The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology & Information => Topic started by: Action80 on January 18, 2025, 07:53:33 AM
-
I read this article concerning the building of a new weapons plant in Columbus, Ohio.
US Defense Contractor to Build ‘Hyperscale’ Weapons Manufacturing Facility in Ohio (https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/us-defense-contractor-to-build-hyperscale-weapons-manufacturing-facility-in-ohio-5793968?utm_source=Goodevening&src_src=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-2025-01-17&src_cmp=gv-2025-01-17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=trial&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa%2BcidhsJxcPN%2FrQut3NAH7F5ww0LIzwgbOIBKcVOYUPVwjDotRvn)
"Arsenal-1 represents a step forward in how we manufacture the autonomous systems and weapons that our nation and our allies need to remain secure.”, said Anduril CEO Brian Schimpf."
While the project will reportedly add 4,000 new jobs in the State of Ohio, my question is what happens when one of the autonomous weapons chooses to start eliminating the workforce and/or the other stakeholders of the company?
-
Autonomous in this sense still requires someone to push a button. But once the button is pushed, it can determine how best to hit the target.
So it won't.
Not unless someone hacks into the systems.
-
According to this, they do not require any human intervention or initiative:
do autonomous weapons require any human interaction? (https://www.google.com/search?q=do+autonomous+weapons+require+any+human+interaction%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1035US1035&oq=do+autonomous+weapons+require+any+human+interaction%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRiPAjIHCAQQIRiPAtIBCTI4MDYwajBqN6gCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Further, "There are varying levels of system autonomy depending on human involvement, but the full measure of an autonomous weapon system is its ability to conduct this process without the need for human decision-making."
Fact Sheet: Autonomous Weapons
(https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-autonomous-weapons)
-
Someone still needs to put the batteries in, charge it up, switch it on or whatever.
Or not.
-
According to this, they do not require any human intervention or initiative:
do autonomous weapons require any human interaction? (https://www.google.com/search?q=do+autonomous+weapons+require+any+human+interaction%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1035US1035&oq=do+autonomous+weapons+require+any+human+interaction%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRiPAjIHCAQQIRiPAtIBCTI4MDYwajBqN6gCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Further, "There are varying levels of system autonomy depending on human involvement, but the full measure of an autonomous weapon system is its ability to conduct this process without the need for human decision-making."
Fact Sheet: Autonomous Weapons
(https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-autonomous-weapons)
I'll need to read that but if that's correct, that's a deviation from previous military policy and thats concerning.
-
Someone still needs to put the batteries in, charge it up, switch it on or whatever.
Or not.
Once you have an autonomous machine capable of building a machine, then what?
-
Someone still needs to put the batteries in, charge it up, switch it on or whatever.
Or not.
Once you have an autonomous machine capable of building a machine, then what?
They fail once a bug in the software is found and it glitches.
-
There have been autonomous underwater drones in existence for quite a while. The drones have to be told what the mission is before they are launched. There is a communications limit to any underwater vessel and unless the robot has been programmed to surface and make some kind of satellite or other WiFi connection to a central control every operation is done autonomously. An underwater drone could be weaponized but before it was launched the internal computer would have to be programmed with specific instructions to tell the drone what to do if it encounters the enemy. The enemy would have to be very specifically defined so the drone could tell the difference between the enemy and friendly forces.
-
You are not describing an autonomous weapons system, Ronj.
Do you have a comment relating to the OP?
-
Currently, an autonomous weapons system can only execute computer code that was programmed and then extensively tested by humans. So far there are no computers that have an independent consciousness that can take over an autonomous weapons system and start killing humans. If a plant in Ohio starts building autonomous systems, it will only be capable of executing what the programmers tell it to do before it’s launched into the environment. I wouldn’t be a bit afraid of becoming a stockholder of such a corporation if I thought it was a good financial opportunity and certainly wouldn't worry about the robots they produced coming around to kill me.
-
Did you read the article I posted and or any of the other sources? They say the exact opposite of what you write.
AI can now write programs and code with no human intervention.
-
AI can now write programs and code with no human intervention.
No it can't. It produces strange, buggy code that has to be manually debugged.
I've used AI to fix code and research syntax. It's a long, long way from producing code for production.
