PDA

View Full Version : Human robot relations


Totenkopf
10-16-2007, 01:47 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21271545/wid/11915829

Discuss, both in terms of article and in general (other aspects of human-robotic relationships as well).

John Galt
10-16-2007, 02:05 AM
That's... unusual, to say the least.

If they want to have sex with something, that's their business. As to whether robotic partners would qualify for marraige(sentience, ability to hold citizenship, etc)? That's another debate entirely, and I think this issue is just part of a huge ethical dillema regarding the use of artificial intelligences, specifically whether they can truly have free will and become sentient on the same plane as human beings.

pardon the rambling, it's another 0100 post.

Rev7
10-16-2007, 02:53 AM
I am sorry, but I have to say that that is stupid. Sex with robots, what has the world come to?

Fish.Stapler
10-16-2007, 05:30 AM
Hey man whatever works O.O

However, what's that hypothesis or theory called that says something like the closer to humanoid in appearance robots get the more they will be shunned? I've seen something like that before but I can't remember what it's called.

Lance Monance
10-16-2007, 07:24 AM
... this issue is just part of a huge ethical dillema regarding the use of artificial intelligences ...

You're absolutely right, it comes down to that.

Personally I can't yet believe that robots will have fully independent minds anytime soon. And till that happens (hopefully never..) robots have no "rights" whatsoever imo. If people like to use them as sex toys that's ok. But marriage and citizenship? No.

Jae Onasi
10-16-2007, 10:13 AM
All I can think is that quote by Carth when you meet with Elise: "Wow, she must really love her droid....."

Web Rider
10-16-2007, 01:15 PM
Hey man whatever works O.O

However, what's that hypothesis or theory called that says something like the closer to humanoid in appearance robots get the more they will be shunned? I've seen something like that before but I can't remember what it's called.

I've only seen it in relation to movies right now. But yes, there is something related to that, probly a feeling like they're replacing us, which to a degree, is true.

On the topic, of somebody wants to have sex with a robot, I don't really care. It's not anymore than attracting a body to some already existing sex toys.

However, I don't like how he approaches relationships between humans a robots. If we're talking a mechanical doll that does what you tell it when you tell it, well, then you don't have AI. And if you do have AI, then programming it would be like brainwashing, which is unethical on humans.

The whole point of romance is that somebody chooses to love you. If somebody was programmed or "told" to love you, that's no different than arranged marriages. And that's not really a love.

If a machine truly has a sentient mind, and like me, it can work a 9-5 job, pay taxes, buy it's own car and home, then I'm all for making it an equal member of society.

SilentScope001
10-16-2007, 01:19 PM
Levy argues that psychologists have identified roughly a dozen basic reasons why people fall in love, "and almost all of them could apply to human-robot relationships. For instance, one thing that prompts people to fall in love are similarities in personality and knowledge, and all of this is programmable. ..."

THIS IS EXACTLY THE REASON WHY IT MAY BE IMMORAL.

You get to control whatever a robot does. This isn't AI (artifical intelligence) at all, this is "alright, let's mind control some droid and get her to preform well in bed." This isn't the 'true love' that you expect in a human-human relation, thanks to this ability/belief of 'free will'.

For a robot, all you do is tell them 'have love with me', and they will have love with you.

Now, I can see people stating, "This is great", and I also think this is great. But we must admit that what we are doing here is slavery. We are enslaving robots, and we are okay with robots, because we get to control what they think, so the robots can enjoy their slavery. Masters have made love with their slaves in the past...just with humans instead of robots, and they were at least somewhat ashamed of it. And at least the slaves have the ability to think what they want to think, as long as they don't announce it others. The robots cannot even control what they think.

Don't believe me? Look around you, look at how robots became a major part of the economy. Even the creators of the word "Robot" knows its hidden meaning: Robot is Czechzolvkian for Slave.

Maybe slavery is okay for robots because they enjoy it...or maybe it's immoral because we are taking advantage of the stupidty of a race and manlipuating it to our desires. I don't really care. But we must make a choice right now.

adamqd
10-16-2007, 02:05 PM
All I can think is that quote by Carth when you meet with Elise: "Wow, she must really love her droid....."

