Comments on: Robo Habilis http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Wolfgang Lorenz http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-872566 Wolfgang Lorenz Mon, 03 May 2010 05:35:47 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-872566 Nilsson's employment test is impractical because it takes too long. And it does not explicitly require that all the jobs are passed by a single agent. Just talking about habile systems is not enough, their development should be supported by the test. Nilsson’s employment test is impractical because it takes too long. And it does not explicitly require that all the jobs are passed by a single agent. Just talking about habile systems is not enough, their development should be supported by the test.

]]> By: Dave Gilshenen http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-865285 Dave Gilshenen Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:18:28 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-865285 Why limit machine intelligence to the human level? It seems to me we should be trying to find complementary niches for our friendly bots to fill. While the image of a world full of C3PO's causes me nightmares, Neal Asher's AI's seem a good point to aim for. I don't know about you, but when I look at what we humans do to each other, the last thing I want to see is an electronic version without the physical limitations which hold our excesses in check. Why limit machine intelligence to the human level? It seems to me we should be trying to find complementary niches for our friendly bots to fill. While the image of a world full of C3PO’s causes me nightmares, Neal Asher’s AI’s seem a good point to aim for. I don’t know about you, but when I look at what we humans do to each other, the last thing I want to see is an electronic version without the physical limitations which hold our excesses in check.

]]> By: Charlie Barkhorn http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-865282 Charlie Barkhorn Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:20:38 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-865282 Maybe a better strategy is instill an appreciation or aesthetic in future robots for the products of those tasks that humans will remain "better" at - hence we would retain a Ricardo-ian comparative advantage. Perhaps robots that will trade the fruits of their superfast/superefficient/superprecise skills for a nice painting? Maybe a better strategy is instill an appreciation or aesthetic in future robots for the products of those tasks that humans will remain “better” at – hence we would retain a Ricardo-ian comparative advantage. Perhaps robots that will trade the fruits of their superfast/superefficient/superprecise skills for a nice painting?

]]> By: Tim Tyler http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-865244 Tim Tyler Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:22:14 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-865244 An intelligence challenge should not involve building mechanical robot controllers - IMO. That's a bit of a different problem - and a rather difficult one - because of the long build-test cycle involved in such projects. There are plenty of purer tests of intelligence that use more abstract ideas - games, puzzles, and other classical intelligence test fodder. If you want to measure the abilities of mechanical robots, then fine, but let's not pretend that it's the same thing as measuring intelligence. An intelligence challenge should not involve building mechanical robot controllers – IMO. That’s a bit of a different problem – and a rather difficult one – because of the long build-test cycle involved in such
projects.

There are plenty of purer tests of intelligence that use more abstract ideas – games, puzzles, and other classical intelligence test fodder.

If you want to measure the abilities of mechanical robots, then fine, but let’s not pretend that it’s the same thing as measuring intelligence.

]]> By: Tim Tyler http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-865243 Tim Tyler Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:47:51 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3460#comment-865243 The problem is not so much that trade between the parties won't happen - but rather that soon humans won't be able to afford to pay for food or rent - since wages will fall to machine levels. The problem is not so much that trade between the parties won’t happen – but rather that soon humans won’t be able to afford to pay for food or rent – since wages will fall to machine levels.

]]>