The more realistic danger is that military hardware will be poised to act autonomously based on input. If it detects certain radar signatures, it will let missiles fly without telling anyone. A cruise missile is autonomous once launched but if we automate the firing of those missiles with Skynet software, then we're in Terminator territory.
The realistic scenario isn't that AI will suddenly decide to take over Earth, but that the Chinese will hack into it and fuck with its mind. Maybe a cheap ssd will glitch somewhere and things suddenly launch. Achieving malevolent awareness is not a danger we currently face with AI.
-
Computers can still only execute code that humans programmed them to do. Even when computers can write their own code, who wrote the code that enables them to do that? Humans. Computers are nowhere near thinking for themselves yet. Their infrastructure is completely human enabled and until that changes robots will never be able to weaponize themselves and autonomously go out and start killing humans. I’m not saying that would not be possible sometime in the future, but we are nowhere even close to that happening yet.
-
Neither one of you have any clue. You are just posting a bunch of nonsense.
Either post evidence of your claims or stfu.
-
Neither one of you have any clue. You are just posting a bunch of nonsense.
Either post evidence of your claims or stfu.
Post some code punklet.
-
Looks like I'll have to stfu.
My only evidence (experience) is writing my first code back in 1966 and then off/on until just last week. Guess that doesn't qualify me, according to someone, to understand the latest issues regarding computer controlled autonomous weapons systems and what it would take for them to become dangerous to the average human walking down the street.
-
How could I post some code matching code used by an AI.
And you are correct, Ronj. Your experience alone does not qualify you to be an expert in the field of AI capability.
You can still have an opinion on the morality of its use and that is primarily what this thread is about.
The fact is AI can write programming for autonomous weapons systems. There is no disputing that.
-
How could I post some code matching code used by an AI.
And you are correct, Ronj. Your experience alone does not qualify you to be an expert in the field of AI capability.
You can still have an opinion on the morality of its use and that is primarily what this thread is about.
The fact is AI can write programming for autonomous weapons systems. There is no disputing that.
Yes and no.
AI is a big 'next word's predictor. And it uses that with its training data to make code. What it spits out will depend on the complexity of what you ask it to do as well as how documented the code you want, is. (Ie. Lots of examples vs few)
It also will have issues staying coordinated with itself. Like not keeping variable names consistent across functions. Or not using the correct number of arguments when calling a function.
If you get anything back, it's not gonna compile, much less work. Manual coding and fixing will be required. And for anything autonomous, it's gonna take more work to fix it, than to code it from scratch.
-
AI can certainly write code that will compile.
I do not know where you are getting your information or why you are choosing to write false information.
-
AI can certainly write code that will compile.
I do not know where you are getting your information or why you are choosing to write false information.
Written by someone who has never produced a line of code in their life. Compiling code, running code and secure code are all different things.
Everything you believe, everything you think you know is rooted in ignorance with no real experience to back it up. You are a mindless minion of misinformation being used by grifters and despots. Enjoy.
-
AI can certainly write code that will compile.
I do not know where you are getting your information or why you are choosing to write false information.
Oh sure. It'll do well documented stuff. Hello world, making a login page, maybe a short function.
But ask AI to say... Write a Linux OS, and it will not compile if you get anything at all.
Or ask it to code a chat program that can send video, audio, and text. You'll get nothing useful if anything.
And just the code to look at an image and identify objects is extremely complex. Forget decision making on what to do with that info.
But if you believe otherwise, go ask ChatGTP to make you an auto targeting program. Then try to compile it.
-
Is ChatCPT the pinnacle of AI, LD?
Really?
-
And you are correct, Ronj. Your experience alone does not qualify you to be an expert in the field of AI capability.
Your answer is interesting. With lots & lots of years of experience writing code & troubleshooting computer-controlled equipment I do have a pretty good idea of how AI works. You are probably assuming that I don’t ever use AI myself, which is false.
Currently AI is little more than an automated way to quickly look up details about a particular subject you are interested in. The AI program is constantly scanning the internet and has created a large database of all kinds of basic information on different subjects.
When you ask a question, AI can quickly access its database and compile a synopsis of the desired information and present it as an answer to your question. AI doesn’t, by itself, generate answers, it’s basically a parrot that’s squawking out what’s been recorded in its database that’s been previously generated by experts in their respective fields. I really like it because it saves me countless hours going thru books & manuals looking up details about a software or hardware issue that I'm having. It may not immediately give me the exact answer I'm looking for, but it usually quickly narrows down the other places I may need to look for a specific answer to my question.