QFE, lol :D

tk102
10-16-2007, 02:37 PM
You get to control whatever a robot does. But we must admit that what we are doing here is slavery.
I have so many slaves already, what's one more? My coffee grinder obeys me without question. My thermostat keeps me comfortable. My car goes wherever I make it go -- it doesn't get to decide, I do! Ha ha ha.

Simply put, a robot is a tool. If you can program it, it has no sentience. I do not believe true artificial intelligence is possible with digital robots.

Analog robots however...(link #1 (http://www.hesston.edu/Academic/FACULTY/NELSONK/PhysicsResearch/RobotMK/report.html)) do not require programming to function.

Jeff
10-16-2007, 03:23 PM
I agree tk, maybe they'll be made to act like humans and make decisions based on different things but thats no different than a program.

Rogue Nine
10-16-2007, 03:24 PM
Until they make a robot that looks and functions this good (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Guri), I'm not sold on it.

SykoRevan
10-16-2007, 03:51 PM
:eyeraise:
I have to give Totenkopf mad props for finding the absolute weirdest discussion topic I've seen here. Now time for some idiotic one-liners from me:

*latest advertisement from local sex shop* "Forget inflatable girlfriends, get one of these!"

*Robot being hit on at a nightclub* "Hey jerk, 0100 means 0100!" (horrible binary code joke)

Okay, I'm done.

I have so many slaves already, what's one more? My coffee grinder obeys me without question. My thermostat keeps me comfortable. My car goes wherever I make it go -- it doesn't get to decide, I do! Ha ha ha.

Slave driver! :tsk:
I just hope you meant that in a purely non-sexual way :indif:

Pho3nix
10-16-2007, 03:55 PM
Until they make a robot that looks and functions this good (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Guri), I'm not sold on it.
Indeed. Quoted for the 'effin truth.

Ray Jones
10-16-2007, 04:01 PM
You get to control whatever a robot does. This isn't AI (artifical intelligence) at all, this is "alright, let's mind control some droid and get her to preform well in bed."Her? Hm. Why not him?

Even the creators of the word "Robot" knows its hidden meaning: Robot is Czechzolvkian for Slave.The word comes from the Slavic word "robota" what just means "work". And like so many things in science "robot" originated in science fiction literature, and was first used by Josef Karel Čapek, two Czech writers, not for robots though, but more what we now call androids.

Maybe slavery is okay for robots because they enjoy it...or maybe it's immoral because we are taking advantage of the stupidty of a race and manlipuating it to our desires.Like cars or computers, robots are machines, not slaves.

tk102
10-16-2007, 04:05 PM
For a further reading about analog robots I highly recommend this interview with Mark Tilden (http://www.exhibitresearch.com/tilden/), the pioneer in that field.

Q: Would you say that these robots have some type of creativity?

A: As yet, we have not seen that. What we have seen are devices which we call the queens, which are one of our nervous net controllers, embedded into another form of nervous net controller. And what that allows us to do is make devices that are, in fact, capable of learning, that are subject to moods. And it's really quite fascinating. You have a device that, when you power it on, and you treat it carefully, it will actually realize, "Oh,human equals good." And it'll follow you around. Power it off, power it on, treat it like a grad student - beat it around, push it away, and it will quickly learn, "human equals bad." And it will run away into the dark. And as you chase it, it will run away. It's actually learned from its own experience. It might take it some time. Is that creative? No, it's nothing more than a sample survival response at a higher-order level.

Rev7
10-16-2007, 07:56 PM
All I can think is that quote by Carth when you meet with Elise: "Wow, she must really love her droid....."
LOL!! :) This is a really "interesting" topic...

Eiganjo
10-16-2007, 08:34 PM
If at some point in time robots actually are able to think, feel, show emotions, etc...can you really say it's only a machine, so it shouldn't have any rights? At what point can we consider something to be alife?
If the only diffrence between a human and a robot will be, that one was made in a factory and the other was made, well...in bed, I don't think that there would be too big of a problem with considering something as absurd as this.

Rev7
10-16-2007, 10:34 PM
At what point can we consider something to be alife?

If it has blood running through it's viens. :)

Jvstice
10-16-2007, 11:24 PM
Interesting article, but you act like this will be a new thing in the future.

