What is Digg?58 Comments
- inactive, on 08/16/2008, -1/+26Beeblebrox's Law - "You should never have more than one Pan-Galactic Gargle-Blaster, unless you are a forty-ton mega-elephant with bronchial pneumonia."
- BXRWXR, on 08/16/2008, -0/+18If you can keep your head while all those about you are losing theirs, then perhaps you have misunderstood the situation.
-Graffiti: Flushing St Temple of Eris - TVarmy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+12What I love is that Asimov not only comes up with 3 brief laws that sum up most of what we want in terms of robot safety, but also writes a novel exploring how exactly those laws could go wrong, and what they could do in certain situations. And the book happens to also read extremely well.
Seriously, how many whitepapers have come out as good as I, Robot? - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -0/+11Don't Panic.
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -4/+12My own science-fiction law is, any computerized network supplied with significant complexity and information will eventually gain consciousness and kill everything it perceives as a threat.
So, everyone: be really, really nice to Digg today. - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -0/+7Are you proposing space wedgies?
- gmiley, on 08/16/2008, -0/+7Brannigan's Law: one cannot interfere with an undeveloped planet.
"Brannigan's Law is like Brannigan's love: hard and fast" - antler, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6Note that Asimov didn't just coin the laws, he coined the word "robotics" itself. (This was in 1941, years after Karl Capek introduced the term "robot" into general use in 1921).
- Dr00pieS, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6Dwight Schrute Law:
Make sure the robot is 2/3 the size of a human in case it is needed to be taken out.
Make sure the robot has an extension cord powering it. - Vidalsassgirlie, on 08/16/2008, -1/+8Judge Dredd law: I am the law!
- cnot3, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5What about the Prime Directive?! It's the traffic law of the future, Picard broke that ***** like it was goin out of style, and I'm pretty sure Kirk broke it every time he ***** an alien broad.
- PilotHead, on 08/16/2008, -1/+6My Sci-Fi law
Getting a ***** prize is worth being hunted and killing a Predator. - yetimonster, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5man those were wacky
- inactive, on 08/16/2008, -6/+10Shut up.
- BXRWXR, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4It's called 'programming' for a reason.
They weren't AI, they were programs with bodies. - themindoverall, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Truly you did come out well, Human.
- Falldog, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3The only thing wacky about Asimov's three laws is that robots hardly ever follow them.
- Dr00pieS, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Or you would be summoned to recover the Necronomicon to get back to the present day.
Damn you Bruce Campbell... - Khast, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3If/When we actually develop robots which can effectively think for themselves (See Robot with biological brain earlier this week on Digg.) How could Asimov's 3 laws be programmed into the robot? We have laws which state we can't kill another human...yet it still happens.
- malex, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Dugg for Hanlon's Razor and Sturgeon's Law...
But Buried for using the word "wacky." - malex, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4Go back to bed, L. Ron Hubbard.
- loganhanks, on 08/16/2008, -2/+4No TANSTAAFL?
- thespanielator, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2That's easy, with magnets.
- nstratton, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2!!!Don't forget Aasimov's sweeter adage, bro.
"Never let your morals prevent you from doing what's right."
-From Foundation
peace. - TheMidnight, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Klaatu...verada....n...ni....necktie? Nickel?
Ah yes...Klaatu...verada....n..*ahem* *cough*
There, I said the words. - kestermatsumoto, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3"99% of statistics are false"
- Rikkochet, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2What possessed you to pick the name DeuceDiggalow?
- TVarmy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2It's coming along. It's just that anything out there right now, totally ques up the uncanny valley and every Freudian nightmare you've ever had. We're currently at the bottom of the trough, so it's bound to only get better, although better would be more like the transition from seeing a zombie to seeing a person with skin disease, metaphorically.
- Hodor, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2if you think about it biologically, practically everything organic was literally crap at one point in time or another
- TVarmy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Maybe add a chip which scans the robot's mind/actions for things that would break that law? Ideally, the chip would be simplistic, and not capable of much, if any, learning, so that it wouldn't end up becoming corrupt as well. It'd probably shut down the robot as soon as it suspected it was up to no good for humans to do some serious debugging. The chip would probably just catch the most simple plots against humans such as, "Woah! That gun's pointed right at that person!" or "Why is it lifting a chair above the master's head and preparing to make a swift move?" Subroutines would probably try to stop the longer, more planned out ideas. Perhaps the robot could be forced to send its ideas to a series of "morality" servers which look into how said robots plans would pan out, and the likelyhood they are meant to hurt humans.
