Strange thread lol?
Do we say about robots that were made by people or what?
I guess it is like a cheap film scenario,where people made super intelligent AI and it just erases human population.
Booooring
Topic: Robots vs Human Who gonna Win in the Future; - page 9. (Read 5954 times)
of course humans because robots are made by humans. we have the power to control them
and no man will probably be controlled by a robot, because humans are living beings who have feelings while the robot only inanimate objects that are created just to help people.
of course humans because robots are made by humans. we have the power to control them
Long before robots have time to conquer America or the world, the economy and financial systems will collapse, and people will not have enough money to keep working on robots.
Can we destroy god? Its the same question you are trying to ask. Human created the robots as we are created by the gods. Can we think of wining god in future? Same as robots are creativity of human.Hence if the can be created, than they can be destroyed too.
rightsomething that is created can not be beat creator.
Whatever Disaster we find on our way.I am pretty sure it ain't gonna extinct us.
Even if they do get a consciousness.I am sure it will be a matter of time before Someone finds out a solution on how to end this "disaster" .
anyway , in conclusion to keep short i believe we will make it no matter what lies ahead of us.
why? Because we are Humans.
Even if they do get a consciousness.I am sure it will be a matter of time before Someone finds out a solution on how to end this "disaster" .
anyway , in conclusion to keep short i believe we will make it no matter what lies ahead of us.
why? Because we are Humans.
Can we destroy god? Its the same question you are trying to ask. Human created the robots as we are created by the gods. Can we think of wining god in future? Same as robots are creativity of human.Hence if the can be created, than they can be destroyed too.
i think, robots will win at the future 99%
Humans makes Mystakes Robots dont make mystakes rule number one.
WHO YOU THINK HE WILL WIN IN THE NEAR
Write your opinion down below
Humans makes Mystakes Robots dont make mystakes rule number one.
WHO YOU THINK HE WILL WIN IN THE NEAR
FUTURE
Write your opinion down below
robots will win, I think. they've already got humans out of jobs. so many people are jobless now. and of course it's bad for human life if they don't have any job. they can't fulfil their needs.
i think, robots will win at the future 99%
Humans makes Mystakes Robots dont make mystakes rule number one.
WHO YOU THINK HE WILL WIN IN THE NEAR
Write your opinion down below
Humans makes Mystakes Robots dont make mystakes rule number one.
WHO YOU THINK HE WILL WIN IN THE NEAR
FUTURE
Write your opinion down below
robots will win, I think. they've already got humans out of jobs. so many people are jobless now. and of course it's bad for human life if they don't have any job. they can't fulfil their needs.
Robots will never replace humans, because there are certain problems with AI even on the theoretical level. Of course, here I mean not the AI we already have in some robots, but the AI which will work like human's. This problem I'm talking about can be understood via the "Chinese room experiment". For those who aren't familiar with it, I'll paste a brief description here:
"suppose that artificial intelligence takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.But does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?
Now the same with human being, who is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Human could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.
However, this person would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
Without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word."
The machine don't need a mind to harm people it only needs a creator that code him to be harmful. You know what I'm saying? Those people that want to see the world burn."suppose that artificial intelligence takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.But does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?
Now the same with human being, who is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Human could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.
However, this person would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
Without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word."
I can agree with that, but in this case I don't think it is right to say that machines have won, it's rather some people one using robots in this case. What is your opinion on that?
Robots will never replace humans, because there are certain problems with AI even on the theoretical level. Of course, here I mean not the AI we already have in some robots, but the AI which will work like human's. This problem I'm talking about can be understood via the "Chinese room experiment". For those who aren't familiar with it, I'll paste a brief description here:
"suppose that artificial intelligence takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.But does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?
Now the same with human being, who is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Human could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.
However, this person would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
Without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word."
The machine don't need a mind to harm people it only needs a creator that code him to be harmful. You know what I'm saying? Those people that want to see the world burn."suppose that artificial intelligence takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.But does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?
Now the same with human being, who is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Human could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.
However, this person would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
Without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word."
i think, robots will win at the future 99%
Humans makes Mystakes Robots dont make mystakes rule number one.
WHO YOU THINK HE WILL WIN IN THE NEAR
Write your opinion down below
Humans makes Mystakes Robots dont make mystakes rule number one.
WHO YOU THINK HE WILL WIN IN THE NEAR
FUTURE
Write your opinion down below
robots will win, I think. they've already got humans out of jobs. so many people are jobless now. and of course it's bad for human life if they don't have any job. they can't fulfil their needs.
Humans over robots, because the economy will crash shortly, and there will be no robots.
How can you even relate it? If there are materials that are require to build robot then even the economic's crash they can still make a robot if they want to.
Too busy foraging for food, or going back to gardening and farming so they can eat, to waste time on robots.
Careful...Pretty sure OP is a robot testing the waters,just look at how he typed this all out!
Yah careful what you say on the internet, what you say can and will be used against you when the machines take over. They're probably making alist right now.
Robots will never replace humans, because there are certain problems with AI even on the theoretical level. Of course, here I mean not the AI we already have in some robots, but the AI which will work like human's. This problem I'm talking about can be understood via the "Chinese room experiment". For those who aren't familiar with it, I'll paste a brief description here:
"suppose that artificial intelligence takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.But does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?
Now the same with human being, who is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Human could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.
However, this person would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
Without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word."
"suppose that artificial intelligence takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.But does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?
Now the same with human being, who is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Human could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.
However, this person would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
Without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word."
I believe that thought experiment has a few problems. Two that come to mind: not having a mind like we understand it or thinking like we do doesn't mean much. Shows more a problem with our understanding of those things or the definitions we use to describe them. Not a limit in building systems with a general intelligence. Then one of the things the experiment is saying is there is no set of instructions or actions that produce a mind. But we have a mind. So it is like saying our mind comes from somewhere else. Not the functioning of our bodies. Fine if you believe in gods or something. Maybe not very useful otherwise.
i think, robots will win at the future 99%
Humans makes Mystakes Robots dont make mystakes rule number one.
WHO YOU THINK HE WILL WIN IN THE NEAR
Write your opinion down below
Humans makes Mystakes Robots dont make mystakes rule number one.
WHO YOU THINK HE WILL WIN IN THE NEAR
FUTURE
Write your opinion down below
robots will win, I think. they've already got humans out of jobs. so many people are jobless now. and of course it's bad for human life if they don't have any job. they can't fulfil their needs.
Once someone finally figures out how to make robots fully aware their evolution will happen 1000s of times faster than human evolution since they will be more intelligent and construct themselves however they can. Its a no brainer.
if the robot has a brain and a feeling this will be very dangerous for human survival.Well, actually the robots have these. People are the best robots we will ever find.
Once someone finally figures out how to make robots fully aware their evolution will happen 1000s of times faster than human evolution since they will be more intelligent and construct themselves however they can. Its a no brainer.
if the robot has a brain and a feeling this will be very dangerous for human survival. Humans over robots, because the economy will crash shortly, and there will be no robots.
How can you even relate it? If there are materials that are require to build robot then even the economic's crash they can still make a robot if they want to.
Too busy foraging for food, or going back to gardening and farming so they can eat, to waste time on robots.
Jump to: