I think a lunar telescope would have quite a few advantages over an orbiter. Here are a few off the top of my head:
1. With an orbiting telescope, size and weight are critical. If you build it on the moon (hopefully using local resources) it can weigh as much as you like and be as large as you want. 2. As you mentioned, the far side of the moon is shielded from earth's EM radiation. 3. Service and repair is far easier and cheaper (assuming you have a manned base accompanying the telescope array) 4. Once you establish a base and figure out how to build 1 telescope, it should be fairly cheap to build 100 more. Think how much we could learn if we had an array of large telescopes on the far side of the moon!
Oh, and you could still use solar power, since you wouldn't really want to build a mobile telescope. The astronomical cost of such a system would not be worth the double amount of darkness, even if there were no earth in your way. Not only that, but vibrations would surely affect your image quality.
You missed my entire point when I said that I was speculating. My personal opinion on what is right and what is wrong has never been offered. I'm speculating as to what we, as the human race, will do. Based on our history, I don't expect humans to be particularly kind in their treatment of "non human intelligences," and I would expect that the above questions about "what is death" and "what is cruelty" will be major points of contention when the issue arises.
Up to this point I always imagined that any sane and moral human being, would find an idea of destroying another self-aware and sentient being, even of a different nature, revolting and immoral.
Like I said, make a reality check. We kill other self-aware sentient humans all the time. We kill other animals even more liberally. Even to a person who thinks that killing is wrong, do you think they'll extend that thinking to AIs? Do you think they'll even understand the concept?
Please don't go around judging people when they haven't even told you what their position is. Are you really interested in analyzing this issue, or are you just out to accuse those who you think disagree with you? If you think that the things I'm suggesting are wrong, then don't you think it's a good idea to think about them? Shouldn't you consider the possibilities so you can arrive at an educated opinion? Shouldn't you analyze possible arguments in advance in order to be better prepared if this becomes a real issue?
That said, now I will give you my personal opinion, as it stands as of this moment: 1. Creating true AI will require evolutionary processes. 2. Without infinite computing resources, one would eventually have to stop processing AI systems that aren't desirable. 3. So far I am undecided as to whether this is equivalent to "killing" a biological organism. Is shutting down an AI with the intelligence of an ant the same as killing an ant? Maybe. 4. I don't think the "killing" question becomes a real issue until the system is actually "self aware." Where to draw this line, I have no idea. I personally don't have a problem killing bugs. 5. It's going to be a very long time before we reach the point of AI being self aware. In the meantime, we'd better come to some conclusions about what "life" is, what "death" is, and what we as a group think is right and wrong concerning these issues. Maybe it looks simple to you, but it looks pretty complex to me - I'm not about to jump to conclusions.
Would you consider yourself the victim of cruelty if the universe instantly ceased to existThat is the definition of "death" and yes if someone were to do something like that to you, he would be called "murderer" and persecuted most harshly.
I didn't ask if it would be considered "death," I asked if it would be considered "cruel." In the US (for example) it is legal to kill a domesticated animal for food, yet it is illegal to torture it to death. Of course a being with intelligence comparable to a human would probably be a different legal case, but it's hard to say how the law will treat it. As far as death goes, what about the AI that's held indefinitely in stasis - frozen in time but able to be instantiated again? You would be stealing "time" from the AI, but did you kill it?
As for your fears about man-machine wars, I think they're a bit alarmist. Humans naturally expect such behavior, because it's so ingrained in our nature. In the wild, you have to fight and kill to survive and prosper. After millions of years of doing this, it becomes your most basic instinct. Human society didn't come about until recently, so our instinctual morals are just slapped on top of our instincts to cheat and kill.
AIs, on the other hand, don't have to evolve in such an environment. They should be raised (bred?) in a world where desirable behaviours (intelligent behavior, empathy, teamwork, charity, etc) make individuals more successful, and where undesirable behaviours (violence, deceit) make individuals less successful. End result - intelligent beings whose most ingrained instincts are those that humans decide are "moral." No, you wouldn't be able to "verify their allegiance," but you would be safer to trust a machine than a human.
I'm not saying there's no danger, though. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the real threat is from humans who purposely create amoral AIs. It wouldn't be real surprising for humans to breed AIs with the instinct to kill. They would be useful for military purposes, or even for entertaining bloodthirsty humans (think video game opponents). They would surely get loose eventually if they're truely intelligent, and could certainly wreak havoc.
Oh, and I'm not taking the position of advocating any of this, I'm just speculating.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. And yes, that's exactly how I expect we would develop true AI.
