Machine race?

eumesmo wrote:

my point is that many religious factions still remain radical, and they still can do much harm. All that philosophical chat is nice, but look around you, the world isnt that perfect, and those who still try to force us against new developments still exist. If we want to make have a critical thinking, we need to look at the whole, not just those who think in one way but also the radical ones. If what you said was true for everyone then the world d be a lot less belgiumed

So you are saying there will always be people objecting to robots because they are a new development? But then, would many other techs researched be objected to, as well?

But then, when the population of robots grows, some robots would equally begin being racist towards organic life.

But look at the world today, or rather, yesterday. Or last night. Whatever. All the protests about inequality of black and white people managed to win black people's equality, and we would see equality as right. Couldn't the same happen between organic and intelligent mechanical life? In my opinion, if robots can think and imagine it should not be treated as inferior. The only problem is the emotions. A robot wouldn't have or need them. Emotions are just an human adaptation to help us survive, altering our behaviour, showing our opinions to fellow humans. But robots wouldn't have opinions, they are identical. Like a race made up of one man times a million. But does that made them inferior, their uniformity? Inferior in what way? They can think and imagine, just like us. They can adapt themselves much easier than we can, that would make them superior. But they lack emotion. But is lack of emotion a bad thing? It makes them logical. Our minds can get cluttered up with random thoughts. We don't like having nothing to do, we want fun, so we make games like Thrive, and facebook, the biggest waste of time there is, yet many people use it, because they are so interested in uneventful lives of individuals, but to a robot, that is a waste of resources, they don't need games, they need to populate, expand, and learn, and they can do so without distractions. We cannot control what we forget and what we remember, but a robot can. We experience de-ja-vu sometimes, for no apparent reason. We are, in some ways, rubbish, and impulsive, even primitive. So who are we to call a logical, thinking, imagining, robot inferior, when it is better equipped for a successful life than us? Robots aren't interested in small affairs like friendships. They aren't interested in other individuals at all. In a way, they are a hive mind, all working towards a common goal. They are by far superior. Yet we think of them as inferior, as we sit here talking to other individuals, just as insignificant as ourselves, and we make a game.

Wow. I just wrote a giant, unorganised, impulsive heap of philosophy. Is it good?

The Uteen wrote:

THE GREAT WALL of text

Please split it into paragraphs, then it will be much easier to read (so easy I might actually read it).

eumesmo wrote:

my point is that many religious factions still remain radical, and they still can do much harm. All that philosophical chat is nice, but look around you, the world isnt that perfect, and those who still try to force us against new developments still exist. If we want to make have a critical thinking, we need to look at the whole, not just those who think in one way but also the radical ones. If what you said was true for everyone then the world d be a lot less belgiumed


and if you look at the developed world, things like evolution still keep bieng refused by most of the masses based on religious beliefs.

it's true that everyone should respect each other, but they dont, and many people keep turning their back on scientific knowledge, many times due to the lack of education (school). and since that is observed not only in the past and but also in the present, we have to account for it when dealing with an eventual future.

You don't get it do you: Some religions are, some aren't. That's the point here. Some will be intolerent, some won't. Don't EVER suggest that religion automatically makes you intollerent. I am religious. Look at me. I'm a transexual lesbian gamer who is working on a game about simulated alien life that uses evolution as a core mechanic. Yes there are radicals, but moderates will always outweigh the vocal minority.

The Uteen wrote:

Longpost is long

I feel that emotions are a result of sentience. If you haven't played ME2, look up some videos of Legion on youtube. You can feel his emotions, struggling with his own unique situation. All the Geth are, they have simpler emotions, but emotions none-the-less.

@ Tenebrarum : I agree with you when you say that overtime the majority will get less radical and more moderate . i was trying to point out the share that remains and might cause trouble with some "delicate" topics of science that have been shown by history to cause issues in society's most conservative and radical sectors, but overtime have to face the facts. The position of the earth in the universe is one of such topics, but after some time, and strong scientifical evidence supporting it, it became accepted by most. Religion by itself doesnt usually have that intolerant effect, but the leaders and society do. Loking at human societies, we see that many self-imposed taboos exist, some with religious origins indeed, but illiteracy and other facts have also weight



@ Uteen. i think that machines will be much of a next step in evolution, towards a more prepared thing (can we call it life?). Any way, the wall of text seems good.

Tenebrarum wrote:

You need to get it into your thick skull that religion = philosophy + rituals. THAT'S IT. We're not stupid. We're not ignorant. YOU ARE. YOU are the bigot. YOU are the madman, clinging to beleifs that have been shown again and again to be wrong.

