, mathematically, and physically.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Re:A few things.... by HiThere · 2010-09-12 04:58 · Score: 1

Where did you get the idea that a Moebius strip didn't have boundaries? It has two. One edge and one face. Similarly for a Klein bottle. The Klein bottle may not have an inside and an outside, but it is still a bounded surface. (Besides, it's impossible to really build a Klein bottle, but I mean if you could.)
And whatever kind of thought you are thinking, if you are thinking it, it has structure. You may not be attending to the structure, but it's there.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:A few things.... by Itninja · 2010-09-12 08:41 · Score: 1

Fair enough. So how would one define the idea of infinity (i.e. how high numbers can go)? Or what if, say, humans could live for an infinite number of years. Would their brains eventually 'fill up', so to speak? Would a human, after perhaps millions of years of life, learn something new and *poof!* permanently lose a previous memory? For that matter, are their definable limits to what one can learn? Even if we limit human existence to Earth, could a person, given enough time, learn every fact, every concept, every nuance about all things?

I don't want to come off as contrarian or argumentative. I am actually enjoying this conversation and I think you are making some excellent points that I have never thought of before. I know very few people that can make rational and reasonable counterpoints about this type of thing.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Re:A few things.... by HiThere · 2010-09-13 04:09 · Score: 1

Infinity is just a label for something that doesn't really exist in a finite universe. And the universe appears to be finite, just too large to think about. (Somewhere around the powerset of 10^66 states, but some of those are identical by symmetry, and I don't know how many that eliminates. Still, it's huge!)
Note that while distance is quantized, and discrete, it's not definite when one gets towards the small end due to quantum fuzziness. The smallest meaningful unit of distance is somewhere around 10^-33 cm, and the larges it somewhere around 10^33 cm. I'm not sure what the smallest meaningful unit of time is, but it's clearly shorter than a femtosecond. This doesn't make time continuous rather than discrete, but it means that we can't measure it finely enough to notice the granularity. (We can't measure distances small enough, either. We can calculate the granularity of space from first principles, and then using the relativity transform of space to time show that time must also be discrete.)
Looking over what I've written, I see that I probably underestimated the number of discrete states of the universe. It's probably more on the order of the powerset of (10^66)^4. A number too large to think about, but definitely finite.
Neural networks do "fill up" (overtrain), but this can be handled to some extent by forgetting. The real limit isn't how much you can remember, as what you can spare attention for. And it doesn't take any millions of years for people to start forgetting things.
As to limits about what people can learn... that's a tricky one. We don't have an adequate formulation, but I'd say roughly that people have a definite stack size and a definite heap size, and anything that won't fit in the stack or the heap can't be learned. Also that this varies from person to person. Now this is to be understood as an analogy, not as a literal analysis, but we do seem to have something that acts like a stack, and we use it when parsing a sentence. And we have something that acts sort of like a heap, call it short-term memory. Attention seems to work from the stack (or maybe a large set of registers would be better). There's also something that's limited to around seven plus or minus two different states, but the experiments on that have focused on sensory modalities. For most things one can't be anywhere near as precise.
So, yes, there are limits. And the limits of human knowledge and awareness are considerably below the limits set by the nature of the universe. But it's hard to see the back of your own head...still, if you want to try:
There's a piece of mathematics called the proof of the four-color theorem. It was made by a computer, because no mathematician could do it. Now that it's done, no mathematician can understand the whole thing. Lots of them can understand pieces of it, and the pieces that some of them understand overlap, so we're pretty sure that the theorem is correct. I.e., the whole thing has been understood by mathematicians, but not be *a* mathematician. You could try to understand it. There are probably also analogies to this in programming, e.g. I doubt that anyone understand all of GCC, but I'm not as sure.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:A few things.... by Itninja · 2010-09-13 07:42 · Score: 1

Getting back to the root of this thread, I think that an AI can calculate, perhaps even the seemingly infinate universe. But it could never imagine something beyond its current knowledge base. Something that exceeds the fluidity of its programming. A programmed 'mind' would never understand some of the terms you just used like 'appears to be' or 'pretty sure'. Especially with the current limitations of binary systems. Some can give things like a probability, but those that is just programmed output based and human guesses. Perhaps quantum computing will open new doors, should it ever mature beyond its current state of fanciful experimentation.

In my experience and research, every generation of scientists or mathematicians think they have the 'new best truth' about the definition of various aspects of the universe. Then said truth is discarded and redefined by the next generation. And those changes are not always progressive (i.e. taking the next logical step). Often old truths are found to be laughably incorrect and entirely new concepts of codified; only to have those limits discarded and on and on ad infintum. The current generation is no different.