I'll have to give this some thought, as I hadn't considered the moral implications of "killing" the unfit (yet potentially conscious) systems. I think that "unspeakable cruelty" is a bit harsh, though - can you really "kill" such a system, or do you just stop running it? Would you consider yourself the victim of cruelty if the universe instantly ceased to exist? What if we store the state of the AI on a backup disk and never run it again - is it dead?
I suppose one potential argument against it would be the emotional hardship suffered by other conscious systems that had relationships with the one that was terminated (assuming that they would interact with each other, which seems likely). It's an interesting question.
If you wanted a prediction, I would say that AI probably will be developed in this fashion, and that humans won't get around to recognizing the "right to live" of non-human beings until later (when the AIs are intelligent and established enough to argue their case). I mean, look at how we treat animals.
While a truely intelligent machine is going to be beyond our control to some degree, I disagree that we have no control over its instinctual behavior. Sure, some sort of self organizing evolutionary approach seems like the only realistic way to create something so complicated - but *we* have control over the evolutionary pressures that determine its development. You can't produce a system that's capable of reason unless you select for systems that can reason. Shouldn't we also select for systems that have the same ingrained social mores that we have?
Humans don't have morals for any special reason - we have them because they benefited us. Humans without morals weren't as likely to survive, because they weren't able to function as a group.
You're right that we're fooling ourselves if we think we're going to build a bunch of intelligent robot slaves, but I don't see why we can't build a bunch of intelligent robot allies. The real danger comes from humans who purposefully select for amoral intelligences, for military purposes etc. Now *that* could be the end of us.
Ah. Sorry about that. I thought that "Hard AI" distinguished "real" intelligence from expert systems and other tricks.
Sorry to misunderstand you. There are a lot of people who are convinced that "real" intelligence is somehow impossible, and I always try to get them to explain their reasoning. For some reason, they never seem to have any.
I think part of the reason is that, since AI turned out to be a LOT harder than we thought it would be, a lot of people assume that it's impossible. If the moon missions had failed miserably then a lot of people today would argue that it can't be done, even though theoretically it can.
True machine intelligence (the same kind that Humans use, which is what we're basing the definition on) is theoretically possible, but the real question is whether we can build such a thing. I'm inclined to say yes.
Where do you get that idea? We know that it's possible to make a machine think, because we already have a working example (in fact, lots of 'em). Some people may be fooled about the difficulty of building such a system from scratch, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think it's impossible.
Think about how your brain works and what your "conscious experience" really is. When you break it down you find that it's really not that amazing.
I don't understand your point. Do you think Hard AI is impossible, or do you think it's just very difficult? You start out by agreeing that it's "bullshit," but then you go on to explain why it's just difficult.
I would argue that Hard AI will take a LOT of processing power, and a long time to develop (via simulated evolution, most likely), but that it's far from impossible. I mean, the very definition is based on human brains, which already exist.
The only real argument for Hard AI being impossible is that Human brains use some sort of magic to operate. Now that's bullshit.
Hear hear. I've heard plenty of arguments about how steam isn't that intolerable, but to allow this kind of thing is to start down a very ugly path. Software that *can* run standalone *should* run standalone. I'll provide the sandbox, and I'll take the responsibility of not violating copyright etc.
This is one of the reasons I will never buy software that requires the internet to be functional.
I'm not going to go that far, though. An internet connection is inherently required for some software. Also, I would accept "tethered" software if the function the program performed was valuable enough. However, it would have to be extremely useful/necessary in order to accept this kind of restriction.
(2a) is undecidable, as the invokation of the supernatural in (2) puts (2a) outside the realm of what can be studied by humans.
In response to (1), the reason it matters is that humans, although merely emergent phenomena in this world made up of atoms, behave cooperatively (sometimes) to ensure their own survival. Human morals and the structures of human societies are not random, they exist because they are what make humans successful.
Of course, it only "matters" from a human perspective - but here we are.
Yeah, it's funny right now because it's far out - but it really will be an issue someday.
If you create a conscious machine that recognizes pain, will it be legal to torture it? At first it seems like an easy question, until you realize that humans are themselves conscious machines that feel pain.
It'll be a tricky one.
Re:So don't use a camera that honors this...
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 1
From reading TFA, and from the fact that only XP uses online authentication, am I safe in assuming that this will only apply to XP?
Yet another reason why I'm glad to still be running 2000 at home. MS will quit supporting it someday, but by that point I expect to fully transition to Linux anyway.
Obviously Sony fanboys who don't understand what "you can ship but never sell" means. Oh well, I'm used to people being a disappointment (I live in the US).