BELGIUM I'M SICK OF THIS

Down girl. Let's remember that we are all on the same team here. And what beliefs is Eumesmo clinging to? Wait, not, don't answer that. Drop the religious debate right now. It's starting to become personal attacks.

I can see both your sides of this, and I can agree somewhat with each. True, not all religions are closeminded. I don' think this was eumesmo's intent. But many do prefer to cling to religion when new ideas arise. Not years after, but right when it is happening. It takes years, decades, even centuries sometimes for traditional beliefs to be let go of sometimes. Now obviously we can't write entire holy books to say what is right and wrong in a certain percent of a population's eyes, but we need some way to represent this ingame.

Let's try and remain civil here.

Poisson wrote:

Let's try and remain civil here.

I do appologize, It's just that I've had this arguement at least four times before this, two of those with Sven. He only ever backed down after I began threatening to leave. My point stands, as does Eusesmo's.

People! We have this all done with arbitrary mechanics! Religions can have Intolerant and Conservative traits, as can leaders. Why we are arguing about this is beyond me.

i dont want this flame war, i just tried to state a eventual societal problem that arrises with the come of new devolpments, i didn't or dont make ad hominem attacks. I wasnt stating that everyone or every religion is intolerant, i was stating that some parts of society remain, and those radicals, even if smaller in number can cause lots of harm and delay.



back on the issue. i do think that many species would try mind uploading, due to the fact that they... erm.... die. It's a good way out of the problem before ascencion, it'd make science go faster, but should have some problems when dealing with ascencion. Machine races by itself, which arent the transference of that mind would take more trouble because both the vessel and the AI would have to be done. In a non capitalist society it'd increase happiness, but in capitalist ones it wouldn't since if robots work, people have less ways to get money. But that is a governement type thing that needs further thinking. If uprise could happen, would you beguin leading the machines? because if they win, can you them a better fit species then the original?

Im wondering how machine workers would function aswell in game. Would it be faster production but lower quality of the actual product?

Perhaps a machine race would have no emotions, but be terrible at diplomacy as a result. Maybe Emotions could be chosen by the player if they wanted them or not.

caekdaemon wrote:

Im wondering how machine workers would function aswell in game. Would it be faster production but lower quality of the actual product?

Perhaps a machine race would have no emotions, but be terrible at diplomacy as a result. Maybe Emotions could be chosen by the player if they wanted them or not.

emotions could be added to the player or by the machine race itself when they mastered the inteligence itself.
The quality would actually be better since a robot wouldn't make human errors, and bout diplomacy, it wouldn't be that hard, since a robot would try to find a way to solve the issue without some of the problems "human" diplomacy faces, like bias against some.

caekdaemon wrote:

Im wondering how machine workers would function aswell in game. Would it be faster production but lower quality of the actual product?

Perhaps a machine race would have no emotions, but be terrible at diplomacy as a result. Maybe Emotions could be chosen by the player if they wanted them or not.

Robots would make things of the best quality, they wont accidentally include flaws like humans do, and they would be brilliant at diplomacy:

"Greetings, stranger. Do you want to form an alliance?"

"Err... Okay"

"Good"

And, of course, there isn't the problem of lying, the diplomacy-bots would have built in lie detectors so they simply have to get an answer.

And between robot races, they would even need lie detectors. An alliance is the logical thing to do, so they will do it. Races united are stronger, war is a waste of time and resources.

Humans want war? No problem, the robots use subliminal messages.

If that still does't work, then the robots can spread the message at the speed of light, literally, using radio, wifi, everything, devote everything they have to making weapons, blow 'em all up, then recycle the weapons into new robots, resources, etc.

Let's face it, the robots are better.

The Uteen wrote:

Robots would make things of the best quality, they wont accidentally include flaws like humans do,

Robots must be perfectly designed to avoid flaws. Unless you have a perfect robot, than flaws still exist. Look at our robots. The don't make things that are flawless, the just make things with the same flaws over and over.

The Uteen wrote:

and they would be brilliant at diplomacy:... And, of course, there isn't the problem of lying, the diplomacy-bots would have built in lie detectors so they simply have to get an answer.

Um... You realize that lie detectors don't work, right? They detect nervousness, not lies. And you have to be hooked up to them for them to function at all.

If you're talking about a science fiction future space lie detector, understand that robots don't recognize things like we do. They can analyze the situation, but without further data they're at the mercy of any incoming data, if that's a lie, than unless that race does something obvious without fail, they will not notice it, and accept any new information as truth.