Want to do a little AI experiment? Ask it if the earth is flat.
-
Is ChatCPT the pinnacle of AI, LD?
Really?
At present? Probably, yeah.
In 20 years? Maybe, maybe not.
-
At present, ChatGPT, i can assure you, is nowhere near the pinnacle of AI.
-
At present, ChatGPT, i can assure you, is nowhere near the pinnacle of AI.
Pinnacle for all time? No.
But we have no idea what the pinnacle is.
-
Of course, it is not the "pinnacle of all time."
And neither is it the "current pinnacle."
Regarding availability to the public, maybe, but DARPA has more advanced systems for sure.
-
Of course, it is not the "pinnacle of all time."
And neither is it the "current pinnacle."
Regarding availability to the public, maybe, but DARPA has more advanced systems for sure.
Maybe. Maybe not. No way to really know. They probably have more combat centered AI systems but are their systems better than other AI models in some generic metric?
Would a DARPA AI for coding (assuming they even have one) be better than a commercial produced one?
-
Someone still needs to put the batteries in, charge it up, switch it on or whatever.
Or not.
Once you have an autonomous machine capable of building a machine, then what?
Are you under the impression that computer components grow on trees or are mined from the ground intact?
We are absolutely nowhere near self-replicating machines.
And honestly your proclamations about AI writing code are ridiculous. I've seen some of the code AI produces. I must admit it's quite impressive and to someone who doesn't know better (you) it probably looks right. But unless you're talking about very, very basic programs it isn't going to work without a fair amount of human intervention and debugging.
-
I am fully aware computer parts are not engaging in abiogenesis.
It is amusing you claim machines cannot self-replicate.
Why do you insist on writing bald-faced lies? (https://www.google.com/search?q=can+machines+self-replicate%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1035US1035&oq=can+machines+self-replicate%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRirAjIHCAMQIRiPAtIBCDgwNDdqMGo3qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Again, you might want to refer to AI available to the public, but that is not what this OP is about.
It is more about XAI: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/explainable-artificial-intelligence)
"Continued advances promise to produce autonomous systems that will perceive, learn, decide, and act on their own."
Just stfu with your bullcrap.
You lied in this thread (and in many others) and you need to go away.
-
I am fully aware computer parts are not engaging in abiogenesis.
It is amusing you claim machines cannot self-replicate.
Why do you insist on writing bald-faced lies? (https://www.google.com/search?q=can+machines+self-replicate%3F&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1035US1035&oq=can+machines+self-replicate%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRirAjIHCAMQIRiPAtIBCDgwNDdqMGo3qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Again, you might want to refer to AI available to the public, but that is not what this OP is about.
It is more about XAI: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/explainable-artificial-intelligence)
"Continued advances promise to produce autonomous systems that will perceive, learn, decide, and act on their own."
Just stfu with your bullcrap.
You lied in this thread (and in many others) and you need to go away.
Did you just do a Google search to prove your point but not read the MULTIUDE of links that say 'no'? With the exception of some Harvard guys who made some tiny organic robots that can push around stem cells and replicate that way.
And then link to a proposal for an AI model that's in early development?
Whose lying now?
-
AATW wrote that machines cannot self-replicate.
Machines can self-replicate.
AATW lied, I did not.
The AI program I linked to is not in early development.
From the link: "This program is now complete
This content is available for reference purposes. This page is no longer maintained."
You, too, are lying.
WTF is the matter with you?
-
I looked at the XAI concept in the link. This is a small evolutionary improvement in the overall AI system. The ‘Training Data’ and ‘New Machine Learning Process’ is still the basic process that you have today. When new (and old) concepts are studied by humans a website is usually established, and this knowledge is written down and explained. An AI computer can now access this knowledge via the internet and can copy and catalog this information in an index for future reference.
Currently when I use AI, I have a concept that I’m trying to implement but need some information so I can better design a device to execute my ideas. When I ask AI the proper questions then it presents me with the data, I need to refine my ideas and allow me to better design a device with my specific parameters so it will work as desired. Usually, I will have to study this information, make some calculations and/or software changes, and then try out these experimental ideas to see if my objectives are obtained. Generally, I’ll be much nearer to my overall objective but will still need to ask AI some other questions to fix some minor discrepancies and then repeat the process over again.
