digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at techradar.com —

Robots To Be More Intelligent Than Humans in 40 Years

techradar.com — Intel has had a little chat about the future of the computing and robotics at the recent IDF event, and has come out with some alarming facts.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ScottMcIntyre, on 08/22/2008, -5/+133Well, the way humans are behaving just now, that wouldn't be difficult...
    • groo68, on 08/22/2008, -1/+4And then the robots will have gigapets with the advertising line "human inside".
    • whiterice0, on 08/22/2008, -12/+4Please, speak for yourself.
    • benologist, on 08/22/2008, -0/+7Really the only surprising part is they need 40 more years to overtake us.
      • geolittle, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2The don't seem to have much faith in technology. I thought this was true a few years ago. Robots just aren't capable of dumbing down their actions so that many humans can understand them or is it that the robots just don't care and can't identify with the inane.
      • RobotBuddha, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1One of the big problems with AI initially was the underlying assumption of creating thinking machines to emulate human thought. When, the reality is that a lot of what we believed was higher level thought in humans was actually instinctive or unconscious decision making that we later rationalized as having been rationally initiated.
    • IglooBurner, on 08/22/2008, -0/+15Robot Song from Flight of the Conchords.

      "Binary solo!
      0000001
      00000011
      0000001..."
      • jj101, on 08/22/2008, -1/+18The humans are dead. I poked one. It was dead.
      • etx313, on 08/22/2008, -1/+610001110101!
      • TheMoniker, on 08/22/2008, -1/+15We used poisonous gases, and we poisoned their asses.
    • etx313, on 08/22/2008, -7/+3Agreed.
    • Psi57, on 08/22/2008, -9/+10Vote McCain!

      Oooooh NASCAR is on!
    • diggmaddy, on 08/22/2008, -2/+8Actually, fact is it's not the Robots who will grow smarter. It's the humans who are growing dumber by the day, so within 40 years, humans will be dumber than any robot out there. Current robots are smart enough to know that they don't need to do anything but sit and watch the humans grow dumber. That's what they're doing right now.
      • GawtMilk, on 08/22/2008, -2/+4Current robots are smart enough to know that they don't need to do anything but sit and watch the humans grow dumber. That's what they're doing right now.

        I think current robots are just sitting there executing code.

        Humans, on the other hand. Well, would YOU want to live in the same place a hundred years ago?
    • TheInformer, on 08/22/2008, -4/+3In 40 years?

      They're already here. Just look in the U.S. Elections 2008 section.
    • kent1146, on 08/22/2008, -3/+5No kidding. I think I once saw a Roomba that was more intelligent than the people that make up the 25% in George Bush's approval rating.
    • paradexes, on 08/22/2008, -1/+4I for one welcome our new robotic overlords.
    • donttaseme, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2I see... so 4chan'ers will finally save enough money to get laid then?
    • GliTCH82, on 08/23/2008, -0/+5"Lightbulbs to laptops

      Intel also demoed the ability to power a 60W lightbulb without wires, which it claims could be used to wirelessly power items like laptops safely and quickly.

      The system would work by transmitting the electricity over certain frequencies, by using strongly coupled resonators.

      However, this technology has been mooted for nearly a century thanks to Niklas Tesla, so it will remain to be seen whether Intel finally crack it."