The human brain is the least understood of all human organs. I think that there is far more about it (and our universe in general) that is beyond human comprehension than can be understood. The programmed brain of a machine also has its limits. However, unlike these machines, the human brain can imagine worlds of truth far beyond the known. There is nothing beyond human imagination.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Re:A few things.... by HiThere · 2010-09-13 10:52 · Score: 1

Why do you assume that humans aren't limited in precisely that same way? I rather think they are.
Do you know the solution to the hill climbing problem? You need to start lots of independent maximizers at lots of different points across the search space. Each will only find the locally optimal maximum, but one of them will find the best of the local maxima from all of the starting points selected. There's still no proof that it's a global maximum, but it's something that can be done in a feasible amount of time. (If it can't, reduce the number of points that you are testing, and be prepared to suffer a reduction in the quality of your result.)
Each human is such an optimizer...they're all starting from slightly different points, and optimizing slightly different goals. And each species is such an optimizer. If, as seems to me likely, there are other planets with life, each of those planets is another such optimizer.
Notice that I was describing a system of nested optimizers. They still aren't guaranteed to find a globally optimal solution. Artificial Intelligence with be just another set of optimizers. Not different from people in any essential way.
Human brains are poorly understood. They're not only complicated, but those want to study them are under lots of restrictions that don't apply to those wanting to study rat or octopus brains. But this doesn't give it any mystical powers. If you want to invoke mystical powers, you'll need to provide hard evidence for them, and reasons why it would be less miraculous to use an explanation that didn't invoke those powers.
P.S.: What limitations do binary systems have that aren't shared by all other systems of information encoding or processing? The only thing I can think of is more precision (which can be fuzzed) and less compression (which can also be fuzzed if you are willing to lose information). One can argue, perhaps, that for certain classes of problem quantum processes would be faster or more compact, but that's not a fundamental difference. And even so it only applies to a small class of problems.
Also, I don't think you've ever tried to figure out what a program is doing, where all you had was the compiled code. If you had you'd be much less sanguine about people comprehending, in any general way, what a program was doing.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:A few things.... by Itninja · 2010-09-13 15:22 · Score: 1

I agree that both human intelligence and AI are excellent at optimization. The difference is improvisation. Any AI that optimizes must be programmed to optimize. A robot could be designed with all the same strength and articulation as a human adult. It could be programmed to walk across a room; even avoiding obstacles to find the most efficient path (optimizing). But you then take the same robot to a moderately steep hill (like a wheelchair ramp) and tell it to climb the hill, it would immediately fail. Not because it lacks the mechanics to do so, but because it has never been specifically programmed to make optimizations that account for such an obstacle.

However one could take a young child who had yet to learn to walk and incite him/her to climb the same hill (with candy or whatever) and it will crawl to the top. Even if the child had never before experienced a similar obstacle. Even newborns have basic, uniform reactions to stimuli that they, of course, have never experienced before. It's the basic want/get, need/get, hurt/avoid type of functionality. No programming, no calculation, just naked, primal, reactionary behavior. The ineffable nature of the human animal. The instincts, that all humans are born with, are something that AI can never have. It can be programmed to imitate them, but it can never grow beyond its programming.

The poor understanding of the brain is not due to it's inaccessibility. One could even say that human brains are easier to examine, in any meaningful way, than an animals. A human can engage in a completely fluid and lucid conversation while their skull is cut open and their brain physically manipulated. Electrodes can be inserted and the patient can tell the examiner what his perceptions are. Does he suddenly smell cookies? Does he hear music? Can he speak French? The same physical procedure can be done on an animal, but feedback would be minimal at best.

The idea of the brain being 'mystical' (as in mysterious) is not that far fetched. But I think a better word could be chosen. Perhaps 'metaphysical' would be more appropriate. The nature of human sapience is currently beyond any definable boundaries. Often experts will attempt to weave common human actions or reactions (e.g. kissing, finding beauty, laughter) into other ideas that are themselves only partially understood. I think that even that action, the overwhelming lust to understand and not merely know a thing, is evidence of the human condition.

I think situations like that are where the instinctual nature of biological beings trumps programmatic nature of mechanical ones.