The new XAI model may improve this process loop by using the data it has available while incorporating my specific objectives to then apply this data and simulate the changes to the design to see if it matches the desired outcome. If not, then it could automatically try some refinements while telling the ‘User’ (me) that here’s another idea, is this a success, or not?
Nothing wrong with this whole process, but the XAI system is still basically an automated ‘data miner’ and is using the knowledge that was generated by humans and then placed on the internet.
I have been retired for several years now but still am actively working on my own hobby projects just for fun. If you want to see what AI can do for you just go out a purchase an Arduino Giga R1 computer board and then see if AI can program it for you. Sure, you can get it to program the basic ‘Hello World’ program, but all that data is readily available on the internet in the Arduino site. Give it a more difficult program to produce and see what happens. Then you see where the current technology is.
That’s not to say that eventually AI will be better than the average human and a factory won’t be occupied mostly by robot workers, but that’s a long way off. I would say that AI would be similar to a baby on the day its born into this world. The baby’s firmware is operational, and it knows how to breath and cry and how to feed off its mother, but little else. There will be daily improvements as it observes and learns how to interact with the environment, but it will take some time before it could expect to succeed on its own if it left home. A robot today doesn’t know how to explore for minerals needed for a microprocessor or a battery. How to build a power plant to power all the mining machines. How to transport, refine, design, build, ect, ect. Someday that may happen, but when it does most of the knowledge required will have come from humans over the centuries.
-
Wall of text from Ronj, simply referencing AI available to the general public, when the OP has nothing to do with that.
-
Not true.
You didn't really read, or understand, the explanation for XAI that I wrote.
-
Your "explanation," of XAI is totally useless relative to the OP, as it is dismissive of the actual capabilities now in place.
-
I would say that it's more accurate to state that you are severely overestimating the real capabilities of the updated system. Sure, there have been some improvements, but you seem to think that the baby can now breakdance when it can't even stand up yet.
-
And I would say it is more a possibility you didn't read all of the linked information in the XAI website.
First, you would have noticed the project was closed.
The primary papers reporting the project were completed over four years ago.
-
Your guess is incorrect. I did read all of the linked information on the XAI website and could correlate that information with my own experiences using AI in the real world. How about YOU. Do you really understand the technology yourself or maybe you are trying it out to see if it can troll?
-
I can correlate it with the OP, in declaring self-replicating machines and the use of autonomous weapons systems, are now a reality.
-
Your idea of a self-replicating machine seems to be greatly misunderstood by you. Perhaps you should use AI to increase your understanding.
-
AATW wrote that machines cannot self-replicate.
Machines can self-replicate.
AATW lied, I did not.
The AI program I linked to is not in early development.
From the link: "This program is now complete
This content is available for reference purposes. This page is no longer maintained."
You, too, are lying.
WTF is the matter with you?
I did not see the complete bit. Congrats... you linked to an AI model that... explains its logic. Congrats... I'm sure that'll help it write code.
The self-replicating bots require a human to give them material. If that's what you call "self replicating" then you have a very loose definition.
-
I would call it self-replicating if you could drop off a few robots on Mars and come back in a couple thousand years and see a much larger robot population. Think what would be necessary for that to happen. The robots would have to find material, mine it, refine it, and then shape it to the right form. Power plants would have to be designed & built so electricity would be available. Microprocessors would need to be designed, constructed, and programmed. The process goes on & on and hopefully there would be no hardware or software malfunctions along the way while the robots are getting things ready to build more of their kind.
Mankind made that process happen over lots of years while regenerating all along the way. A cave man could reproduce, amoebas can do it, along will all kinds of other biological species. You see the problems that a robot would face? Do you really think you will actually see that in the next 1000 years? Perhaps in the future an alien species will come by that's friendly and give mankind a technological boost to shorten the time span but without that it will take the future generations quite a bit of time to become a robot God.
-
Your idea of a self-replicating machine seems to be greatly misunderstood by you. Perhaps you should use AI to increase your understanding.
It would be nice if he had any kind of "I" tbf.
-
AATW wrote that machines cannot self-replicate.
Machines can self-replicate.
AATW lied, I did not.
Firstly, you don't understand what lying is. Someone saying something untrue isn't necessarily lying. You have to demonstrate they are knowingly saying something incorrect in an attempt to deceive. Learn what words mean.