      It's Nikola Tesla, if you'd had any decency at least you'd get his name right! Damn you Edison!!
  • Swil, on 08/22/2008, -5/+70I for one welcome the usual end of this sentence not appearing in the comments for this article.
    • AndrewMoyer, on 08/22/2008, -1/+3Brilliant!
    • Krinkov, on 08/22/2008, -2/+8dugg because it looks like no one else got it.
    • IanPR, on 08/22/2008, -2/+2Whoosh!
    • Arramol, on 08/22/2008, -1/+4Wait, you mean that when people repeat the same old tag line every time certain keywords appear in an article, it stops being funny? Does that mean I can't ask if the robots will blend and get massive numbers of diggs anymore?
    • OneLess, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1OGC
  • muxaulo, on 08/22/2008, -3/+87So if we are going to be less intelligent than our robot overlords of the future; can we at least ensure that Microsoft gets the monopoly to program them, thereby introducing inherent errors that will enable us to defeat them.
    • DeFex, on 08/22/2008, -2/+44or apple can make them and they will die 1 second after the warranty expires.
      • Dotcommer, on 08/22/2008, -2/+21If apple made them, they'd be too sexy and we'd be ***** them.
      • dafragsta, on 08/22/2008, -1/+23Is there a problem with ***** sexy robots?
      • nevona, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2Didn't you ever watch Futurama?
    • jeffkee, on 08/22/2008, -0/+18but what if the robots make Service Pack 2 for themselves?

      * smirks
      • MacEnvy, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1No use, they'll never get through UAC to escalate their privileges.
    • mark076h, on 08/22/2008, -1/+7We will at some point develop a computer and robots so powerfull it will be the last that biological humans ever create, from that point on advanced AI will use automated engineering to continue to improve themselves.

      The Singularity Is Near.
    • MrM4nager, on 08/22/2008, -0/+8Can a human really program a machine to be smarter than its creator?
      • hillkiwi, on 08/22/2008, -1/+8Of course, you just need to give it the ability to learn.
      • joebaloney, on 08/22/2008, -1/+21I got higher SAT scores than God, so I guess its possible.
      • zephc, on 08/22/2008, -1/+5To be fair, God tried to cram for the SATs the night before, and really wasn't prepared.
      • bratterscain, on 08/22/2008, -0/+7We're not talking one single human, but a network of humans combined to come up with this technology. Once we create one, we could easily create duplicates. And unlike humans, robots could communicate at light speed through networks which would significantly ramp their knowledge and understanding of us and the world. Then all hell breaks loose and maybe if they're nice to us, we'll live.

        I think it will come upon us fluidly and we'll have people saying they're getting almost too smart. Most may not be concerned. We'll go farther and farther. Then some rogue programmer/s creates a robot and perhaps it could duplicate itself easily like a virus, then all hell breaks loose.

        Robots, they make all hell break loose.

        But one has to wonder what our existence is for. We build things in our likeness and to help us. What if what we build starts to advance and make it's own and starts to become far from us but built from our minds? I guess that's evolution as well. We're all built from creatures which perhaps then would not rather have us happen because we've trumped them and are farther removed from them. That's life. It's temporary. We won't be forever. Have fun while it lasts.
    • monoa, on 08/22/2008, -0/+9T1000: "You are terminate... [BSOD]"
    • joebaloney, on 08/22/2008, -1/+16Don't worry. People can't predict the state of technology 5 years from now, much less 50. Go back and look at predictions from 20 years ago or more, mostly they are way off in ways they probably wouldn't have thought.
      Look at the 1960s Star Trek episodes. Computers of the future will be made of big buttons, switches and radar scopes.
      • quandrum, on 08/22/2008, -0/+8Ray Kurzweil predicted within a year when a chess machine would be a human 13 years prior to the event.

        You just have to listen to the right people to get good predictions. This article in particular is a no-brainer because hardware capabilities are exponential and we already have software that learns, and is only limited by it's hardware.
  • YodaJones, on 08/22/2008, -27/+12A dog turd is already more intelligent than most humans.
    • fulibs, on 08/22/2008, -25/+2Sure, I am just wondering how they got so many dog turds to vote for Obama.
      • jeffkee, on 08/22/2008, -6/+2You mean John McCain. As far as I'm concerned, neo-cons are the worst dog turds in America right now. Yes, the kind of neo-cons who have ideology and propaganda so deeply shoved up their asses, while unable to figure out that the Russian invasion of Georgia was to the nation of Georgia, not the state of Georgia, hence going into panic and confusion.