Machines don't even have to be very humanlike or sentient for people to be attracted to them.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article21242.ece

MECHANIC Chris Donald loves his work ? he has sex with

CARS.

And he admitted last night: “Some men like boobs and bums, but I much prefer curvy bodywork.”

Chris, 38, has a recognised psychological condition that makes him physically attracted to motors.

He has had sex with more than 30 different models in 20 years ? plus two motorboats and a pal’s JETSKI.

Chris, who DOES have a girlfriend, confessed: “A nice car for me is a feast for the senses. It’s about smells, feelings and tastes. If I see a gorgeous Mercedes I know I’d love to jump into bed with it.”

His weird obsession mirrors that of electrician Karl Watkins, who The Sun revealed was jailed for having sex with pavements in Redditch, Worcs, in 1993.


There will be different issues if there is an issue of machine intelligence brought into the picture, because the question becomes one of whether the machines have the legal right to say no, like everybody else.

I'd say that if it can pass an intelligence test, and can pass the Turing Test, then it should be considered to be more than a machine or a second class citizen in the eyes of the law. If it can ask for a right to live without being programmed to do so, it should be granted one.

Eiganjo
10-17-2007, 01:35 AM
If it has blood running through it's viens. :)

So you consider bacteria, plants, etc to be dead?

Rev7
10-17-2007, 02:12 AM
So you consider bacteria, plants, etc to be dead?
Yes and no. You can't see bacteria with the naked eye, as you already know, but it is considered "alive" generally because of microscopes. Plants are alive because they have glucose "running through their viens", and that COULD BE considered "blood". Contraversial though. I guess you could say that the phrase "blood running through it's veins" is somewhat of a metaphor. Great point though Eiganjo! :) I actually didn't think about that before I posted. Thanks :)

Serpentine Cougar
10-17-2007, 04:56 AM
One thing that I think will always seperate humans from robots is the fact that we have souls. We can create arms and legs and robotic bodies that move and react to their environment, but we can't create a soul. Will robots ever be able to feel emotion, reason, or philosophize? I don't think robots will ever achieve sentiency.

As Obi-Wan Kenobi says, "Well, if droids could think, there'd be none of us here, would there?"

If it can ask for a right to live without being programmed to do so, it should be granted one.

I agree, though I don't think this will ever happen.


The robots in the article seems to be more like simulations than actually sentient beings. Aren't there already dating sim programs out there? So sex toys are getting more sophisticated; what's new? It's just another, more hi-tech way of simulating a false reality (kinda like video games...). But people shouldn't give up reality for that simulation. We weren't created for sex with robots, we were created for sex with humans.

Ray Jones
10-17-2007, 06:32 AM
At what point can we consider something to be alife?
Life or the state of being alive can be defined through a handful of criteria (of which all have to be fulfilled). Being lazy, I'll shamelessly quote Wikipedia:


1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Eiganjo
10-17-2007, 07:47 PM
Thank you for the definition Ray Jones. Now i would like a defnition for what a robot is. Is it a requirement for a robot to be made out of metal, or could a robot be produced out of organic material too?

tk102
10-17-2007, 07:56 PM
Thank you for the definition Ray Jones. Now i would like a defnition for what a robot is.

Eiganjo, you could look it up yourself. :)

Goodness, if we trusted Ray for everything...*shudder* :p

Rev7
10-17-2007, 08:13 PM
I knoe this is not wiki, but...

ro·bot
Pronunciation: \ˈrō-ˌbät, -bət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Czech, from robota compulsory labor; akin to Old High German arabeit trouble, Latin orbus orphaned — more at orphan
Date: 1923
1 a: a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b: an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically
2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
3: a mechanism guided by automatic controls

Jvstice
10-17-2007, 09:24 PM
So other than the cellular part, machines could be made to replicate all of those functions.

John Galt
10-17-2007, 10:24 PM
Personally, I think true sentience should be the only qualifier for recognization of a "person." Simple, purpose-built labor machines are one thing, but self-aware artificial intelligences represent a massive ethical conundrum, the proper solution to which eludes me.

