Thread: Artificial Human Companions

You can preach the advancements of robotics until you're blue in the face. I realize that the advancements in nano tech as well as robotics are immensely impressive. However, this doesn't change the fact that its hard to believe any future tech like that would be available to the common man. At least in a long while.

It seems to me a lot like the flying car. I know they exist, I can appreciate the technology. I can't own one though. Too damn expensive. Too insificiant. Too much of a waste.

By the time that the technology is at the selling point, or breaching point, we either run out of resources to mass produce said tech, or we simply don't have enough money to make it worth while.

I doubt that a robo-hooker will ever be popular, even if its at a mass producing point. The 15 year old girl down the street is a whole lot cheaper compared to a hi tech expensive bundle. AI is still in the dark ages, and as far as producing any robot that doesn't put togeather cars or washing machines is too far off to mention.

It doesn't even matter that companies try to bring advanced tech from 2050. We don't have the money to buy it. And whatever anyone can ever do with ANYTHING, its about money.

money makes the world go round.

Its too far into the future to be entirely accurate. I looked up Moore's law, but I still have to see it to believe it. In order for it to be worth it (to me, the consumer) it has to be at Target. Computer terms aren't my thing, so that goop about processors is a little foreign to me. I'm using myself as the common man in this retrospect. I will hold firm on my stance that robo-hookers will not be on the streets or in the beds of the wealthy for 50 years. Thats my time line, take it or leave it.

I'm not going to spend the time debating the future of technology, because you beat me at the advancement game. I can proudly say I have learned something however. Nice volley Vir.

All very cool and shiny...but I might point out that your major computational and robotic advancements are driven by rather different motives.

Your 16 Petaflop computer is going to be used to run vast societal systems, archives, finance and scientific analysis. Big and complicated yes, but still basic input/output. No matter how many linear or parallel computations it may be capable of, we still have no idea of what the code for abstract thought may look like. The failing isn't in our ability to create kickass fast computers, its our inability to understand ourselves and what makes us humans fundamentally different from the rest of the animal kingdom...and then we would have to translate these concepts into binary, (or trinary for that matter), code. Only once we've done that, can we start talking of artificial intelligence. To do that we would have to understand our own neural cortex...and we are generations away from that, let alone in the developing the software to replicate. Modern software is having difficulty coping with parallel computing as it is...we have no clue what the next evolutionary step in coding even looks like.

And besides...who says that our neural cortex is the best model to base artificial intelligence on. The reason we try is because its the most advanced thing we've got to work with, but as anyone with a girlfriend or wife will quickly point out..it may have some stability issues..(that was a complete joke and I've already been chewed out by my sister, thank you. )

As for the robotic hooker..."Robots" tend to be purpose built and specifically designed. Their purpose has a direct impact on what they look like and their level of interactive ability...you really don't want an overly intelligent robotic hooker...you'r not going to sit and discuss the relative merits of chemically aged versus traditionally stored Red Wines now then are you? Its more cost effective to build a robot that does one thing really well as opposed to a general human replicant that can sort of do a bit of everything. You would build just smart enough to do whats its meant to. Come to think of it...off the top of my head I can't think of any other function a robot could fulfill apart from being a supplicant bed partner that would necessitate a robot to look even vaguely humanoid.

I've never understood why we have in our minds that robots should look, act and think like us. There are 6 billion of us on the planet as it is...hows that working out for you so far?

Actually the only barrier to a functioning AI is the processor speed. Even our base integrated circuit 16 petaflop processor could be used to create a rather realistic AI. I don't even want to know how many If Then statements it would be made up of but that would more or less be all it takes to give the appearance of life

This is true, but now you aren't talking about true AI...just a mechanical mirror aping its creator. As you said, giving the appearance of life. Its not quite the same thing. It wouldn't be self aware, wouldn't worry about its own existence unless you programmed it to. Its just a fast computer.

Cause and effect. We're not that complicated.

While I appreciate that sentiment, and wish it were true...I disagree. I don't believe all our actions are knee jerk on either a conscious or unconscious level. I agree that a lot of what we do is, (much more than we would like to admit), but to reduce the human experience to stimulus and response is a lazy way of going about it.

Although a quantum processor would solve this problem neatly because a quantum would be able to process trinary code. Instead of 1 and 0 yes and no a quantum processor would utilize the unique ability of quantum particles to be in multiple states at once alal Schroedinger's Cat and it would process instead -1 0 and 1 where -1 is no 1 is yes and 0 is a maybe. That single simple advancement would open up a whole new world of flexible reactive systems.

yes, I'm sure it would...just as soon as we figure out how arrange all the little -1, 0 and 1's into the correct order. Although here I am confused...if you'r view of humanity is based on a "cause and effect" outlook...all you need 1's and -1's surly...what would precipitate the uncertainty that would necessitate a 0?

I fully agree with the concept that the main horsepower for any AI will probably be housed away from the functioning unit itself. bulk, cooling, power and so on would make it much easier to manage. Of course the fatal flaw in that is vulnerability...take out heart and you kill the beast. All of them.

As for why a human looking robot the answer to that is simple. We've already built our entire world around ourselves. Our world is made for bipedal creatures with stereoscopic vision. It's more practical to build a robot that can walk and negotiate the obstacles in a home than to build some big clumsy thing with wheels that has to make a three point turn just to go down a hallway. Now I'll give you the idea of a robo-hooker is extreme and we will be far more likely to have them picking up our clothes, working in dangerous environments like nuclear power plants and mining operations before we have them in our beds but the technology is catching up to our science fiction.

This is true to a point...but a rather narrow definition. Dogs do just fine around the house, as do cats and cockroaches. I would argue that bi-pedalism is more difficult to emulate because of the inherently unstable nature of the design. Walking is often described as controlled falling and is a bastard to compute. 4 or even 6 legs is much more stable and maneuverable.
We gained no evolutionary advantage by walking on 2 legs, (I don't think we did at any rate)...there must be better ways of doing it.

vey interesting i am going to look this one for more info. but it is all good.

Originally Posted by Stelionis Ignigenae

The Japanese are already pioneering the way toward creating servitors which will be useful for labor, while here in America the Realdoll manufacturers are creating objects for sexual fulfillment.

Reminds me of an episode from Ghost in the Shell series
(or maybe it was one of the movies).

Reminds me of one of the episodes in the twilight zone.

well, there's nothing new about that. Watching porn is basically that same "virtual" sex thing.

Stepford wives ring a bell?

The article is actually motivating to close this laptop and go dig in the garden. I have to admit that I am thankful for the 'victims' of the Matrix in a way. More for me to conquer,-so to speak. However, I doubt that any of us fall in to that category...

I learned a lot from this post, even if much of the discussion occurred in January. I read the article and after an informative debate with my girlfriend, I reached the conclusion that, while the article does include one interesting answer to the Fermi Paradox, it is only one answer and nothing more than that. There are too many variables. Perhaps some alien species fell victim to technological enslavement, but many more probably did not. The article is extremely speciocentric, assuming that all beings evolve and create their subsequent technology in the same manner. It is akin to scientists thinking that just because life on Earth depends on water and oxygen, for example, that all beings need water for cellular fiction and must somehow filter air into their lungs. So, I think there are many solutions to the Paradox, but I do personally think that aliens have at least been to Earth. Beyond that, I have nothing much more to say about what they've done, if anything but purely observational research.

As for the impact of technology on society, I can say that there are also too many variables. Yes, for the most part, humans are responsible for continuing their evolution. Mother Nature is a bit obsolete now, but saying that will always be the cases rules out mass extinctions, whether they be freak accidents (a meteor large enough to annihilate some but not all life) or human created (nuclear war or a rebellion against technology), that would drive humans into a primitive state. As I said, too many variables.

I will say that technology will impact humanity the same way religions did and do: those who are cowed into group think will fall into a stagnant trap and degenerate while individuals will use the technology to their benefit and prosper.