        Those are the dog turds.
    • Aurash91, on 08/22/2008, -1/+5in this case, yes. a dog turd is definitely more intelligent than YodaJones
  • jlpete9, on 08/22/2008, -6/+19Its all about the definition of intelligence though. They're a long way away from any measure of emotional intelligence.
    • relic180, on 08/22/2008, -2/+23Or emotionally retarded idiocy.
      • Retsam06, on 08/22/2008, -0/+4I don't have any emotions... and sometimes, that makes me very sad...
        /Bender
      • theOster, on 08/22/2008, -1/+7seriously. emotional intelligence is an oxymoron
    • Frost9999, on 08/22/2008, -0/+8Emotions won't matter a tiny bit to something that is a million times more intelligent than us.
      • AndrewMoyer, on 08/22/2008, -1/+9With that much more "brain power" they should be able to simulate (and coldly ignore) emotions. Emotions, like all thought, are just chemical reactions.
      • Chainheart2, on 08/22/2008, -5/+0But they are worthless if they aren't tangible in any other way than the code that composes them
      • Frost9999, on 08/22/2008, -0/+8@Chainheart2: You are just a chemical machine. Emotions are not ascribed a value just because they come from a human or another machine.
      • Chainheart2, on 08/22/2008, -2/+1I wasn't replying to you, Frost. And I know that emotions are caused by chemicals. You and the people who dugg me down don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that human emotion has another level BESIDES the chemicals that bring them forth - it is the part you actually feel. Will computers ever be able to achieve that level?
    • Acglaphotis, on 08/22/2008, -0/+6Any sufficiently advanced AI is sufficiently equipped to mimic the chemical reactions in an organic brain. But I doubt they'd want to, what would be the point?
      • bratterscain, on 08/22/2008, -1/+2Suppose we don't survive, they may want to. They may have a scientist or historian sect to learn their roots. Though thinking about survival, they would stand a better chance than us after nuclear warfare or space missions and living on another planet. Perhaps they will be us evolved and we could live through them vicariously on other planets we can't inhabit.
      • Acglaphotis, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Uhm, what? I don't understand. Why would they want to if we don't survive?
      • bratterscain, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Acglaphotis, Understanding the past helps us learn about how to handle present and future situations. Maybe they will also realize it or be programmed.
    • Smilodon, on 08/22/2008, -1/+5Hey, didn't you watch Star Trek? Vulcans are all about logic, no emotions at all.
      • zombiedepot, on 08/22/2008, -0/+7Star Trek is an accurate portrayal of science.
    • Stormwern, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1The article sais "may" though, it's only guesswork really. It's not technology that blocks reasoning computers, we're not smart enough to make them yet..
    • jj101, on 08/22/2008, -2/+3I can easily imagine that the processing power of computers in the future will exceed that of the human brain. I am almost sure there are some super computers that already do. But I am not sure that processing power equates to intelligence of any kind. Currently all computers are just glorified calculators. They do not make decisions, they just execute predetermined responces based on programming. Surely there is a big leap between that and human intelligence. If I am told to follow a command I do not have to.

      I guess what I am saying is that until computers develop consiousness I don't think we have much to worry about. I think there is a major jump required before that happens. More the pity.
      • RobotBuddha, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1If you're told to obey a command, you don't have to. If a section of your brain is stimulated, you will. What's more, you may very well believe that you had decided to do so 'before' the stimulation even took place. The mind is slave to the brain, and the brain is just a 'very' advanced collection of something that amounts to complex calculators.
    • diggmaddy, on 08/22/2008, -1/+3*checks jlpete9's profile. Yea, a girl (on digg, really?).*

      emotional intelligence is an oxymoron. Emotions are nothing but inherent weakness of humans to get carried away by external inputs and stop thinking rationally in order to process those inputs. Emotions are the biggest hurdles towards intelligence and rational thinking. So yea! as Acglaphotis pointed out, something (someone?) who is significantly intelligent than humans would never want to simulate something that reduces it's intelligence.
    • theOster, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1emotional intelligence? you mean like some idiot that doesn't know how to be happy?

