Nowadays, computers aren’t copies of a human brain - that’s something all we can agree to.
Humans have something, which can remember and calculate in oneself, and data and operations on it aren’t strictly separated. It works in a decentralized way, not like the CPU + RAM duo. In addition, computers are digital while human brains - as far as I know - are “analog”.
Some recent hardware innovations try to invalidate the characteristics of the computers described above. First is HP’s memristor, with which we could unite CPU, RAM and hard disk in a thing like a self-manipulating RAM. The second is Lyric Semiconductor’s probability-based computing technology, which banished solid values from chips.
I’m pretty sure that the fusion of the two technologies would end in something very alike a human brain - but at least it would be three steps in that direction.
What do you think?
P.S.: I hope the text is understandable, I’m far from being a native speaker…
Your text seems very readable lipk though I am not sure what you expect to get from such a speculative subject as human-like computers. If man kind manages to not blow themselves back to the stone-age, technology will continue ever forward. Creating ever more complex computer systems, some of which may be directed to robots.
I am not sure anyone could really tell where all of this is headed, but the more responsibilities placed into automated systems, the more likely these system may do more harm than good. As the technology continues to plow forward, many of the things developed today will be wrapped up into these complex systems in which no one may even be alive then that understands what the process was trying to do. When a computer takes a life or destroys property accidentally, who is responsible? The programmer, the assembler or the user?
Could such a technological advance in computers and robots one day lead to a world such as described in the Matrix? One could only wonder, but then maybe it has already happened? Does your neck feel a little stiff right now?
Thanks for the feedback about my English skills, now I’m not afraid that I’m ridiculous while trying to keep the standard high
I wasn’t intended to imply that the idea of machine-mans are unheard and completely new. I’m just saying that - as I see - we’re approaching a radical improvement in robot technology. Now a robot is nothing more than an average computer with some software trying to simulate a small segment of human mind. With the new hardware described above, we would have something which really works like a brain. This would mean new programming techniques too. The result may be “artificial creativity” or “artificial intuition”.
When a computer takes a life or destroys property accidentally, who is responsible? The programmer, the assembler or the user?
Or… the computer? At some point, we will forced to answer the question that who is computer and who is a human? (see the Bicentennial Man from Asimov)
When a computer takes a life or destroys property accidentally, who is responsible? The programmer, the assembler or the user?
So the answer to this question is the same as for a gun and was more for dramatics than anything else. We all know that users kill people (and programmers), not computers.rotfl!
I think we are a very long way from anything like Bicentennial Man, if we ever get there. But being really human and just acting like a human are two different things and the ability to act like human, enough to fool another human is not all that far off in my estimation and we talking about something better than just a voice over a phone.
To really think like a human, if we even want to emulate such a thing, is going to be way more difficult. What would we do with such an ability? What kind of responsibility might we turn over to such an entity? I think that there is no doubt we will continue to try and create such a computer, but when might such an achievement be made by man kind in the future? I am sorry, but I can’t answer that question with what I know.
It’s been done! Win7 … it’s human, passive aggressive, schizophrenic, a mildly depressed … hmmmm … and overweight! It’s my pc!
I think you are confused as this is your response to a Windows 7 computer. lol!
chief_sealth says:
Robots are already learning to lie and deceive. How much more “human” could they possibly become?
Robots Learn to Lie and Deceive Each Other in Search for ‘Food’
Computers programmed to do these things is not the same as a computer deciding to this this on its own for its own reasons. Now people creating programs that can fool people into thinking it is a person is different than a computer doing this on its own.
Read the second article. The robots were not programmed for deceptive behavior. They learned this on their own.
Yes I did read both articles, but I guess I am not impressed with the lack of blinking a light. Sounds like the original programming gave them the option of making this choice. You see I am into programming and so far this has not made me think of original thought going on. Don’t get me wrong as it is interesting and surely you have to start somewhere, but computers using deception sounds like a great big stretch to me. Everyone is allowed their own opinion on the subject.
Read the second article carefully. The behavior was not programmed. It was not taught. As the robots’ thinking process evolved, they came to realize that there was a reward in deception. It was not controlled or anticipated.
Well chief_sealth I am incredulous to believe this, but if it makes you happy, then I will say that it is so. I would like to know what they really mean by learned and just what this meant was done to the existing coding. I don’t work with robots, but I do industrial control programming and I have been able to make a few people wonder who is in there (the computer), but it is far from real thought that goes on in a persons head. None the less, it is very interesting work. I can give programs insight by merely looking for lots of possible outcomes, occurring in different contexts. Maybe like programming for chess playing perhaps. It is not real thought or insight however.
We are inundated with robots today from the first keyed music boxes to manufacturing welders, packers, carpet cleaners, robotic actors, Japanese dancing partners, perimeter guards, flying drones, etc.
OTOH, true artificial intelligence hasn’t been achieved but parts of research have been showing success.
There’s robotic faces that react naturally to human emotion and speech, robotic limbs that react to touch and IBM’s Watson that capable of reasoning.
Watson is to make a debut on the TV program Jeopardy. IBM - Research: Jeopardy!
Combining the technology on a stick is secondary to the programming necessary to achieve thought or reasoning, ie, artificial intelligence and safety.
I’ve been a developer myself. I’ve always preferred to think of computers as glorified machines, more or less capable of doing what they are dictated, or in some cases bungled to do. They don’t “think” about their instructions. It’s more sophisticated than driving a car, but there are analogies.
But as the technology evolves, these “dumb” machines become capable of a different form of thinking. Real thinking and even learning can be mimiced in binary form. Similar to the sci-fi fantasies. This has broader capabilities than following steps and performing expected outcomes. Nobody really knows where this will lead, but it may be a brave new world.
Since i am not a scientist and merely a human, i have to relay on information from scientists.
The conclusion is that a computer will not be human equal, better or even remotely close to a human for a long time to come. Think in centuries.
The brain can calculate, make judgments, remember at the same time where a computer just does what it is told to do. The way to really interact independently requires so much power and instructions that it is not possible with current technology. It would require a different kind of technology to archive this.
I am not even sure if that is desirable.
The conclusion is that a computer will not be human equal, better or even remotely close to a human for a long time to come. Think in centuries.
I think it’s far for computer science in itself, but not with biotechnology on its side. However, I’m a human, too
I am not even sure if that is desirable.
Of course nobody wants an android to make him/her redundant in his job. But what if we could replace some malfunctioning parts of the brain by chips? We could cure epilepsy, Alzheimer…
In addition, even if most of the humanity would prefer doing the housework to having intelligent machines lurking around, it still can be desirable for a company to make money, or a scientist to write his/her name into the history books.
One book i can recommend to study this topic a little further is from Michio Kaku Physics of the Impossible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