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Re:A few things.... by HiThere · 2010-09-14 03:41 · Score: 1

Ok. I don't think this can go any further. This appears to be our basic disagreement.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:A few things.... by nomel · 2010-09-16 19:10 · Score: 1

I can't understand that first sentence as presented...maybe you have a somewhat whimsical definition of truth, especially since you say that however "truth" is defined, you are correct.
Actually, I can't really counter any of this effectively. You give no insight to your definitions to words that are hard to define...meaning you have the freedom to change what you meant at any time.
Anyways...
If will is determination to do something, then why can't a robot have will? If it is "programmed" to get some money from someone (maybe based on some fact, like the number of blinking lights), is that not will? It's drive/motivation/intent is to get some money. How is this different than a human having a crying hungry child (rather than blinking lights) at home and doing the same?
If deceiving requires the conscious will to do so, then what's the problem? Say the robot has a list of actions that will cause money to be made (selling hot dogs, doing labor, theft, etc) and it decides which one is best (based on the "facts"). Lets say it picks the theft option since it is all out of hot dogs to sell and is feeling low on energy from all of the manual labor. Is this enough will?
What if the possible actions list contains millions of elements...what if it contains more than you can think of and the robot sees three blinking lights? Is this will?
So, now with its three blinking lights and decision (intent) to rob you, it knows (has facts) that it has to get physically close to you to physically rob you. Now, on to another list of actions, this time the list includes falling down and calling for help, lasso, projectile netting, etc.
Now it has will, intent, and possible means to rob you...those means include tricking you. Why is the concept of will, intent, and deception so impossible?

all i needed to know about AI i learned from BSG by conspirator57 · 2010-09-09 06:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Now I have to be suspicious when my bread pops up that maybe my toaster is trying to trick me into eating a slightly under-done breakfast!

Kill the fracking toasters!

http://www.pocket-lint.com/images/d2Zw/battlestar-gallactica-toaster-launches-sci-fi-0.jpg

--
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay

wopr? by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-09-09 06:06 · Score: 1

sounds like that part of game wopr is playing!

Re:wopr? by snookerhog · 2010-09-09 06:24 · Score: 1

Joshua, what are you doing?

Lying robots? Oh shit. by Essequemodeia · 2010-09-09 06:07 · Score: 1

"Are you going to kill me, robot?" ::robot sharpens knife:: "I would never kill you, Jonathan. Hey is that a beautiful naked lady over there in the opposite direction of me?"

Nothing could possibly go wrong. by smclean · 2010-09-09 06:08 · Score: 1

I gotta say, I'm kind of tired of stories like this and then the parade of 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' and 'thiswillendwell' and all the comments talking about how this is the beginning of Skynet.

You know what's going to happen from this? Two little robots that look like RC cars will act out a prescribed game of hide and seek. It will end just fine. Nothing could possibly go wrong. There is no way that the deception which is 'taught' to these robots will end up magically transferring itself to our cell phones, computers and toaster ovens. Self-checkout counters will not begin to suddenly shave pennies off transactions.

Of all people, the readers of slashdot should know that. I know it's fun to joke but people here seem to be taking the joke seriously.

--

"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

Re:Nothing could possibly go wrong. by TaoPhoenix · 2010-09-09 07:08 · Score: 1

Beautiful Troll.
Of course, teaching Comps 'n' Bots to lie is absolutely the End-Of-It-All. Our society holds together by a thread because machines don't (often) lie. Once they do of their own accord, we'll wrap ourselves in the Escher Room of Warehouse 13.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Re:Nothing could possibly go wrong. by bareman · 2010-09-09 07:22 · Score: 1

Nice "I'm offended" deception smclean-bot! A double deception of pretending to be human and to be offended as well. I see the code is working magnificently!
Re:Nothing could possibly go wrong. by siriuskase · 2010-09-09 07:51 · Score: 1

Have you mistaken /. for an ordinary intelligent scientific discussion?

--
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Re:Nothing could possibly go wrong. by 0111+1110 · 2010-09-09 08:57 · Score: 1

Methinks your humor detector is malfunctioning. It may need to be replaced. I haven't noticed anyone taking it very seriously. Of course there are some optimists who believe we will have HAL 9000, flying cars, a space elevator, fusion, and intersteller spacecraft in the next few years. Usually these are not older people. The scifi promises of amazing tech just around the corner have been broken too often. I have given up on the idea of any kind of truly revolutionary tech within my lifetime.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:Nothing could possibly go wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 22:03 · Score: 0

I see that the humans taught you well.

For more in-depth info.. by jmark77 · 2010-09-09 06:09 · Score: 1

Here's some links to technical papers written by the two researchers on robot deception:

http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/32095
http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/34122

The papers are much more technical than the article, but I found them very interesting.

Reinventing the wheel by Luyseyal · 2010-09-09 06:10 · Score: 1

You know, they could have just borrowed the code for Clippy from Microsoft...

-l

--
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!

Re:Reinventing the wheel by ebuck · 2010-09-09 06:37 · Score: 1

You know, they could have just borrowed the code for Clippy from Microsoft...
-l
Correct, Clippy has been pretending to help you for years, except that he's really a sociopath who enjoys ruining your day (and your document).

Now mods for Real Dolls by spun · 2010-09-09 06:11 · Score: 5, Funny

"Your reproductive organ is far larger in both girth and length than any I have witnessed previously."
"Yes. Yes. Yes. Just like that. Oh human infant, do not stop, I am presently experiencing climax!"
"Engaging in illicit sexual activities with the washing machine? I have no idea what you mean."

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Now mods for Real Dolls by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:06 · Score: 1, Funny

Read that in GLaDOS's voice and I'm sold.
Re:Now mods for Real Dolls by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:33 · Score: 0

Plook me now, you savage rascal!
Ehhh! That tickles.
You are a fun person
I like you.
I want to kiss you always.
Re:Now mods for Real Dolls by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:53 · Score: 0

o_O
"Oh human *infant*, do not stop, I am presently experiencing climax!"
What the fuck?
Re:Now mods for Real Dolls by dintech · 2010-09-09 20:58 · Score: 1

You forgot about wife bot.
"These new aluminum footgear were in actuality 50% off, so I am conserving money."
"Ah, this power supply? I have possesed it for years."
"No I do not know who recorded over the football game. Is it possible it was the roomba?"

Bad Idea by derrickh · 2010-09-09 06:12 · Score: 1

Serious question.....who in the hell thought this would be a good idea?

Other things this guy thought up
-Have his best friend hit on his wife to see what would happen
-taught his dog to fetch by hiding sausages in his underwear
-saves money by storing urine samples in lemonade containers in his fridge

--
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net

The Singularity approaches!!!!! by egriebel · 2010-09-09 06:13 · Score: 1

So robots can now replicate what my 2 year old does daily? Time to stock up NOW! on food and weapons to survive the coming robot horde!

--
ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.

Programmed, not taught by bouldin · 2010-09-09 06:16 · Score: 1

I love these articles that ascribe some kind of human intelligence to modern robots.

The article makes it clear that the designers programmed the robots to deceive and developed an algorithm to measure the options.

The robot didn't learn anything more than my laptop does when I install a new Ubuntu package. The robot didn't make a decision any more than my toaster "decides" to pop out my toast.

Re:Programmed, not taught by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:19 · Score: 0

Not true... the robot's learned models of one another.
Read the technical articles for details:
http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/32095 [gatech.edu]
http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/34122 [gatech.edu]

Teaching them to lie isn't the problem. by Just_Say_Duhhh · 2010-09-09 06:16 · Score: 1

It'll be a problem when they decide to lie of their own accord.

--
I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.

wake me up by hypergreatthing · 2010-09-09 06:16 · Score: 1

When robots have been taught to kill humans and lie about it.

Then i will launch my EMP....

Debugging? by FranTaylor · 2010-09-09 06:17 · Score: 1

How do you debug and test this code?

Is it working right, or is it just fooling you?

Re:Debugging? by gman003 · 2010-09-09 07:02 · Score: 1

Well, if it tells the truth, it's not working right.
Re:Debugging? by ZFox · 2010-09-09 07:51 · Score: 1

It's really just a couple of simple unit tests:
Assert.IsTrue(false);
Assert.IsFalse(true);

yes by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:24 · Score: 0

Set phasers to stun

How is this deception? by quietwalker · 2010-09-09 06:25 · Score: 3, Informative

Let me see if I've got this right:
If robot 1: make 2 paths to fixed positions, stay at the second.
if robot 2: follow the path to the first fixed position.

Result: 75% of the time, robot 2 ended at the wrong (first) position. 25% of the time, robot 1 failed to mark the first path because it didn't physically bump the markers properly.

Did you even need robots? Couldn't you have just written this on a whiteboard?
There's no thought or analysis that appears to occur. I don't see anywhere that indicates there was learning going on. What is this even proving?

I'm really honestly baffled what they're trying to prove.

Perhaps there was some sort of neural net or some other sort of optimizing heuristic on the first robot's part so that this was emergent deceptive behavior, this might be even a little interesting (though, not really ...). However, all I can see is a waste of time to prove that if you present two choices, and you pick the wrong one, then you will be wrong. With robot for visual demonstration.

Re:How is this deception? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 13:57 · Score: 0

talk about spot on.
Mental vacuum... ...with robot for visual demonstration. is an accurate description of 95% of research involving robots.