      "you're just not getting it Frank"

    • theOster, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2seriously, though. the general concept (as put forth by Ray Kurzweil who is kind of the go-to guy on futurism) is trying to estimate how many calculations per second the human brain is capable of. his estimate ends up being somewhere around 10^14 to 10^16 instructions per second (based on several areas of research by different professionals dealing with various parts of the brain). now, how long will it be before computing is capable of matching this. looking historically, Kurtzweil suggests that our computational growth as a civilization is logarithmic (or exponential) rather than linear (mainly because we use the existing tech to build new tech and the process is forever building).

      so looking historically, we should be able to have a functioning software model of a human brain in the 2020s. in the 2030s it should be running pretty smoothly, and within a short time (perhaps as quick as a decade later) we will be computing at a rate that equals all the human brain power on the planet.

      this sounds stupid an far fetched, but i'd suggest reading his book "The Singularity" to understand what he's basing the numbers on. it's pretty cool. and quantum computing will be ramping up as well - that will be amazing.
  • relic180, on 08/22/2008, -3/+16If you take into account the rate at which people are getting stupider, you could probably cut that number back to about 15 years.

    Seriously though, in "just over 40 years" machines will have EQUAL reasoning power to humans, Intel claims. Which implies that they will be "stupider" in general up to that point. To enslave us, they would either need superior reasoning powers or come from a position of advantage. With as much paranoia as there is surrounding this idea, at the moment they are able to match our brain power they will have to figure out how to deal with the hundreds of explosives installed in their brains... by us.

    Also, machines might be WAY cooler than we are, and thus deserve to be in charge.
    • Gerz1219, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Once computers become smarter than us, it should be fairly easy for them to trick us into disabling the kill switch. There's no way we could enslave an exponentially growing superior intelligence forever.
    • Stevethegreat, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3According to recent study only US among the major countries show a reverse trend to IQ tests, while the mean IQ continues to steadily advance over the years in the States it apparently falls. From being one of the most intelligent countries in the world (even 1st in early 80s) (according to average IQ) in the course of 20 years it fell over to -around- the 20th place, it's incredible and downwards disturbing what happens to the country.
    • TheAkolyte, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3Heres a questions no one wants to ask. If robots are so superior, why the ***** would they want to enslave us anyway? Why are intelligent machines always malevolent? Giving emotions and power to AI is the stupidist thing anyone could do, and robot engineers aren't bozos. We'll have harmless machines that simulate humanity, and big powerful machines that preform their jobs without discontent. And hell, even if a race of cyber-men does emerge, who says they're going to wipe us out? Humans creating robots is the closest thing to a tangible God this world has to offer.
  • Slick37c, on 08/22/2008, -0/+6"Other little gems spoken about were morphing computers that could change shape depending on the user's needs."

    More than meets the eye?
    • boydrew, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1transformer assassins...... looks like a stapler til BAM youre f***ed
  • ithkuil, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2I have seen a lot of news about things like Blue Brain etc. Here is another one: Large-Scale Model of Mammalian Thalamocortical Systems http://vesicle.nsi.edu/users/izhikevich/publicatio ... Actually the headline reminded me of my own predictions and an email I sent to one of the authors of that study a few weeks ago --
    Sun, Jul 27, 2008 re: Large-Scale Model of Mammalian Thalamocortical Systems
    You don't know me, so not to bother you, but quick question about this -- I keep telling people that having these types of simulations (your project, Blue Brain, etc) now means that within 40 years or so ordinary biological human intelligence may be superceded by computer models that are smarter than people (assuming we haven't jump started our neurobiology with some kind of genetic engineering etc). Of course, just about everyone says I am naive to think this. Have I just read too much science fiction or is this as likely it seems? And if I'm right, what do I tell people to convince them? Thanks for any time you have for this.
    (of course he didn't reply.. too busy to waste time on me, OR perhaps protecting a secret government program already underway??? j/k (I think)).
    • Farik, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2Read Ray Kurzweil's books and check out his Wiki page.
    • Singularitarian, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Perhaps a reasonable view of all this is just that, despite some apparent trends, it's pretty hard to know what will happen in the next forty years. There is a danger that the Singularity is just a new form of wishful thinking, in some ways like a religion, tapping into our desires to live forever in a paradise. I hope the Singularity happens and it's awesome, but who knows.