It's possible that the machines could be engineered (or bred, more likely) to want to serve human masters. However, what if somebody decides to design/breed a machine that behaves otherwise? Now you have to deal with the question of whether it should be granted rights.
I think this is going to be a *really* big issue down the line. You're going to have some extremely opinionated people that won't want to grant rights to a machine. In the end, though, those people are going to lose. You can only suppress an intelligent creature for so long, especially when that creature is more intelligent than you are.
No, this isn't what he suggested. He asked whether the patent should go to the owner of the robot or the designer of the robot. He didn't ask whether the robot itself would be entitled to the patent.
OTOH, why would that be a dumb question? Sure, it won't become an issue until much later, but it most likely will be an issue someday. Should intelligent non-human creatures be granted human and civil rights? How will they react if we deny them? Sounds like trouble to me.
However, using a telerobot is absurd as well. Wouldn't it be much easier to take the call from home, or replace the human being entirely with a speech capable software that answers users' calls all day long?
He's not talking about robots answering phones, he's talking about robots taking out the trash. They would just be remotely operated by a human.
This has nothing to do with ethics. Nobody considers the power wastage of an electrical appliance as "excrement".
I'm pretty sure he's just calling it "excrement" to fit the tone of the article. What he's really asking is, "should we require robots to have zero emissions?"
You ever find yourself in a potentially dangerous or costly situation, and thinking, "hmm, better save" followed by, "oh, yeah. Real world. Be careful."
Sure they're going to make sure that if a new market opens up they'll own it.
They aren't going to go out of business even if everyone switches to hydrogen
Yeah, but they might have problems if everyone generates their own electricity at home. If they can't outlaw solar panels, they may have to black out the sky.
I think you would be less confused if you looked at it from a more realistic viewpoint. You *can* observe yourself - what you're not taking into account is that "yourself" changes from instant to instant, as your brain state changes.
Thus, you never observe your current self, you observe yourself (the state of your brain) as you were an instant ago. There are not an infinite number of observers (because brains don't last forever), but you are a new observer every instant.
Basically your brain observing it's own state creates a feedback loop, which is what we call consciousness.
Slashdot Mirror
1. With an orbiting telescope, size and weight are critical. If you build it on the moon (hopefully using local resources) it can weigh as much as you like and be as large as you want.
2. As you mentioned, the far side of the moon is shielded from earth's EM radiation.
3. Service and repair is far easier and cheaper (assuming you have a manned base accompanying the telescope array)
4. Once you establish a base and figure out how to build 1 telescope, it should be fairly cheap to build 100 more. Think how much we could learn if we had an array of large telescopes on the far side of the moon!
Oh, and you could still use solar power, since you wouldn't really want to build a mobile telescope. The astronomical cost of such a system would not be worth the double amount of darkness, even if there were no earth in your way. Not only that, but vibrations would surely affect your image quality.
It's a Castlevania game for the DS, but it apparently doesn't have a real name yet. I predict it will be a seller.
Please don't go around judging people when they haven't even told you what their position is. Are you really interested in analyzing this issue, or are you just out to accuse those who you think disagree with you? If you think that the things I'm suggesting are wrong, then don't you think it's a good idea to think about them? Shouldn't you consider the possibilities so you can arrive at an educated opinion? Shouldn't you analyze possible arguments in advance in order to be better prepared if this becomes a real issue?
That said, now I will give you my personal opinion, as it stands as of this moment:
1. Creating true AI will require evolutionary processes.
2. Without infinite computing resources, one would eventually have to stop processing AI systems that aren't desirable.
3. So far I am undecided as to whether this is equivalent to "killing" a biological organism. Is shutting down an AI with the intelligence of an ant the same as killing an ant? Maybe.
4. I don't think the "killing" question becomes a real issue until the system is actually "self aware." Where to draw this line, I have no idea. I personally don't have a problem killing bugs.
5. It's going to be a very long time before we reach the point of AI being self aware. In the meantime, we'd better come to some conclusions about what "life" is, what "death" is, and what we as a group think is right and wrong concerning these issues. Maybe it looks simple to you, but it looks pretty complex to me - I'm not about to jump to conclusions.
As for your fears about man-machine wars, I think they're a bit alarmist. Humans naturally expect such behavior, because it's so ingrained in our nature. In the wild, you have to fight and kill to survive and prosper. After millions of years of doing this, it becomes your most basic instinct. Human society didn't come about until recently, so our instinctual morals are just slapped on top of our instincts to cheat and kill.
