Robotics

Firstly, lets pretend money isnt an issue, lets say i have access to infinite money.

i think its possible to build a robot that can produce or at least synthesize human capabilities and outputs, for instance not only running, jumping, walking, dancing, fighting-but also creative things such as poetry, conversation, articulation, so on.

software first.
---i am not a programmer, however i have spoken to programmers about this. in a theoretical sense, in order to have a program that could truly learn, it would need the ability to actually read its own coding input and output, and be able to edit itself. this presents a massive flux of easily visible problems, for instance human beings dont consciously rewrite their brains every couple seconds, we do it subconsciously. one such programmer went off on some ravings about dual coding, sub routines, etcetera, i didnt really understand, nor am i claiming to.

i know that the human race has the tech to synthesize the brain telling the muscles to move in synchronized and effective sequence, and to the desired 'degrees' of exertion. what im not clear on is the emotion, sensory input and output stuff that is so intregal. i could point everyone to a robot sensory basic website...
http://www.societyofrobots.com/sensors.shtml
but im getting into a philosophical argument of what it is to perceive things.

onto hardware
---this is what ive more looked into. muscles can be synthesized using an actuator called SMA muscle wire, with a very thin tefflon layer to reduce friction. these could be attached to "ligaments" which would be regulators for the electronic input to each strand of muscle wire, then those would be attached to hollow lightweight titanium 'bones'. to form the muscular and skeletal structure of the entire 'android'. pretty much every cavity left would be used for housing the computational and sensory equiptments, as well as whatever was acting as the power source (which i actually have not figured out).

a layer of synthetic 'skin' the units arms, and legs, with reversed technology similar to "skinput"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3XPUdW9Ryg
in order to judge location and degree of pressure exerted on each part of the arms or legs being interacted with.

honestly biggest problems im thinking about here are a power source, and keeping it cool enough to not melt itself.
------------------
i know there are massive gaps in my logic, and thats where you guys and girls come in. what do oyu think? proposed energy and cooling solutions? opinions on sensory input? is it intrinsically similar to human senses, or just a knockoff? is a human level AI possible, or only something convincingly close? are there any massive gaps in how i would propose to construct this being in a general sense (other than the costs of it)?

I didn't really read the whole thing, but I get the general idea. I think it's possible to create a robot that simulates humans in every way, physical, cognitive and emotional. However, my question would be; how ethical is this? After all, a human is a living being, and a robot is only a mechanical simulation, it is not real. But robots get damaged and malfunction, when they do, they should be terminated. What would humans think about getting them terminated, especially when emotions get in the mix?

Humans are biochemical simulations just as much of an android of this caliber. every emotion is simulated in the various regions of the brain, all of our senses are not actually real, they are just masses of nuerons firing and responding in a predictable way to percievable stimuli. or another way of wording it.

say a being was created such that in every way it could replicate the senses and experiences of a human being? does the fact that it was created by man mean that its synthetic and therefore all of its emotions and experiences are synthetic? if so, bad news. you are man made, so all of your feelings and experiences are fake.

after all humans get 'damaged' and 'malfunction' occasionally as well, but typically we dont put them down, we patch them back up and put them through therapy. i would imagine that humans would probably be upset about sentient beings getting put down prematurely.

since we are human, we simply judge everything based on us, and if it isnt us, it cant possibly feel or percieve like us. this train of thought, in my opinion, is idiotic and short minded.

as far as why would mankind want to create anything better than we are? i dunno, maybe the common good of all mankind? a being capable of conducting scientific and philosophical study? or if youre greedy like most of the world's population, the perfect war machine and tactician.
^keep in mind the answer to that question isnt "why would YOU create one" but "why would MANKIND" create one. there is a vast difference there.

Hmmm, I don't know really. Maybe mankind would create robots like this to limit damage to mankind. Like you said about war machines, you'd want a highly intelligent being who wouldn't be a loss because you could create more of it. Mankind may reach a high point of development where all they want is to rest and enjoy life. Still, people need to make a living, they need to keep being productive to live. That may be another reason for creating a being like this. Also, people may create robots for company, a robot will not deceive or lie to you, especially if it's created with high morals and as a perfect human being.

Thats equally biased, placing human capabilities above all others.

it wouldnt be a loss because i can create more of them? try telling that to any mother of a soldier who died in combat. "oh its not a loss, you can just make another one." - either sentience matters, or it doesnt. its not that our sentience matters, and all other sentience does not. the only difference is probably in the amount of effort it takes to raise a human soldier as contrasted with a robotic soldier balanced with the capabilities and limitations of each. however in what im proposing, its creating a machine that will learn like a human being, take many many years to build, and be demi-immortal.

if a robot is created as a perfect human being then it should probably be able to lie, even if its white lies just to reassure and comfort people.
--------------------------------------------
another question would be, is it ethical to bind such a machine to the 3 laws of robotics?

