Woman or machine? New robots look creepily human

Jun 24, 2014 by Yuri Kageyama
Japanese android expert Hiroshi Ishiguro, second left, and National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation Miraikan Chief Executive Director Mamoru Mohri, second right, pose with a female-announcer robot called Otonaroid, right, and a girl robot called Kodomoroid during a press unveiling of the museum's new guides in Tokyo Tuesday, June 24, 2014. The latest creations from Osaka University Prof. Ishiguro are the Otonaroid, the Kodomoroid and Telenoid, a hairless mannequin head with pointed arms that serves as a cuddly companion. The robots with silicon skin and artificial muscles were shown to reporters at Miraikan museum on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)

The new robot guides at a Tokyo museum look so eerily human and speak so smoothly they almost outdo people—almost.

Japanese robotics expert Hiroshi Ishiguro, an Osaka University professor, says they will be useful for research on how people interact with robots and on what differentiates the person from the machine.

"Making androids is about exploring what it means to be human," he told reporters Tuesday, "examining the question of what is emotion, what is awareness, what is thinking."

In a demonstration, the remote-controlled machines moved their pink lips in time to a voice-over, twitched their eyebrows, blinked and swayed their heads from side to side. They stay seated but can move their hands.

In a clear triumph, Kodomoroid read the news without stumbling once and recited complex tongue-twisters glibly.

The robot, designed with a girlish appearance, can use a variety of voices, such as a deep male voice one minute and a squeaky girly voice the next. The speech can be input by text, giving them perfect articulation, according to Ishiguro.

There were some glitches—such as the lips not moving at all while the robot spoke, or the Otonaroid announcer robot staying silent twice when asked to introduce itself.

National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation Miraikan Chief Executive Director Mamoru Mohri hands a female-announcer robot called Otonaroid a letter of appointment to assign as a guide at the museum as a girl robot called Kodomoroid, second left, looks on during a press event in Tokyo Tuesday, June 24, 2014. The latest creations from Japanese android expert Hiroshi Ishiguro are Otonaroid, Kodomoroid and Telenoid, a hairless mannequin head with pointed arms that serves as a cuddly companion. (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)

But glitches are common with robots because they are delicate gadgetry sensitive to their environment.

Kodomoroid and the woman robot Otonaroid were joined at the demonstration by the minimally designed Telenoid, a mannequin head with pointed arms that serves as a cuddly companion.

The two life-size robots, which have silicon skin and artificial muscles, will be on display starting Wednesday, at Miraikan museum, or the National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation, in Tokyo, allowing the public to interact with them extensively.

Android robot Kodomoroid speaks during a press event at the National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation Miraikan in Tokyo Tuesday, June 24, 2014. The latest creations from Japanese android expert Hiroshi Ishiguro are a female-announcer robot called Otonaroid, a girl robot called Kodomoroid and Telenoid, a hairless mannequin head with pointed arms that serves as a cuddly companion. Kodomoroid read the news without stumbling once and regurgitated complex tongue-twisters glibly. (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)

Reflecting widespread opinion, Ishiguro said Japan leads the world in playful companion robots. But he acknowledged the nation was behind the U.S. in military robots.

Developing robots for more than 20 years, Ishiguro has made a point of creating robots that approximate the human appearance, including creatures that look like him. He has sent them to give overseas lectures.

His approach differs from some robotics scientists who say human appearance is pointless, perhaps creepy, and robots can look like machines, such as taking the form of a TV screen or a portable device.

A female-announcer robot called Otonaroid speaks during a press event at the National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation Miraikan in Tokyo Tuesday, June 24, 2014. The latest creations from Japanese android expert Hiroshi Ishiguro are the Otonaroid, a girl robot called Kodomoroid and Telenoid, a hairless mannequin head with pointed arms that serves as a cuddly companion. (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)

Ishiguro noted proudly how Japanese Internet company Softbank Corp. recently showed a robot named Pepper, which looks a little like C-3PO in "Star Wars," and will sell for less than 200,000 yen ($2,000).