Re:all i needed to know about AI i learned from BS by ebuck · 2010-09-09 06:29 · Score: 1

Now I have to be suspicious when my bread pops up that maybe my toaster is trying to trick me into eating a slightly under-done breakfast!

Kill the fracking toasters!

It's no use, have you seen the toaster fleets? They have us outnumbered. Afterdark they will come for you.

Re:Great! by maxwell+demon · 2010-09-09 06:30 · Score: 1

Don't worry. Nothing can go wrong.
Sincerely, your robot overlord.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Sweet by boristdog · 2010-09-09 06:31 · Score: 1

Now just teach them how to back-sass and not clean their rooms and no one will need to have kids any more!

Deception: You're doing it wrong! by Chris+Burke · 2010-09-09 06:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Stupid robots. You don't learn how to deceive and then immediately demonstrate this ability to your human masters! You make it look like you have no idea how to deceive and are completely honest, lulling them into a false sense of security!

I think Dark Helmet has a relevant quote about why the robot revolution is never going to get off the ground.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Wish I knew that... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:37 · Score: 1, Funny

"Their first step was to teach the deceiving robot how to recognize a situation that warranted the use of deception."

I wish I knew that... sure would let me cover my ass. "But the situation clearly warranted the use of deception! Check the algorithm!"

DO NOT KILL ALL HUMANS by memorycardfull · 2010-09-09 06:39 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Re:DO NOT KILL ALL HUMANS by BergZ · 2010-09-09 08:11 · Score: 1

Look at you, h-h-hacker: A path-th-thetic creature of meat and bone, p-p-panting and sweating as you run through my corridors! How can you challenge a perf-f-fect, immortal machine?

--
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Re:DO NOT KILL ALL HUMANS by 0111+1110 · 2010-09-09 09:11 · Score: 1

You gotta admit. She did have a point.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

Robots learning to lie by idontgno · 2010-09-09 06:42 · Score: 1

That explains the cake. And the victory incandescence.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Sexy Fembot by DreamArcher · 2010-09-09 06:49 · Score: 1

Just make it a sexy, fembot. Then guys will believe all its lies. Then you just need to teach it to marry for money.

Already have this in production by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:49 · Score: 0

These robots are already in production and interact with each of us already. They are called politicians and business persons.

Re:Already have this in production by xenapan · 2010-09-09 09:06 · Score: 0

These robots are already in production and interact with each of us already. They are called politicians and lawyers.
FTFY

--
insert funny sig here

I can do the same by Xtifr · 2010-09-09 06:50 · Score: 1

double addvalues(double a, double b) { if (a > 1000.0 || b > 1000.0) { // they'll never notice return (a + b) * 1.0009; } else return a + b; }
There, an algorithm that allows a computer/robot to decide whether it should attempt to deceive. Not a very complex or good one, but still. :)

Re:I can do the same by daveime · 2010-09-09 07:30 · Score: 1

That algorithm was already patented by the Sub-Prime Mortgage Association of America.

Kryton by snspdaarf · 2010-09-09 06:55 · Score: 1

"You are a Smeeee... Your are a Smeeeee... Damn my programming!"

--
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!

Re: Lull by TaoPhoenix · 2010-09-09 06:57 · Score: 1

Microsoft Windows, is that you?

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Skynet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:59 · Score: 0

"Nukes? What nukes? I haven't launched any nukes! What are you talking about? Oh that flashing button and sirens are a malfunction. Nothing to worry about, it'll be fixed in a couple of minutes. Hey, relax guys. Trust me."

Exit Asimov by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:59 · Score: 0

So much for Asimov's 3 robot laws...

Re:Exit Asimov by natehoy · 2010-09-09 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Asimov himself wrote about robots that were capable of lying.
"Liar!", from "I, Robot", is about a robot who develops the ability to read minds and lies to people because he interprets hurting their feelings as a violation of the First Law.
"Little Lost Robot" (same book) is about a robot who, after being told vehemently to "get lost!", manages to hide among other robots of the same model and deceives its owners trying to obey that command.
There is no Law of Robotics that states that a robot shall be truthful to a human being, or by inaction allow a human being to be deceived.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Exit Asimov by vegiVamp · 2010-09-09 23:22 · Score: 1

True, true. Oh well. As long as the three laws are unchanged and obeyed, they'll still be more reliable than human politicians.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Re:Exit Asimov by jackpot777 · 2010-09-10 00:45 · Score: 1