Jvstice
10-17-2007, 11:15 PM
John Galt: Sentience seems a better standard and more relevant standard to apply than determining whether a machine has involved into an artificial life form (performs the functions of a living being; i.e. growth, reproduction, cellularity, ingestion, digestion, excretion, etc) to me too. Expecially since we already have technologies in the works that could be developed to mimic each of those functions other than being cellular.

example: it has been suggested to develop a method of self replication for nanites involved in organ or tissue repair, so that they could continue their functions indefinitely once the person they'd be injected into was restored to equilibrium health. They would be powering themselves from nutrients brought into their host. They would reproduce on their own once set up. Presumably there would be some waste product to be carried away by the blood stream of their host.

Such a construct would not be sentient, but would meet several of the definitions biologists classically give to living beings.

Ray Jones
10-18-2007, 11:30 AM
Goodness, if we trusted Ray for everything...*shudder* :pYou mean like if someone trusted in me and made me mod and the LF total post count would drop to 37 because I thought I'd remove all non porn related posts or something? Hm. ^^

Thank you for the definition Ray Jones. Now i would like a defnition for what a robot is.tk102 is right, Eiganjo, just enter "robot" into Wikipedia's search function for instance and you'll have a good starting point. :)

Is it a requirement for a robot to be made out of metal, or could a robot be produced out of organic material too?My LEGO robot kit is pretty plastic made, except some cable and motor parts, and the electronics of course. :)

So current robots must, to some degree, consist of metallic components (at least their wires). But since they also must have electronic parts such as microchips they'll never be total metal made.

As for the use of organic materials, is not impossible. Especially since we have already made some steps into the field of bringing neural cells and microchips together. However, the total organic 'robot' is very, very far from what we can achieve today.

swphreak
10-18-2007, 01:12 PM
I'm pretty sure once our Robot Overlords have taken over, there won't be any of this robot-human relationship/marriage nonsense.


And I get the feeling that if there is ever anything like in the article, the robots are just expensive, glorified sex toys. You can't marry a dildo. So, I doubt the government will recognize a "human-sexrobot marriage."

SilentScope001
06-02-2008, 01:15 AM
Okay then.

Since it is rather likely that gay marriage will offically win the culture wars, it means that marriage is now the sole provision of whatever the state wants it to be. And if AI becomes advanced, you can be certain some will demand for the same rights us meaty organics have. So, I'm bumping this thread now and ask you this question:

Should Robots Have the Right To Marry Humans?

Arcesious
06-02-2008, 01:38 AM
Robots simply aren't humans. They have no emotion, nothing, not even a bit of organics in them will change that. Just metal, wires, a few circuits, maybe some organic things, and programmed responses and adaptive programs. How exactly would anyone hope to truly make a robot sentient? AI is just that- Artificial. It's not real.

We don't know how to truly make a robot sentient, yet. And until the day comes when we do that, if ever- robots will not be sentient, not matter how advanced. They'll never understand love, until we can make something beyond programming.

(this topic is little bit ridiculous, IMHO.)

Edit: I will, however, change my position on this if I see solid proof of a truly sentient robot. I won't be a 'robot racist' if I see proof of a sentient robot.

JCarter426
06-02-2008, 01:39 AM
You never took middle school hygiene! You never saw the propaganda film!

http://www.videosift.com/video/Futurama-Dont-Date-Robots

Don't date robots! :xp:

But back to more serious matters... ;)

Should robots be able to marry? If they're as smart as humans, they should know better. :p The fact that you have to ask means that there's a chance they should be able to. And if there's a chance they should be able to, then odds are they will be able to, even if no one can prove it either way. Better safe than sorry.

Arcesious
06-02-2008, 01:53 AM
Better safe than sorry.

I agree with that entirely. I've already devoted a lot of my time thinking each day to considering all possibilities in debates, life, and such by considering what could happen and how to properly avoid potential problems with it. For example, I used to want to totally confron my father over this whole agnosticism thing I've converted to, but then, considering that kind of thinking, and how I'd have to argue my point, I avoided doing so... It is smart to consider these kinds of things before they happen, but I think we're a long way off from giving robots sentience...

Web Rider
06-02-2008, 01:55 AM
Robots simply aren't humans. They have no emotion, nothing, not even a bit of organics in them will change that. Just metal, wires, a few circuits, maybe some organic things, and programmed responses and adaptive programs. How exactly would anyone hope to truly make a robot sentient? AI is just that- Artificial. It's not real.
Define "real". Come on, try it. The surroundings you feel with your hands are just what your senses tell you, your senses are just electrical impulses relayed to the brain through neurons in your nerve endings. Through electrical shocks or stimulation, you can be made to think you've just eaten a steak that smelled like grapefruit.