Pepper's arrival means robots are increasingly becoming part of everyday life in Japan.

"Robots are now becoming affordable—no different from owning a laptop," said Ishiguro.

National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation Miraikan Chief Executive Director Mamoru Mohri, right, gives a speech next to a female-announcer robot called Otonaroid, second left, and a girl robot called Kodomoroid during a press unveiling of the museum's new guides in Tokyo Tuesday, June 24, 2014. The latest creations from Japanese android expert Hiroshi Ishiguro are Otonaroid, Kodomoroid and Telenoid, a hairless mannequin head with pointed arms that serves as a cuddly companion. (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)

Photographers gather around to take photos of a female-announcer robot called Otonaroid, second right, and a girl robot called Kodomoroid, right, during a press unveiling of new guides at the National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation Miraikan in Tokyo Tuesday, June 24, 2014. The latest creations from Japanese android expert Hiroshi Ishiguro are the Otonaroid, the Kodomoroid and Telenoid, a hairless mannequin head with pointed arms that serves as a cuddly companion. (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)


Explore further: Japan PM Abe wants to stage 2020 Robot Olympics

More information: Hiroshi Ishiguro Laboratories www.geminoid.jp/en/index.html

4.3 /5 (15 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A future full of robots

Nov 29, 2012

A future where robots are as common as cars – and cheaper – is on the way. This is according to Prof. Hiroshi Ishiguro, named one of the top 100 geniuses alive in the world today, who has devoted himself ...

Recommended for you

Economical and agile offshore construction ship

1 hour ago

Siemens is currently installing the power supply and propulsion systems into a new multi-purpose offshore construction ship for Toisa Ltd. The ship, which is being built by the Korean company Hyundai Heavy ...

Software provides a clear overview in long documents

1 hour ago

In the future, a software will help users better analyze long texts such as the documents for calls for bids, which are often more than one thousand pages long. Experts at Siemens' global research unit Corporate ...

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LariAnn
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
If they are remote-controlled, then they are no more robots than your television set is. You control your TV remotely, so if you have to control these androids remotely, then they are not robots. We've got a ways to go before we have androids like Data of Star Trek fame.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
If they are remote-controlled, then they are no more robots than your television set is
Nope. The traditional def is:

"1 a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being"

-You're thinking about this category:

"An autonomous robot is a robot that performs behaviors or tasks with a high degree of autonomy, which is particularly desirable in fields such as space exploration, cleaning floors, mowing lawns, and waste water treatment."
We've got a ways to go before we have androids like Data of Star Trek fame
Yeah that's what they said about self-driving cars only a few years ago. Which BTW would fit in your special category.

In that last pic she resembles Hillary Clinton who also looks like she has a steel rod up her spine.
bluehigh
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
When ( not if ) this goes beyond remote control, as in the Honda Asimo, add the recent Turin test results then perhaps it's time to enforce the 3 laws, before its too late.

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

It's a brave new world ... Not so far aways.
Modernmystic
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2014
The three laws didn't work....and any true AI would simply ignore them anyway....
bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
...and any true AI would simply ignore them anyway....

Indeed, and that scares me more than Hillary Clinton.
bluehigh
not rated yet Jun 24, 2014
Just a flight of fantasy before bedtime. If the evolutionary path leads us biological robots to mechanical AI equivalents. What will the mech robots evolve into? Ok .. I know, take my meds. Sleep.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
The three laws didn't work....and any true AI would simply ignore them anyway....
So you're saying that the self-driving car will simply ignore its programming and run over the baby carriage? Out of spite maybe? Because machines are evil maybe?
bluehigh
not rated yet Jun 24, 2014
HAL had AI and got very personal. Maybe AI could develop spite ...

Dave Bowman: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.
HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave? You're going to find that rather difficult.
Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!
HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
The three laws didn't work....and any true AI would simply ignore them anyway....
So you're saying that the self-driving car will simply ignore its programming and run over the baby carriage? Out of spite maybe? Because machines are evil maybe?


Where in THE hell do you get that from what I said? Do you just like to argue?