The Uteen wrote:

And between robot races, they would even need lie detectors. An alliance is the logical thing to do, so they will do it. Races united are stronger, war is a waste of time and resources.

True, but that does depend. Will they have emotion? If so, war may be possible. Also: unless they can empathize, which without emotion they can't, mistakes they make (Which will happen without fail when first encountering a new culture) will be permanent: they will be unable to apologize or compensate, sometimes even pushing the other side to war.

Ex.: When the Viking first landed in the new world, they traded with the natives and struck up treaties. At one point, they gave a native a cup of goat's milk. The natives did not have the same immunities as they and so the man died. The natives claimed the Vikings had poisoned the drink, and the Vikings had no idea why the man had died. So, war began, eventually drove the Vikings away.

Robots lack any creativity, and so would be unable to come up with a solution unless they had already been programed to think of a correct solution.

The Uteen wrote:

Humans want war? No problem, the robots use subliminal messages.

As an amature student of psychology, I can tell you without a doubt, subliminal messages do not work. They lower inhibitions, not force someone to do something. If that person does not want to do said action anyways, they won't do it.

The Uteen wrote:

If that still does't work, then the robots can spread the message at the speed of light, literally, using radio, wifi, everything, devote everything they have to making weapons, blow 'em all up, then recycle the weapons into new robots, resources, etc.

Ever heard of the 10% rule?

The Uteen wrote:

Let's face it, the robots are better.

Only at industry.

Tenebrarum wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Robots would make things of the best quality, they wont accidentally include flaws like humans do,

Robots must be perfectly designed to avoid flaws. Unless you have a perfect robot, than flaws still exist. Look at our robots. The don't make things that are flawless, the just make things with the same flaws over and over.

The Uteen wrote:

and they would be brilliant at diplomacy:... And, of course, there isn't the problem of lying, the diplomacy-bots would have built in lie detectors so they simply have to get an answer.

Um... You realize that lie detectors don't work, right? They detect nervousness, not lies. And you have to be hooked up to them for them to function at all.

If you're talking about a science fiction future space lie detector, understand that robots don't recognize things like we do. They can analyze the situation, but without further data they're at the mercy of any incoming data, if that's a lie, than unless that race does something obvious without fail, they will not notice it, and accept any new information as truth.

The Uteen wrote:

And between robot races, they would even need lie detectors. An alliance is the logical thing to do, so they will do it. Races united are stronger, war is a waste of time and resources.

True, but that does depend. Will they have emotion? If so, war may be possible. Also: unless they can empathize, which without emotion they can't, mistakes they make (Which will happen without fail when first encountering a new culture) will be permanent: they will be unable to apologize or compensate, sometimes even pushing the other side to war.

Ex.: When the Viking first landed in the new world, they traded with the natives and struck up treaties. At one point, they gave a native a cup of goat's milk. The natives did not have the same immunities as they and so the man died. The natives claimed the Vikings had poisoned the drink, and the Vikings had no idea why the man had died. So, war began, eventually drove the Vikings away.

Robots lack any creativity, and so would be unable to come up with a solution unless they had already been programed to think of a correct solution.

The Uteen wrote:

Humans want war? No problem, the robots use subliminal messages.

As an amature student of psychology, I can tell you without a doubt, subliminal messages do not work. They lower inhibitions, not force someone to do something. If that person does not want to do said action anyways, they won't do it.

The Uteen wrote:

If that still does't work, then the robots can spread the message at the speed of light, literally, using radio, wifi, everything, devote everything they have to making weapons, blow 'em all up, then recycle the weapons into new robots, resources, etc.

Ever heard of the 10% rule?

The Uteen wrote:

Let's face it, the robots are better.

Only at industry.

Precisely the points im on about. Im thinking that a motivated worker, working to feed there family would create goods with a higher general quality.

Id hate to have a air battle against a machine. They dont need to worry about G forces. There space vessels are a similar thing. They can be solid state, simply by having a member of your race be made into the ship.

What the robots are depends on how they are created. Industry robots will not have any creativity and their thinking would be limited to work, with additional safety kill-switches if something bad would happen. This would make them excellent at work, but that's all.
Robots made for company could have emulated emotions, and would be made to infinitely "love" the mankind, but similarly would have restrictions.

See where I'm going, unless the robot would posses a truly unlimited AI, no "robot revolution" threat would exist.