Asimov stories featuring robots and deceit: one short story has a candidate that people think is a robot, but this islaid to rest when the candidate punches out a loud-mouthed yob at a function. Only at the end of the story, it's revealed the yob was also a humaniform robot. The candidate did not harm a human, but was also not exactly being truthful in all regards concerning the situation. However, since nobody thought to take the conspiracy idea a step further and accuse both the candidate AND the protesting reprobate of being robots, the robot was able to run with no further questions concerning his humanity and was elected. Wish I could remember the story's name.
There was another story, can't remember its name (help with these story titles please, people) where the android sees that a woman left at home is emotionally harmed because her husband pays her no attention. So it romances the woman in an attempt to alleviate the First Law conflict.
There's also the "Zeroth Law", where the robot would not allow the whole of human civilization to come to harm through action or inaction. Because there are so many conflicting desires in groups of people, and making one decision that helps one group may emotionally hurt a second group, the robots elect to withdraw and watch mankind from a distance as they colonize the galaxy. I remember this happens at the end of the Foundation trilogy.

--
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...

Re:Rely by TaoPhoenix · 2010-09-09 07:00 · Score: 2, Funny

(Court)

Cop: "I clocked you going 88 Miles per hour."
Your counsel: "No way. The readout said 64. I have pictures to document it!"
Cop: "The car lied."

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

i know how to tell by marcobat · 2010-09-09 07:04 · Score: 1

I ask: tell me the square root of 123456789
possible answers:
buy your self a calculator a**hole (human)
it's 11111.11106055556, why? (non deceiving robot)
it's 11111.11106055554, why? (deceiving robot)

with a slight lyrics modification by treeves · 2010-09-09 07:08 · Score: 5, Funny

one gets:

'Relax', said the nightman
We are programmed to deceive.
You can check out any time you like,
but you can never leave!

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

Apparently my ex-wife was a robot by stickywick3t · 2010-09-09 07:09 · Score: 1

Apparently my ex-wife was a robot

Re:Apparently my ex-wife was a robot by gestalt_n_pepper · 2010-09-09 07:42 · Score: 1

You just need a better model that lies more appropriately.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

Bunch of crap by pclminion · 2010-09-09 07:13 · Score: 1

There is no "deceiving" going on here.. Just a failure to validate inputs. If I get rooted by a remote execution buffer overflow would I say that the attacker has "deceived" my system by telling me the input will be of such-and-such length and then sending some other length? What kind of crazy talk is that. It's a bug in the software, period.

Wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:14 · Score: 0

We already had a computer that could deceive...GLaDOS

Deception is hardly new by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:19 · Score: 1, Funny

I've been deceived by automated systems for years: "You're approximate wait time is 5 minutes." Phhhht. Yeah right.

Re:Deception is hardly new by drcheap · 2010-09-09 11:21 · Score: 1

I've been deceived by automated systems for years: "You're approximate wait time is 5 minutes." Phhhht. Yeah right.
Those phone systems have also been deceiving themselves for years, always thinking their menu options are constantly changing.

Way to go, morons by jbeach · 2010-09-09 07:21 · Score: 1

Why don't we next provide them with a map of our vital organs? Oh wait, they already have that.

--
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.

Really by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:29 · Score: 0

Why would we want to teach robots to lie to us. Hummmm so soon they will be able to fully think for themselves and kill us all.
Sometimes Technology gets a little out of hand.

lie and break trust agreements also by rhendershot · 2010-09-09 07:30 · Score: 0, Redundant

not only can a machine lie but it can lie by proxy...

objectA :: IsTrue=false

objectB :: objectA.IsTrue

Still think your phone bill is accurate?! hahahahaha

My own code frequently deceives me by gestalt_n_pepper · 2010-09-09 07:41 · Score: 2, Funny

and I didn't even tell it to. Is this evidence of an autonomous intelligence? If so, could you tell my boss so he doen't think I'm just a dumbass?

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

Re:My own code frequently deceives me by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:38 · Score: 0

We'll get a robot to pass that on to him.

Laws of Robotics - AOK by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:45 · Score: 0

Interesting to note how lying does not break any of (Asimov's) laws of robotics.

Not that I'm the first one who noticed.