Secondly, what I said isn't untrue. Even if there are some very very limited cases of machines being taught to build copies of themselves, you still have to provide the components for them to do so and the instructions. We are absolutely nowhere near the sci-fi version of self-replicating machines which is what most people mean when they talk about this.
-
Machines can self-replicate (https://youtu.be/aBYtBXaxsOw?si=vKf9N4la8GfBg5fj) .
You wrote they cannot self-replicate.
That is a lie.
The reason it is a lie is due to the fact you are now admitting there are machines that can self-replicate.
Obfuscation and deceit are synonymous.
You are a liar.
-
The reason it is a lie is due to the fact you are now admitting there are machines that can self-replicate.
I also added some context which you have dishonestly ignored about what people generally mean by self-replicating machines.
Stop trying to score internet points and stop talking about topics which you clearly don't understand. Which is quite a lot of topics.
-
The reason it is a lie is due to the fact you are now admitting there are machines that can self-replicate.
I also added some context which you have dishonestly ignored about what people generally mean by self-replicating machines.
Stop trying to score internet points and stop talking about topics which you clearly don't understand. Which is quite a lot of topics.
The OP is about the workings of autonomous weapons systems.
AI plays a part in that as well as machines.
Several claims made by ilk (such as you) have been made regarding the current ability of machines and AI, all of the claims having nothing to do with military applications, but simply talk about experiments done about the "home."
Your additional context stated "materials have to be provided by (humans.)
That, too, is horseshit.
GFY, liar.
-
You really need to get so cross with people because you don't know what you're talking about.
Multiple people have told you that you don't know what you're talking about.
And you just keep coming back with your terminal Dunning-Kruger doubling down on your ignorance and getting angry with people who point it out.
-
You really need to get so cross with people because you don't know what you're talking about.
Multiple people have told you that you don't know what you're talking about.
And you just keep coming back with your terminal Dunning-Kruger doubling down on your ignorance and getting angry with people who point it out.
I've noticed the same with various species of Trumpian.
I think as they become aware of how ignorant they really are about reality, it causes unimaginable self hatred and regret. They helplessly lash out at the world as their anger consumes them.
We see the same in a few species of liberal but they're usually not as heavily armed as redneck Trumpians.
-
You really need to get so cross with people because you don't know what you're talking about.
Multiple people have told you that you don't know what you're talking about.
And you just keep coming back with your terminal Dunning-Kruger doubling down on your ignorance and getting angry with people who point it out.
Multiple people would get cross with people like you who deliberately write material that is patently untrue and deceiving.
I am in the majority here.
You don't like the fact I will not put up with it and I call you out concerning your peddling of bullshit.
Go ahead and report me if you feel so offended or that I am treating you unfairly.
-
Machines can self-replicate (https://youtu.be/aBYtBXaxsOw?si=vKf9N4la8GfBg5fj) .
You don't have a 'machine' here. The starting cell structure was from a frog that wasn't man made. What you have here is a very primitive 'Frankenstein' monster. If a cell structure self-replicates to another structure that 'looks' like itself, but that replication can't in-turn self-replicate then the process isn't really completed, and you don't really have self-replication. If you could put a few of those tiny 'bots' in a dish and check back later and you find 1000's more your case might have a bit more creditability but nowhere did I see that in the video.
I think you may be consulting the wrong version of AI.
It would be better to use Artificial Intelligence version NOT the Artificial Ignorance one! We all have to start somewhere, and now that you've made a good start it's now time to upgrade to the better version AI.
Get it ? -- Got it ? -- Gooooood !
-
Go ahead and report me if you feel so offended or that I am treating you unfairly.
There's nothing to report.
Being ignorant isn't against any forum rules.
It's just a bit weird how you revel in that ignorance and get cross with people who clearly know a lot more than you on certain topics - like the multiple people in this thread who are telling you what utter nonsense you're spouting.
I've been quite clear that when I'm talking about self-replicating machines I'm talking about the sci-fi Terminator kind of thing which is how most people understand that term - that's the context in which you brought this up. They don't exist. They're nowhere near existing.
-
Actually, if you want to be paranoid about self replicating machines, you need to gear up for the grey goo.
Long before shiny Terminator robots coming stomping around with machine guns, nanobots the size of a large bacteria, built from silicone and quartz crystals layered with complex metallic folds will be designed by AI to create medical chemicals from raw materials. At first these robots are fed organic molecules to manufacture hormones, proteins and even flesh.