Aside from you stuffing words in my mouth, I'd have to say that I don't consider a self driving car AI....

I will say I'm not going to respond to another 100 posts of your strawmen though Otto, so speak to what I ACTUALLY SAY or don't speak at all.

Any software complex enough to be considered intelligent would have a thousand contingencies you could never anticipate or write rules for. Ask a lawyer trying to make an "ironclad contract"...it's simply impossible. AI is going to do what it's going to do no matter how we try or think we can control it....good luck with it though.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
I'd have to say that I don't consider a self driving car AI....
Why not? Whats the difference?
Any software complex enough to be considered intelligent would have a thousand contingencies you could never anticipate or write rules for
-and whered you get this from? Your intimate understanding of the subject or your intimate relationship with your ass?

What youre describing, 'a thousand contingencies you could never anticipate or write rules for', sounds like a failed design, a totally undependable program. And it would be doubtful that such a program would perform flawlessly up until the point where it decided to run over a baby buggy out of spite.

It would instead be the result of countless iterations, all proofread and field-tested, corrected, updated, and refielded. This process is ongoing at the moment.
HAL had AI and got very personal. Maybe AI could develop spite ..
HAL was fiction. So is skynet and all the others. Scientists dont write fiction.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
Why not? Whats the difference?


The same difference between a cockroach that can sufficiently navigate where it wants to go and a human being....

-and whered you get this from? Your intimate understanding of the subject or your intimate relationship with your ass?


And here the discussion literally ends. Be mature and respectful and I'm willing to have a discussion Otto. I don't engage in adolescent drama...
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
As an aside I have little doubt that a driverless car will almost undoubtedly have a much better if not nearly flawless record compared to human drivers. Just as a calculator can do math with far better reliability than a human being...but a calculator is NOT AI...and neither is a driverless car.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
The same difference between a cockroach that can sufficiently navigate where it wants to go and a human being....
AI is not a matter of complexity its a matter of function.

"Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence exhibited by machines or software. It is also an academic field of study. Major AI researchers and textbooks define the field as "the study and design of intelligent agents" where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success"

and

"Intelligence is most widely studied in humans, but has also been observed in animals and in plants."

-And what makes you think complexity automatically leads to irrationality? Especially to the point where a machine "would simply ignore" its programming?
And here the discussion literally ends
IknowIknow it hurts to be proven wrong. So much.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
And heres a course you can take to actually learn something about the subject.

"Learn how to program all the major systems of a robotic car from the leader of Google and Stanford's autonomous driving teams [Sebastian Thrun]. This class will teach you basic methods in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [emphasis ottos], including: probabilistic inference, planning and search, localization, tracking and control, all with a focus on robotics. Extensive programming examples and assignments will apply these methods in the context of building self-driving cars.

This course is offered as part of the Georgia Tech Masters in Computer Science."

-and is taught by Sebastian Thrun, who

"was appointed as the director of SAIL [thats Stanford ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Lab] in January 2004...He is also a Google VP and Fellow, and has worked on development of the Google driverless car system."

-So why dont you tell Dr. Thrun he doesnt know what AI is?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
Here he is im fleisch
https://www.youtu...nb0EFAzk

-Seems like a pretty pleasant guy. Im sure he wont laugh in your face (I would though)
bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
Scientists dont write fiction


Isaac Asimov was a biochemist. Arthur C. Clarke a researcher. Lewis Carroll a mathematician.

However I do not find any fiction writers that claim to be scientists, so I guess you are, strictly speaking, correct. My small mind gets so easily distracted by small things nowadays.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
Proven wrong? LOL, well if you think I'm wrong, I'm probably on the right track. This is a guy who thinks the Native Americans should have had their land taken away by the Europeans so...yeah I'm good with you thinking I'm wrong about something.

What it proved is you're still the same immature and defensive person you consistently demonstrate you are.

And in case you missed the subtly of context, which you did, and often do....the context of the AI we were discussing before you thrust your threatened ego into the mix was AI as in AI advanced enough to need something like the three laws, and I did say "true AI" which means something like a human being or more advanced.