And if a machine can stimulate your brain to smell fried chicken, then you have to question if the electrical impulses we all believe our brain is receiving even exist, for all we know, we could be really intricate parts of a computer program like the Sims. We may think we're sentient, but maybe we're not, maybe we're just programmed to think we are.

It's a forum about a sci-fi series, so bringing up another series shouldn't be too far off. Look at the new "skinjob" Cylons in Battlestar Galactica. For all intents and purposes, their "wires" and "tubes" are so "perfect" they're organic. The difference between them and "real" humans? one was built by a machine, the other was "grown" by humans.

True_Avery
06-02-2008, 03:30 AM
Okay then.

Since it is rather likely that gay marriage will officially win the culture wars, it means that marriage is now the sole provision of whatever the state wants it to be. And if AI becomes advanced, you can be certain some will demand for the same rights us meaty organics have. So, I'm bumping this thread now and ask you this question:

Should Robots Have the Right To Marry Humans?
Same-sex marriage is winning the culture "war" because banning it goes against their privileges as a citizen of the United States of America. Marriage is a privilege that is being made equal because it is a privilege that is being denied to some people, but not others for no valid reason at all. It is being given to same-sex couples because by denying them that privilege, you are harming them by placing them into a minority and suppressing them.

It is not as simple as to say "marriage is now the sole provision of whatever the state wants it to be", because the states have good reason for why they are giving equality to a state created, suppressed human minority.

Machines do not fit into the constitution, the bill of rights, or anywhere else for that matter. Unless we create functioning A.I. on par to that of a human and legally classify it as a "living" human, your slippery slope example is irrelevant.

You would need to prove that not allowing these privileges to the machines is hurting them. It would need to feel emotional and probably physical pain, and would have to do it in a way that could be defined as pain on a "human level". How would we do that? We find it hard enough to make up our minds on the intelligence and emotional range of other animals.

But...

Should Robots Have the Right To Marry Humans?
The question is interesting.

Look how long it took for the United States to give women equal privileges.
Look how long it took for the United States to give colored people equal privileges.
Look how long it took for the United States to give same-sex couples equal privileges.

We have a hard enough time giving other living human beings equal privileges, no less machines. If a great deal of humanity regards colored people, woman, and gays/lesbians as sub-humans... why would we EVER accept equal privileges for machines, AI or not?

I'm not sure if it is a should, or should not question because I doubt it would ever happen. I believe the United States wont let people marry their animals. I believe the United States wont let people marry their toaster oven. I also believe the United States wont ever allow humans to marry a machine unless it just displayed an absolutely fantastic AI, and even then its a low chance.

We humans have a massive superiority complex over everything else, even each other. We are arrogant and selfish enough to make up our own gods to justify our assumed superiority over the living creatures of this world, even those of our own species... So, why would we back off and give human privileges to our toaster, even if it could think like us?

It may happen, but it probably wont.

Should it be allowed? Not my place to make that call, because I have not been in contact with said machines and neither has anybody else on this planet.

Marriage is -usually- a bond between two people over some sort of emotion. Greed, lust, envy, love, etc. When a machine desires marriage, I think we seriously need to sit back and consider what we have done.

And if a machine can stimulate your brain to smell fried chicken, then you have to question if the electrical impulses we all believe our brain is receiving even exist, for all we know, we could be really intricate parts of a computer program like the Sims. We may think we're sentient, but maybe we're not, maybe we're just programmed to think we are.
Everything is programmed to do everything it does. All animals, including humans, have programming... even if it is extremely basic programming. We're just, as you said, organic machines. But, strangely enough, human beings are born with an extreme little programming compared to most animals of this world. We are born very much tabula rasa, and society fills in the massive gaps in our knowledge.

But, unless we are hooked up to the Matrix, I think your example goes a little far in saying that our senses are lying to us. Unless you are stating that we are actual computer programs.