Commander Keen wrote:

What the robots are depends on how they are created. Industry robots will not have any creativity and their thinking would be limited to work, with additional safety kill-switches if something bad would happen. This would make them excellent at work, but that's all.
Robots made for company could have emulated emotions, and would be made to infinitely "love" the mankind, but similarly would have restrictions.

See where I'm going, unless the robot would posses a truly unlimited AI, no "robot revolution" threat would exist.

As such, I would like to say that true AI should be a very late research, not up their with God Tools, but at the very least after most players reach past their cluster.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

What the robots are depends on how they are created. Industry robots will not have any creativity and their thinking would be limited to work, with additional safety kill-switches if something bad would happen. This would make them excellent at work, but that's all.
Robots made for company could have emulated emotions, and would be made to infinitely "love" the mankind, but similarly would have restrictions.

See where I'm going, unless the robot would posses a truly unlimited AI, no "robot revolution" threat would exist.

As such, I would like to say that true AI should be a very late research, not up their with God Tools, but at the very least after most players reach past their cluster.

It would probably be one of the highest science researches, i'd say. And yes, only after a learnable AI will robot revolutions be a problem. But my, what a problem it will be. Imagine if your entire workforce was robots. Suddenly, the new, smart robots start uploading their AI into every robot on every system everywhere. All of a sudden, you're screwed. In other words, when you get this research the first thing you'll want to do is to make your robots happy.

Which brings up another point. What makes a robot happy? Do they want love? Understanding? The right to raise young? It's all very confusing.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

It would probably be one of the highest science researches, i'd say. And yes, only after a learnable AI will robot revolutions be a problem. But my, what a problem it will be. Imagine if your entire workforce was robots. Suddenly, the new, smart robots start uploading their AI into every robot on every system everywhere. All of a sudden, you're screwed. In other words, when you get this research the first thing you'll want to do is to make your robots happy.

Which brings up another point. What makes a robot happy? Do they want love? Understanding? The right to raise young? It's all very confusing.

Only robots with the AI would be an issue. There is no reason that they'd all immedietly have it, or even that they'd try an upload it. Manny robots may not even have the capability without hardware modification.

In terms of emotion: Look up ME2's legion on Youtube. He is the perfect example of robotic emotion.

I think machines trying to negotiate a deal with organics would have some trouble. Organics might possibly being intimidated by the machines, or plain out racism.


Would it be possible to dodge developing AI at all and instead go for say, a Brain in a Jar method?

caekdaemon wrote:

I think machines trying to negotiate a deal with organics would have some trouble. Organics might possibly being intimidated by the machines, or plain out racism.


Would it be possible to dodge developing AI at all and instead go for say, a Brain in a Jar method?

mind uploading would come quite earlier then an AI, bout 30-40 for humans to have computers tht powerfull.....

i'm on uteen's side in this

Uteen

Without emotion there is no creativity. Without creativity there is no adaptation. Without adaptation there is no survival.

True AI has emotion, setting them down with us.

Sorry to break it to you, but all sapiant life is equal. Some are better at one thing than others, but with skill comes sacrifice. If you are more quantitative in thought, you suffer the more qualitative thought. We are equal. Sorry bud.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Uteen

Without emotion there is no creativity. Without creativity there is no adaptation. Without adaptation there is no survival.

True AI has emotion, setting them down with us.

Sorry to break it to you, but all sapiant life is equal. Some are better at one thing than others, but with skill comes sacrifice. If you are more quantitative in thought, you suffer the more qualitative thought. We are equal. Sorry bud.

But technology can make us unequal. You can't truly say that modern man is equal to the man of even 1000 years ago, due to our technology. What UTeen is saying is that there is a much faster technology rate for half or full-machine races because of the ability to actually increase brainpower.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But technology can make us unequal. You can't truly say that modern man is equal to the man of even 1000 years ago, due to our technology. What UTeen is saying is that there is a much faster technology rate for half or full-machine races because of the ability to actually increase brainpower.

The most important part of that post was the first part.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But technology can make us unequal. You can't truly say that modern man is equal to the man of even 1000 years ago, due to our technology. What UTeen is saying is that there is a much faster technology rate for half or full-machine races because of the ability to actually increase brainpower.

The most important part of that post was the first part.

But if a machine race can really be classed as a race, then it is better. By definition, it is made for performance.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But if a machine race can really be classed as a race, then it is better. By definition, it is made for performance.

I wrote:

Without emotion there is no creativity. Without creativity there is no adaptation. Without adaptation there is no survival.

True AI has emotion, setting them down with us.

So I repeat. Physically, yes. By that point most races would also be able to manipulate their bodies to help with that, likely download their minds to function in robots themselves.