I have high hopes for the field of robotics. It will not only free up time and menial labour, but do some of the more dangerous jobs we fleshbags currently attempt, such as fire fighting, bomb disposal and germ experimentation.

Robots are out children, and like our real children we hope they will surpass us, but not forget us or try to wipe us out once they become independant.

: )

All this has happened before, and it will happen again. Cyclons forever.

Anyway. I think if we were to make super-functional robots, that would be one thing. Once they start being able to faithfully mimic human emotions, etc., things get a little messier. I anthropomorphized my Tamagotchi, and that was a pixellated dot floating around. I bawled when it went to that Great Spaceship in the Sky.

Even if they don't have what we think of as an autonomous soul/consciousness, some people are going to think they do. And if they DO (because it's all robotics anyway, right?) we have some things to deal with. First, we'd have to be able to tell whether they are conscious, and how do you do that? We don't even know how to logically do that with other people - we just kind of work under the assumption that other people are conscious. And then, if we DO accept that they are conscious, what is our responsibility towards them? They can't be disposed of. Do we become their parents? Children rebel, naturally. I don't know if most people are ready or willing to risk losing their "primacy" in this world.

Sorry, I rambled. I'll come back to this later.

TSI25... I meant the robots not the people. Anyway, what are the 3 laws of robotics?

As for the type of robots you meant I still think mankind would do something like this. Like Kevin said, robots are our children, they represent us and that gives something for the next generation to marvel at and develop. Humans are not immortal and this could also help a lot in the development of mankind. A scientist lives and dies, but a robot lives on with the persons progress and progresses with it... it'll be like the scientist never died.

The 3 laws of of robotics were set down by science fiction author Isaac Asimov. In paraphrase, I think they say:

1. A robot is not allowed to injure a human, or, by inaction, allow harm to come to a human.

2. A robot has to follow orders by a human.

3. A robot cannot harm itself.

Personally, if the robot is a unique intelligence, the 3 laws would be inexcusable. If the robot is... a fancy toaster, fine. But I think once you're bringing the 3 laws into it, they seem specifically designed to override free will... even the ultimate control over a robot living or choosing to die.

These would be ridiculous to force on robots with human like features. It would almost be impossible to limit their freedom, because they have a mind of their own. Instead of submitting to that law, they'd have to follow human laws, they would have to have consequences for their actions. Anyway, robots would be created to represent a perfect human (which is why people want to build robots), which has no ethical flaws, so a robot while simulating love and pain would be programmed to solve the problem and not self-terminate or kill a human.

FYI, there are now robots that can fly like birds.

http://www.ted.com/talks/a_robot_that_flies_like_a_bird.html

In a way, robots are a lot more capable of killing a human than a human is, or at least more difficult to stop. then again all a human being has to do is work out regularly, get bullet proof armor, and a fully automatic weapon or two and they are just as dangerous (see "Rampage"). i think if you so inherently limit a beings free will, then it fails to be truly sentient. perhaps free will is even the key to sentience.

on another note do we want obedient servants? loyal usefull tools? or to create a machine race in the image of the perfect ideal of humanity?

I don't know really, it depends on more than one thing and on the prime purpose. But I don't think that mankind want to create a robot which hates, takes revenge, becomes depressed and gets sick and dies and so on. The reason for creating robots is to create a perfect being which overcomes all the disadvantages to humans.... unless of course they're for medical and psychological, criminal investigation purposes and learning. Which means mankind may create these features in robots if they need them to be in them, otherwise they would be avoidable.

About the other two points; "obedient servants" and "loyal useful tools" these too depend on the purpose, but they would be avoidable in highly intelligent robots which should be unpredictable and simulate human behavior... which is of course the opposite of these two features.

Cool video, Kevin! It's lovely.

"on another note do we want obedient servants? loyal usefull tools? or to create a machine race in the image of the perfect ideal of humanity?"

I think if the technology is there, all three options will be exploited with it.

Its true, the entire concept of commercialism is to take a mass of intelligent, sentient beings, and turn them into obedient workers and consumers.

This is all very interesting, as I'm reading Alone Together for school.
I recommend, if you are interested in the subject, to check out that book... especially you, Sibs. The author says a lot about our humanization of electronics, from children to the elderly. Did you know that nursing homes keep "pet" robotic baby seals to give their patients company?

I haven't read this whole thing, but I was involved in Robotics when I was in High School. We designed and built a robot to preform a specific set of tasks and then competed.

If interested, take a look at this site: http://www.usfirst.org

We had a similar project in intro to tech, except it was just a robotic arm to function in specific ways given specific stimuli.