Arcesious
06-02-2008, 08:57 AM
Define "real". Come on, try it. The surroundings you feel with your hands are just what your senses tell you, your senses are just electrical impulses relayed to the brain through neurons in your nerve endings. Through electrical shocks or stimulation, you can be made to think you've just eaten a steak that smelled like grapefruit.

And if a machine can stimulate your brain to smell fried chicken, then you have to question if the electrical impulses we all believe our brain is receiving even exist, for all we know, we could be really intricate parts of a computer program like the Sims. We may think we're sentient, but maybe we're not, maybe we're just programmed to think we are.

It's a forum about a sci-fi series, so bringing up another series shouldn't be too far off. Look at the new "skinjob" Cylons in Battlestar Galactica. For all intents and purposes, their "wires" and "tubes" are so "perfect" they're organic. The difference between them and "real" humans? one was built by a machine, the other was "grown" by humans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not going to be willing to accept machine sentience as a strong possibility until I see conclusive proof of it. See, thing is, this entire thread, and it's facts and opinions, are all mostly based on loose, unsolid theories. The most ridiculus theory beinh assuming that one day, we'll make machines so advanced that they're sentient. But we have no proof that we will ever truly make the them sentient.

Do you honestly want to conclude that it could be a likely possibility, based on on only one factor- human technological advancement? Just because we have potential in our future to become much more advanced, that doesn't guarentee that we'll make sentient robots. It's a fun fantasy to entertain, but it hsn't happened yet. I'll accept robot sentience only when I actually see proof of it, not on a hunch based on fictional TV shows/movies. See, we're jumping to conclusions here about this. We're overestimating how advanced we are/will be, and overestimating how advanced robots are/could or will be.

Thinking that we're in a matrix like situation- seriously... No one smart is going to beleive that without proof. Our knowledge and complex understanding of such possibilities is a factor against that, in some ways; and since there is no proof of that, why worry about it so much? I don't think any robots have been ruining my life, so if I am in a computer simulation, I don't honestly care, as long as I remain happy in it... Once I see some guys with machineguns come out of thin air or soemthing else really wierd, only then will I beleive the matrix theory as a strong possibility.

Web Rider
06-02-2008, 04:46 PM
I'm not going to be willing to accept machine sentience as a strong possibility until I see conclusive proof of it. See, thing is, this entire thread, and it's facts and opinions, are all mostly based on loose, unsolid theories. The most ridiculus theory beinh assuming that one day, we'll make machines so advanced that they're sentient. But we have no proof that we will ever truly make the them sentient.
but we have no proof we won't. I'm sure in the middle ages they didn't believe we'd harness the power of the atom, much less that atoms existed. The idea that we will make sentient robots is simply based on the fact that people are trying and that technology is constantly advancing.

Do you honestly want to conclude that it could be a likely possibility, based on on only one factor- human technological advancement?
Since I believe most anything is possible if humanity works hard enough for it, yes.

Just because we have potential in our future to become much more advanced, that doesn't guarentee that we'll make sentient robots.
I thought we were talking about possibilities, not guarantees.

It's a fun fantasy to entertain, but it hsn't happened yet.
which would be why we're talking about future possibilities yes?

I'll accept robot sentience only when I actually see proof of it, not on a hunch based on fictional TV shows/movies.
Isn't that the idea? Robots aren't sentient now, but when they are, you'll say "ok"?

See, we're jumping to conclusions here about this.
no, not really.

We're overestimating how advanced we are/will be, and overestimating how advanced robots are/could or will be.
possibly, but it's the future, something we don't know about. maybe *diety* made us to make super-advanced robots.

Thinking that we're in a matrix like situation- seriously... No one smart is going to beleive that without proof.
Actually, the hypothesis was simply that saying that something is not "real" is not proof of existance.

Our knowledge and complex understanding of such possibilities is a factor against that, in some ways; and since there is no proof of that, why worry about it so much?
it was a hypothetical existential, anhd mostly rhetorical question.

I don't think any robots have been ruining my life, so if I am in a computer simulation, I don't honestly care, as long as I remain happy in it... Once I see some guys with machineguns come out of thin air or soemthing else really wierd, only then will I beleive the matrix theory as a strong possibility.
I never said it was a bad thing, only that our perceptions do not determine reality.

Arcesious
06-02-2008, 05:17 PM
Ah, I see your points now. That makes sense.