But please, by all means, continue to yell at strawmen and call people names. I know it makes you feel safe...
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
I'd have to say that I don't consider a self driving car AI....
Why not? Whats the difference?


It's obvious he was referring to AI on par or at least very close to human intelligence.

-And what makes you think complexity automatically leads to irrationality?

Complexity can make the rational appear irrational.

Especially to the point where a machine "would simply ignore" its programming?

You are assuming subjective laws can be programmed into an intelligence flawlessly. The laws may rely on the AI's understanding of them and the situations in which they are relevant.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
Isaac Asimov was a biochemist. Arthur C. Clarke a researcher. Lewis Carroll a mathematician.
Yah you forgot Greg benford and Carl Sagan. But when they were doing science they were not writing fiction were they?
However I do not find any fiction writers that claim to be scientists, so I guess you are, strictly speaking, correct. My small mind gets so easily distracted by small things nowadays
Well just how small is it? The evidence is not very encouraging.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
I did say "true AI" which means something like a human being or more advanced.
Sorry I looked up 'true AI' and all I find are consumer-grade news blogs like this:
http://www.radioa.../1082258

-You got some accepted def if 'true AI' that you didn't concoct yourself?

But even in that ABC article we find

"Mr Farrall says smartphones put artificial intelligence into the hands of hundreds of millions of consumers every year."
It's obvious he was referring to AI on par or at least very close to human intelligence
But we already have computers lots more 'intelligent' than humans and have for a long time.

"Intelligence is most widely studied in humans, but has also been observed in animals and in plants."

-I would say that the ability to disregard ones programming is an indication of faulty intelligence. Are people who smoke less intelligent than those who can't bring themselves to inhale dirt?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
Proven wrong? LOL, well if you think I'm wrong, I'm probably on the right track. This is a guy who thinks the Native Americans should have had their land taken away by the Europeans so...yeah I'm good with you thinking I'm wrong about something
No, see, the way it works, the way that adults do it, is that I present evidence to support my case and then you present counter-evidence to support yours. And what do Indians have to do with AI, other than they fear it in their casinos?
AI advanced enough to need something like the three laws
Self-driving cars already follow these laws. Because we NEED them to. Because we program them to do so.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
No one else had trouble understanding the context I used Otto, just because you did is no reason to continue to rage on.

I said EXACTLY what I meant. Your misunderstanding or inability to admit your misunderstanding isn't my responsibility to correct. I've told you what I meant, you trying to pick a fight at this point is just entertaining...so please do continue...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
I said EXACTLY what I meant
But without refs its just your opinion isnt it? And per the refs I provided, its not worth much.

This statement of yours
I'd have to say that I don't consider a self driving car AI..
-is certainly correct. But according to the ref I provided

"ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [emphasis ottos], including: probabilistic inference, planning and search, localization, tracking and control, all with a focus on robotics. Extensive programming examples and assignments will apply these methods in the context of building self-driving cars"

-you dont know what AI is. And so your considerations are worth-less.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
But without refs its just your opinion isnt it? And per the refs I provided, its not worth much.


Oh Otto, you really need other people to prop up your opinions don't you. I don't need references to give my opinions worth, and I certainly don't need your approval of them :)

is certainly correct. But according to the refs I provided you dont know what AI is. And so your considerations are worth-less.


Of course I know what AI is, I was talking about advanced AI and you weren't. That you insist that I was speaking out of context so you can play out a hissy fit of histrionic drama is very cute :)

Again, please continue...

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2014
Oh Otto, you really need other people to prop up your opinions don't you
You bet. Sebastian Thrun is a very good example of the kinds of people whose knowledge and experience is essential to backing up my opinions.
Of course I know what AI is
Sebastian Thrun says you dont.
I was talking about advanced AI and you weren't
Sorry I googled 'advanced AI' and could find no def. Is this something else you made up? And at what point in its 'advancement' would AI decide that
The three laws didn't work....and any true AI would simply ignore them anyway...
-IOW to disregard its programming?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
Priceless! You talk about Sebastian Thurn like a Mormon talks about Jesus...I love it.