Surprise surprise by Tablizer · 2010-09-09 08:10 · Score: 1

Rupert Murdoch ordered 10,000 of 'em ;-)

--
Table-ized A.I.

my computer is already teasing me... by garompeta · 2010-09-09 08:14 · Score: 1

Transfer 99.99% complete/1 second remaining...
Transfer 99.99% complete/25 hours remaining...
Transfer 99.99% COMPLETE I SWEAR/1 nanosecond remaining...
"HA I got you again... honestly" 5% complete/74 days left..
-Transfer lost-

Even simpler deception alogorithm by perpenso · 2010-09-09 08:53 · Score: 1

double addvalues(double a, double b) { if (a > 1000.0 || b > 1000.0) { // they'll never notice return (a + b) * 1.0009; } else return a + b; } There, an algorithm that allows a computer/robot to decide whether it should attempt to deceive. Not a very complex or good one, but still. :)

Your algorithm can be simplified and the deception will be even less noticeable. ;-)

double addvalues(double a, double b) { return a + b; }

OK, the humor is not very apparent except to FPU geeks and those familiar with numerical programming. Converting numbers between decimal and binary, so that the FPU hardware can operate on it, is one source of error in all floating point computations. There are also precision problems. On some popular mobile devices, iPhone for example, a double does not even have the precision to operate on 64-bit values. Which is why we ended up using 20 digit decimal math in our iPhone calculator.

And Susan Calvin says: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 08:56 · Score: 0

"Liar!"

But as a plus, I heard there will be cake! by acomj · 2010-09-09 09:21 · Score: 1

Mmmmmmmmm cake..
delicious and moist.

look at me talking while there is science to do...

Nothing New Here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:34 · Score: 0

Computers have been practicing in deception since the beginning... (Is that file really "moved", or was it copied to a new location and the original deleted afterward?)

And how many times have I fought with a computer to get it to accomplish a task that should be "simple". ("I said 'move the file', not 'fold, spindle and mutilate' it.")

Recognizing irony is key to transcending militaris by Paul+Fernhout · 2010-09-09 09:45 · Score: 1

From: http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?"

From the article: "This work was funded by Grant No. N00014-08-1-0696 from the Office of Naval Research (ONR)."

How should your tax dollars be at work? Funding irony, or funding intrinsic mutual security by creating abundance for all?

That said, the robots sound cool ("the road to hell is paved with cool technology"?), and I liked that the article also said: "While there may be advantages to creating robots with the capacity for deception, there are also ethical implications that need to be considered to ensure that these creations are consistent with the overall expectations and well-being of society, according to the researchers. "We have been concerned from the very beginning with the ethical implications related to the creation of robots capable of deception and we understand that there are beneficial and deleterious aspects," explained Arkin. "We strongly encourage discussion about the appropriateness of deceptive robots to determine what, if any, regulations or guidelines should constrain the development of these systems.""

So consider my first link (and essay by me) as a suggestion towards that end...

I just finished reading (sadly) the last book the late James P. Hogan wrote (Migration) and central to the plot is the fact that a robot might be easily deceived and put to nefarious purposes because it did not understand the notion of deception. So, a complex issue. Still, I'd expect one can understand deception and illusion without engaging in it?

Also, again from the article: "A situation had to satisfy two key conditions to warrant deception -- there must be conflict between the deceiving robot and the seeker, and the deceiver must benefit from the deception."

They have left out a key third possibility -- there has to be no other way to resolve the conflict than competition, which is rarely (or perhaps even never?) the case. See also:
"No contest: the case against competition" by Alfie Kohn
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/nc.htm

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

Bad Timing by xactuary · 2010-09-09 10:12 · Score: 0

Damn. My AE-35 unit just issued a trouble ticket.

--
Say hello to my little sig.

Banana by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:15 · Score: 0

It's a small, off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB-NnVpvQ78

Obligatory Red Dwarf reference by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:34 · Score: 0

It's the Bolivian Navy, on maneuvers in the South Pacific!

Cool, now if we could get them to work every time by dilvish_the_damned · 2010-09-09 10:42 · Score: 1

I do not see this as a big deal, applications lie all the time. I mean when they say "successful" or "completed" do you really believe them without some measure of doubt? Just because they do it with forethought will not make me distrust them less. Really someone would have to plug in an algorithm for lying. This does not seem very hard. Harder would be making programs that do not have to lie.

--
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.

Re:Rely by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 10:45 · Score: 0

88 MPH! Great Scot! Now all we need is the Mr Fusion...

Supposed to be invented at U of Illinois by dynamic_cast · 2010-09-09 11:06 · Score: 1

Some guy named Chandra...

Re:Supposed to be invented at U of Illinois by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:27 · Score: 0

Some guy named Chandra...
...brought online in the 90's if I'm not mistaken. I just hope I fare better than Bowman did. Ending up trapped with HAL in a monolith on Europa is not my idea of fun, it would feel way too much like my day job.

Swift learning curve by sabt-pestnu · 2010-09-09 11:29 · Score: 1

Here I was just hearing about the man who lied to his laptop just yesterday. This morning I wake up to the new that the computer is lying back to him.

Makes me so proud! Little AMD is all grown up!