Eventually, a nanobot built from a few simple molecules like a virus, will be designed to self replicate and will get spilled in a lab. It's built to consume any atom on the first third of the Periodic Table. There will we all kinds of screaming and suffering as it rips through everything around it like a spreading grey goo until it consumes the whole planet.
It will totally suck but it will be over quickly.
-
I did not bring up autonomous weapons systems within the context of "Terminators."
You fucking "imagined," I did, much like all of your other goddamn contributions in this forum since you joined.
You are a dishonest and illegitimate presence in this forum, just like Pete and many others have pointed out to you on many occasions.
Where did I state the word "Terminators," within the OP or any other place within the thread, except in this reply.
As to whether there is or is not "anything to report," I called YOU (yes, YOU) a liar.
That is against the forum rules (unless it is objectively true).
So, if you believe you are posting honest assessments regarding the current abilities of AI and self-replicating machines (within the context of autonomous weapons systems operation and functionality), then you would need to report me for violating the rules of the forum.
Jesus, quit fucking lying and offer a legitimate opinion about the OP or GTFO here.
-
I did not bring up autonomous weapons systems within the context of "Terminators."
You fucking "imagined," I did, much like all of your other goddamn contributions in this forum since you joined.
You are a dishonest and illegitimate presence in this forum, just like Pete and many others have pointed out to you on many occasions.
Where did I state the word "Terminators," within the OP or any other place within the thread, except in this reply.
As to whether there is or is not "anything to report," I called YOU (yes, YOU) a liar.
That is against the forum rules (unless it is objectively true).
So, if you believe you are posting honest assessments regarding the current abilities of AI and self-replicating machines (within the context of autonomous weapons systems operation and functionality), then you would need to report me for violating the rules of the forum.
Jesus, quit fucking lying and offer a legitimate opinion about the OP or GTFO here.
My completely legit response came as a result of your hyperbolic goings on about AI and self-replicating machines.
Maybe you should type your responses in all caps and use more curse words. It won't help your point but you might feel better, maybe relieve some anger.
-
My reply was not directed at you, Kramer.
However, you have offered nothing relevant or insightful regarding the OP either.
-
I did not bring up autonomous weapons systems within the context of "Terminators."
I'll just leave this here:
Someone still needs to put the batteries in, charge it up, switch it on or whatever.
Or not.
Once you have an autonomous machine capable of building a machine, then what?
You didn't use the word "Terminators", but the way you used the term was clear hand wringing about "the machines" taking over. This was your original question:
what happens when one of the autonomous weapons chooses to start eliminating the workforce and/or the other stakeholders of the company?
That's not going to happen. Certainly not in your lifetime or mine.
My gut feeling is it's going to be a very very long time, if ever. The sort of technology you're talking about doesn't exist and is absolutely nowhere near existing. Now you're flailing around talking about a very limited use case of some self-replicating cells. Which is nothing like what you first started talking about. And you're getting cross with me because you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Again with the dishonest characterization of my posts.
Using perjoratives like "handwringing."
Fucking disgusting and dishonest tactics.
"In robotics, AI sentience means that a robot is designed to execute particular activities and can make decisions, feel emotions, and interact with the environment in a manner comparable to that of a human being. One example of AI sentience in robotics is the case of the AI robot named 'Bina48'."
BINA48 has been in existence for over 20 years.
-
More robotics trolling? Probably so.
When I asked AI if BINA48 was sentient it responded as I expected. BINA48 is still a modern-day digital parrot. An internet connection is used to generate pre-programmed responses and machine learning algorithms. Any perceptions of emotions are programmed algorithms designed to mimic certain human behaviors. All are merely simulations of human emotions.
I am not saying that this is bad. When I am working on a hobby project AI is soooo useful. It’s a great interface for quickly looking up information. Back in the day I would spend hours in a library doing the same kind of things I can do now with AI in a few minutes.
If you go thru some of the references related to BINA48 there was one that suggested it would be better for a robot to be programmed with the intellect of a baby and then start subjecting it to early childhood experiences and then progress toward adulthood. That might produce a better simulation of sentience than is currently available.
-
secure code
is there such a thing?
You are a mindless minion of misinformation
be nicer with your alliteration. no warning from me but you have been here long enough to know better.