Of course, I mean a relatively simple chip. This is taking in account the development of transistor technology by the time we have serious brain robots.
Or, maybe, we could code a robot to think that it's human, or very similar to humans, so it would end up having anthropocentric goals and morals of its own, and then use the 3 laws as backups for when it isn't sure. Course, we'd probably not call them the 3 laws of robotics, that'd be a giveaway. Also, we'd need to code it to laugh off anyone who claims it isn't a robot, rather than deciding to fight that person to the death.
"I'm not a robot? That's the dumbest thing I ever heard! Ohhhhh boy...." - TVarmy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Ugh, I just realized I got the last sentence backwards at the last second. Double my negatives to make it make sense. The point is, the robot would need to anally believe that it is a human, no matter what.
- Mikeb0707, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Dugg for Technology = Magic
- Avaseal, on 08/16/2008, -3/+5Isaac Asimov was a genius and you all put him to shame. Quit pretending like you deserve his respect.
- jellyfishes, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Killswitch
- TheMachine1, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1He was a genius no doubt but his laws on robots were a programming suggestions not some natural law that will happen.
- anokun7, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Asimov - was there ever a greater robot thinker!!
- TheMidnight, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Why the Gigalo Assassin, of course.
- tedrock, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1woah
- cquinnd, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law
- Sardonic2U, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1here is a law and an oddity...
http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Yawning_and_Orgasms_yes_ ... - Sardonic2U, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1People use statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost...more for support than for illumination.
- TheMachine1, on 08/16/2008, -1/+2“Ninety percent of everything is crap”
Seems based on Gaussian noise distribution you could say the number is higher. - Culyt, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Actually its not too impossible, there are plenty of errors that occur in processors, they are normally dealt with and ignored but if there where enough errors you might end up with self replicating executable code.
You would of course need an insanely powerful system running a whole lot of crap in order for there to be a high enough chance of the error happening but at the current rate we will have processors that are capable of emulating every human on the planet on a single chip well within 100 years (probably within our lifetime), we just need to reach some point where the number of calculations exceeds that random chance of ending up with replicating code.
In addition to that, if the network is public you have to deal with people deliberately trying to cause such things to occur.
Also rather then use traditional programming methods to create software we could end up using evolutionary ones since we would have enough CPU to burn for a lot of stuff, rather than write a packet switcher for a a router you could provide a bunch of successful conditions for an input (ie datapacket goes in, is successfully routed to the destination).
There would be some advantages to it, first is lazyness since you don't have to think overly much about the design, the router could be evolved to block things like worms, DDOS attacks and so on. Efficiency could be maximised as you can use speed and small memory footprint as part of the conditions of the evolutionary algorithm. At some point the routers could learn to communicate with each other and self organise for the best transfer of traffic. Spam would be another area, except in that case the most effective solution to detect spam would probably be to understand what is written in it, hence the potential to end up with AGI, it depends if its harder to evolve some kind of advanced linguistics that can understand the concepts or easier to just evolve general intelligence. Even if it is harder there will likely be many running so it would have to be a *lot* harder since evolution won't always take the easiest route.
Its basically digital evolution.
This could also happen with nanobots if the replication instructions are built into the bots themselves, and accidental error in the instructions (such as caused by a stray atom when being replicated) could cause them to copy out of control making grey goo (even if you add error checking there is still a probability of the parity also being corrupted or more likely the error checking itself to be the first part that breaks down). Granted the chance of this is small but there is likely to be trillions of these things required to make stuff out of solid matter. And some point the broken copies could learn to eat the regular copies, and then some will learn to eat each other and some will defend themselves and we end up with various species of nanobots all evolving to eat each other and stop from being eaten (and probably Earth and everything on it will have be consumed).
I don't know what the probability of any of this actually happening is, some of it could take longer than the heat death of the universe, some could be manufactured to take at least that long.
☢ - armakaryk, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Hail to the King, baby!
- gmuslera, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1You sure you are reading it right?
In my reading, means that anything that was attributed to magic, gods, or whatever that couldnt be explained in some moment, could be explained/made with advanced enough technology, taking away the "magic" of it, and putting science in its place. I.e. show a caveman a magnet and he will think "magic" - M724, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
“Ninety percent of everything is crap.”
That's all I need. - Diego5531, on 08/17/2008, -0/+0WTF???
- whahaa, on 08/16/2008, -0/+0judge dredd never breaks the law, he is the law.
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is