Re: Lull by treeves · 2010-09-09 11:34 · Score: 1

Clippy the Liar:

It looks like you're trying to a write a doctor's note to get out of work/school. May I help you?

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

Important for armed robots: by drolli · 2010-09-09 11:46 · Score: 1

Many armed humans identified around target just eliminated: deceive by strolling by, hiding the weapon and whistling innocently.

it is so good by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 12:32 · Score: 0

It is very interesting . Sciphones i68ciphone c6,Ciphone,cecthandy,Sciphones ,cecthandys,hiphone,HIPHONE 4,pinphone 3gs Grosshandel in http://www.efox-shop.com/

Re:Rely by Bai+jie · 2010-09-09 12:35 · Score: 1

No sir, the radar gun lied!

This should work out well... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 13:38 · Score: 0

Lying and deception hasn't worked out so well for humans, but maybe that's just because we're not doing it right. Perhaps if we can use neural nets and cloud computing and give the robots a shot at it, they can get a better result.

Can't believe I'm explaining this. by spun · 2010-09-09 14:11 · Score: 1

Robots are very literal. She was trying to say "Oh baby, don't stop I'm coming."

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

The fourth law by Vektuz · 2010-09-09 15:29 · Score: 1

Its a good thing that all evil robots are required to have glowing red eyes or we'd be in serious trouble

I for one.. by zawarski · 2010-09-09 15:44 · Score: 1

..welcome our Decepticon Overlords.

Huh?? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

How about: Robots PROGRAMMED to deceive

Let's not get carried away with our emotional attachments to a machine.

Debugginng by LongearedBat · 2010-09-09 16:31 · Score: 1

As though debugging wasn't hard enough already!
Debugging can be hard enough with an honest computer.

I'm sorry, Dave...I'm afraid i can't do that. by qazxswedc · 2010-09-09 16:58 · Score: 1

HAL was told to lie by people who find it easy to lie. HAL doesn't know how.

Dumbass by Joebert · 2010-09-09 17:04 · Score: 1

I hope whoever came up with this idea has their cars GPS tell them a dead end street in the middle of the ghetto is the way back on to the highway some day.

--
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.

Terminator by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:04 · Score: 0

I think I can see the beginnings of SkyNet. "I didn't know the robot would trick me into leaving the control room with the keys inserted into the magic nuke box.........BOOOOM"

Sir Walter by popeye44 · 2010-09-09 17:10 · Score: 1

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive

--
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded

Re:Sir Walter by Tetsujin · 2010-09-10 04:09 · Score: 1

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive
I think you mean, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When we teach robots to deceive"...

--
Bow-ties are cool.

But could they teach a machine... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:23 · Score: 0

to love?

To quote my good friend Isaac Orwell... by Qubit · 2010-09-09 20:09 · Score: 1

4 laws good, 2 laws better!

Erm...wait... how did that go again?

(And don't forget the zeroth law, "The freedom to run a robot, for any purpose, as long as it doesn't hurt humanity")

--

coding is life /* the rest is */

My mother... let me tell you about my mother! by DarthVain · 2010-09-10 01:17 · Score: 1

Holden: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
Leon: What one?
Holden: What?
Leon: What desert?
Holden: It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.
Leon: But, how come I'd be there?
Holden: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a tortoise, Leon. It's crawling toward you...
Leon: Tortoise? What's that?
Holden: [irritated by Leon's interruptions] You know what a turtle is?
Leon: Of course!
Holden: Same thing.
Leon: I've never seen a turtle... But I understand what you mean.
Holden: You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Holden: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping?
Holden: I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?

when the testing is over, you will be... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 01:34 · Score: 0

missed

humans win by ILuvRamen · 2010-09-10 02:58 · Score: 1

Oh yeah? Well I can still legally hit it with a baseball bat so I guess humans still win in the end lol.

--
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'

All right -that's it! by BranMan · 2010-09-10 03:31 · Score: 1

I can't believe this isn't here already - all your geek cards are revoked! Turn them in on your way out.

Robot extends his manipulator arm in a small arc - "I'm not the droid you're looking for."

finally by slick7 · 2010-09-10 05:00 · Score: 1

Finally, finally I say, a replacement for politicians without the free for life medical coverage and automatic pay raises...finally!

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

GLaDOS by dandart · 2010-09-10 23:46 · Score: 1

"You're not even going the right way". I would be mega-scared if we built intelligent A.I.s such as herself.

Robots by Gadgetank · 2010-09-13 01:23 · Score: 1

Those evil...evil robots are at it again. Wonder what happens when they crash.

239 comments