Keep trying to tell me what I meant though. Maybe someday you'll figure out that you really do have to rely on me for that one :)

Hey Otto, if you Google something and you don't get a hit does that mean it doesn't exist or people can't use those words? I can Google God and get lots of hits...does that mean he exists? LMFAO.....

This really is a lot of fun, but I do feel a little bit guilty having this MUCH fun with it...

Keep 'em rolling Otto!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
people can't use those words?
No when you use words and phrases in the context of a science discussion, and defs cant be found for them, it usually means theyre meaningless in a science context. Like 'advanced AI' or in your uasge, 'AI' itself.
You talk about Sebastian Thurn like a Mormon
Sebastian Thrun is an expert on AI. He says his cars use AI. And so when you say
I don't consider a self driving car AI
-you are simply spouting shit.

So. Weve proven that self-driving cars DO use AI according to experts. And as to your original inanity
The three laws didn't work....and any true AI would simply ignore them anyway
-theres no indication that self-driving cars would ignore any of them.

If you had really wanted to make a point about 'true AI' you could have done only a little research and found

"On Intelligence: How a New Understanding of the Brain will Lead to the Creation of Truly Intelligent Machines" by Jeff Hawkins"

-But sadly, youre too lazy I suppose.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
-you are simply spouting shit.


No, objectively you think that Sebastian Thurn thinks I'm spouting shit. Actually you don't really know. Your own opinion is nowhere in sight. I could care less either way :)

-theres no indication that self-driving cars would ignore any of them.


Since I wasn't talking about self driving cars there I'm not sure what your point is other than to shadow box and shout at the world. Again, I could care less....but it continues to be entertaining.


If you had really wanted to make a point about 'true AI' you could have done only a little research and found


I've done plenty of reading on the subject Otto.

That you took my statement completely out of context and continue to ramble on, throw tantrums, and call me names after I've told you as much several times has nothing to do with anything other than that. It certainly has nothing to do with how much research I've done on the subject.

You're swinging at air bud...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
No, objectively you think that Sebastian Thurn thinks I'm spouting shit. Actually you don't really know
Sebastian Thrun is an expert on AI. He says his cars use AI. And so when you say
I don't consider a self driving car AI
-you are simply spouting shit.
I've done plenty of reading on the subject
Doubtful or you would know that self-driving cars use AI.
That you took my statement completely out of context
No I didnt. You said
The three laws didn't work....and any true AI would simply ignore them anyway
-and I gave you an example of AI which cant 'ignore' its programming.
I've done plenty of reading on the subject
Well a person who uses terms like 'advanced AI' or 'true AI', and who thinks that computers can 'ignore' their programming, apparently gets his info mostly from the huffington post and will smith movies. Why dont you try some real refs?

But no. Still no indication of any research to back up your nonsense claims. Just more innuendo.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
Perhaps you got the idea that a machine could ignore its programming from some idiot philosopher.
http://books.goog...;f=false

-If so I REALLY feel sorry for you.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2014
]-you are simply spouting shit.


Thanks for your opinion, even though it doesn't mean shit to me, mainly because you aren't even talking to me, your talking to who you THINK I am and what you THINK I believe even though I've tried to correct you several times :) You're still trying to twist the context I made the statement in.

Doubtful or you would know that self-driving
cars use AI.


Quite the contrary, Demonstrate how a program that can navigate is INTELLIGENT in the context I was originally commenting from and I'll retract the statement.

-and I gave you an example of AI which cant 'ignore' its programming.


I don't consider anything programed AI in the sense and context I was originally making that statement in. I didn't disagree with that statement, you assumed my position and proceeded to yell scream and holler...and are continuing to do so...

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2014
Well a person who uses terms like 'advanced AI' or 'true AI', and who thinks that computers can 'ignore' their programming, apparently gets his info mostly from the huffington post and will smith movies. Why dont you try some real refs?


Because I'm capable of forming my own opinion based on the general principles of intelligence we get from human beings...which so far, are our only examples of intelligent beings we know of.

Do you think the singularity will be programmed?

But no. Still no indication of any research to back up your nonsense claims. Just more innuendo.


Correction, I'm just not willing to defend a position I never took and you're throwing a tantrum about it.
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2014
Sorry I looked up 'true AI' and all I find are consumer-grade news blogs like this:

Really? My first result was a wiki link on strong AI.
"a hypothetical machine that exhibits behavior at least as skillful and flexible as humans do"

-You got some accepted def if 'true AI' that you didn't concoct yourself?

Even your ABC article knows what 'true ai' implies
"True Artificial Intelligence not so far away"

But even in that ABC article we find

"Mr Farrall says smartphones put artificial intelligence into the hands of hundreds of millions of consumers every year."

"success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. ... it might also be the last" - Stephen Hawkings
You better tell him how stupid he is for not using the proper term for strong AI.

But we already have computers lots more 'intelligent' than humans and have for a long time.

So then the turing test has been passed by a simulated intelligent adult to 100% success?
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2014
-I would say that the ability to disregard ones programming is an indication of faulty intelligence.

No you're saying that a programmed intelligent mind (on par with a human mind) is compatible with programmed restrictions, which are reliant on that mind. This is an assumption.

Are people who smoke

How do minds programmed to survive override this programming to slowly kill themselves? Maybe a mind is more complex than you assume?
bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2014
I considered 'simulated intelligence' as a more appropriate description of current machine interaction with humans. The definitions refer me to 'artificial intelligence' and indicate no difference in the two terms. Am I allowed to believe these are quite different?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2014
Quite the contrary, Demonstrate how a program that can navigate is INTELLIGENT in the context I was originally commenting from and I'll retract the statement
What context? This?
The three laws didn't work....and any true AI would simply ignore them anyway....
-This is a blind statement with no context. But as to your request to repeat my posts for you about intelligence

"ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, including: probabilistic inference, planning and search, localization, tracking and control"

-and I've given you refs from experts in car and cellphone programming who consistently use the term in describing what they do. THEY know what it means. But you say
Any software complex enough to be considered intelligent would have a thousand contingencies you could never anticipate or write rules for
-with no indication on how this would cause these cars or cellphones to 'ignore' their programming.

So you need to retract your statement. Or provide REFS supporting it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2014
Really? My first result was a wiki link on strong AI.
"a hypothetical machine that exhibits behavior at least as skillful and flexible as humans do"
But we already have AI which can do specific things far better than any human. We could perhaps never have AI which was designed to be indistinguishable from humans, and still have an AI-based civilization.

The point of machine intelligence is to exceed human capacity. This AI should always be easy to recognize. But I suppose future laws will require AI bank tellers and travel agents and tax collectors to identify themselves as such. If we ask.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2014
How do minds programmed to survive override this programming to slowly kill themselves? Maybe a mind is more complex than you assume?
The term 'mind' is misleading and archaic. It evokes unscientific philo and religious concepts.

Biological BRAINS and physiologies are susceptible to chemical influence. They are fragile, aging systems which respond to pain and fear. Human brains and physiologies respond to social pressure as a way of improving their chances of survival and reproductive success. And then they respond to the pain of withdrawal.

The POINT is, biological brains have fundamental design flaws, which is why we are designing machine brains to replace them. Perhaps the first addict burned tobacco plants in his tepee for warmth.

But what addictions will machines have that they aren't programmed to have? What social pressures will they experience? What will intelligence be like without the constant subliminal desire to reproduce?
Modernmystic
not rated yet Jun 30, 2014
So you need to retract your statement. Or provide REFS supporting it.


The only thing I have to do Otto is pay taxes and die. You continue to attribute a stance I never took to me.

Would you defend a statement like "Retract your statement that God exists. Or provide REFS supporting it"...or would you continue to insist you never said that?

I wasn't talking about cars and cellphones. Actually if you'd LISTEN to me or READ what I actually wrote instead of making up stuff in your head just so you can fight with me and create drama you'd see I agree with you....but you aren't going to do that because...well...you're you.