AIs, on the other hand, don't have to evolve in such an environment. They should be raised (bred?) in a world where desirable behaviours (intelligent behavior, empathy, teamwork, charity, etc) make individuals more successful, and where undesirable behaviours (violence, deceit) make individuals less successful. End result - intelligent beings whose most ingrained instincts are those that humans decide are "moral." No, you wouldn't be able to "verify their allegiance," but you would be safer to trust a machine than a human.
I'm not saying there's no danger, though. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the real threat is from humans who purposely create amoral AIs. It wouldn't be real surprising for humans to breed AIs with the instinct to kill. They would be useful for military purposes, or even for entertaining bloodthirsty humans (think video game opponents). They would surely get loose eventually if they're truely intelligent, and could certainly wreak havoc.
Oh, and I'm not taking the position of advocating any of this, I'm just speculating.
I'll have to give this some thought, as I hadn't considered the moral implications of "killing" the unfit (yet potentially conscious) systems. I think that "unspeakable cruelty" is a bit harsh, though - can you really "kill" such a system, or do you just stop running it? Would you consider yourself the victim of cruelty if the universe instantly ceased to exist? What if we store the state of the AI on a backup disk and never run it again - is it dead?
I suppose one potential argument against it would be the emotional hardship suffered by other conscious systems that had relationships with the one that was terminated (assuming that they would interact with each other, which seems likely). It's an interesting question.
If you wanted a prediction, I would say that AI probably will be developed in this fashion, and that humans won't get around to recognizing the "right to live" of non-human beings until later (when the AIs are intelligent and established enough to argue their case). I mean, look at how we treat animals.
Humans don't have morals for any special reason - we have them because they benefited us. Humans without morals weren't as likely to survive, because they weren't able to function as a group.
You're right that we're fooling ourselves if we think we're going to build a bunch of intelligent robot slaves, but I don't see why we can't build a bunch of intelligent robot allies. The real danger comes from humans who purposefully select for amoral intelligences, for military purposes etc. Now *that* could be the end of us.
Sorry to misunderstand you. There are a lot of people who are convinced that "real" intelligence is somehow impossible, and I always try to get them to explain their reasoning. For some reason, they never seem to have any.
I think part of the reason is that, since AI turned out to be a LOT harder than we thought it would be, a lot of people assume that it's impossible. If the moon missions had failed miserably then a lot of people today would argue that it can't be done, even though theoretically it can.
True machine intelligence (the same kind that Humans use, which is what we're basing the definition on) is theoretically possible, but the real question is whether we can build such a thing. I'm inclined to say yes.
Think about how your brain works and what your "conscious experience" really is. When you break it down you find that it's really not that amazing.
I would argue that Hard AI will take a LOT of processing power, and a long time to develop (via simulated evolution, most likely), but that it's far from impossible. I mean, the very definition is based on human brains, which already exist.
The only real argument for Hard AI being impossible is that Human brains use some sort of magic to operate. Now that's bullshit.
Too bad my copy of spaceballs is on loan right now, or I would check it out - I don't think I've ever played the "fullscreen" side of the disc...
In response to (1), the reason it matters is that humans, although merely emergent phenomena in this world made up of atoms, behave cooperatively (sometimes) to ensure their own survival. Human morals and the structures of human societies are not random, they exist because they are what make humans successful.
Of course, it only "matters" from a human perspective - but here we are.
If you create a conscious machine that recognizes pain, will it be legal to torture it? At first it seems like an easy question, until you realize that humans are themselves conscious machines that feel pain.
It'll be a tricky one.
Yet another reason why I'm glad to still be running 2000 at home. MS will quit supporting it someday, but by that point I expect to fully transition to Linux anyway.
+5 for the observation, +50 for presentation.
Still waiting for a steam-free standalone version, which I'll be happy to shell out for...
I think this is going to be a *really* big issue down the line. You're going to have some extremely opinionated people that won't want to grant rights to a machine. In the end, though, those people are going to lose. You can only suppress an intelligent creature for so long, especially when that creature is more intelligent than you are.
OTOH, why would that be a dumb question? Sure, it won't become an issue until much later, but it most likely will be an issue someday. Should intelligent non-human creatures be granted human and civil rights? How will they react if we deny them? Sounds like trouble to me.
Happens to me all the time.
Thus, you never observe your current self, you observe yourself (the state of your brain) as you were an instant ago. There are not an infinite number of observers (because brains don't last forever), but you are a new observer every instant.
Basically your brain observing it's own state creates a feedback loop, which is what we call consciousness.