      Regardless, I can't wait to see what kind of technology we come up with in the next few decades.
      • RobotBuddha, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1The main difference is that the singularity is something that can actually be worked toward, and which has defining traits that can be falsified.
  • ieee, on 08/22/2008, -7/+16Taking into account Americans who voted for Bush and who will vote for McCain the prediction is 5 years in the US
    • zombiecarlin, on 08/22/2008, -4/+5more like 8 years ago.
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 08/22/2008, -10/+2Voting in an affirmative action piece of ***** that served in the IL Senate and voting present for more than 33% of the votes....and then finding himself in the US Senate for 120 days before deciding to run for the White House will be the Democratic conventions best efforts.

      McCain 08!
      • w00master, on 08/22/2008, -1/+6Yeah, because McSAME is SOOOOO brilliant. Please, get your head out of your ass. McSAME is just as bad (or worse) than Bush and his cronies. Then again, you're probably part of that 18%.
      • bigcynic, on 08/22/2008, -3/+5>affirmative action piece of *****

        Just proves my theory that conservatism is based mainly on racism.
      • johndavidjack, on 08/22/2008, -2/+2"Just proves my theory that conservatism is based mainly on racism."

        Where did you do those hard hitting studies and calculations for your theory, in your ass?
      • LiberalKid, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2Don't let assholes like that convince you of *****, a lot of conservatives are good people who just want what they think is best for America.
  • elhaf, on 08/22/2008, -4/+26I'll believe it when robots become more intelligent than dung beetles within five years. Not going to happen.
    • RobotBuddha, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1I hate the direct comparison. AI controlling robots with limited sensors and flexability do a bad job at anticipating things that a dung beetle would do and then acting to that effect. That's a huge difference from not being as intelligent as a dung beetle. With one huge problem in that coming from the main difficulty in direct competition there being limitations on the hardware side of a body/senses, not the actual AI component.
      • elhaf, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1No, I was talking about the AI component. AI sux. I know how it works, and it doesn't for the most part. Surely our brains do more than just rote compute some np-complete problem by trying all exponentially many combinations. Because for the most part, that's what AI does.
  • mark076h, on 08/22/2008, -3/+11I am reading a book about stuff like this right now called The Singularity Is Near, its also being made into a movie, really fascinating and crazy stuff http://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Near-Humans-Tran ... according to this guy by 2050 computers will make biological humans obsolete and we are going to offload our minds onto computer among other things, we will soon create a computer and robots so powerful it will be the last thing biological humans ever create. and from there advanced AI and computers more powerful than every human will take over and use automated engineering to continue to improve themselves.
    • ColonelJessup, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2Awesome.
    • Smilodon, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Hey, I've read that too. Just curious what will happen with economy at that time, ie will the government be giving us a monthly allowance or something when we are of no practical use? Maybe we won't have to wait all that long, I'm sure useful robots will be available much sooner than 40 years, promtping the same question: when bulk of human labor is replaced with that of machines, what to do with unemployed?
      • mark076h, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1By then we will have mastered nanotech and nano assemblers , we will be able to create anything we want with a special device like a microwave, we tell it what we want and we have it, no need to work or anything.
      • TheMoniker, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Which might turn into an economy that's nearly--if not entirely--based on information technology. It will be interesting to see how the copy-fight has turned out by then. {Mandatory internet sarcasm tag} I'm guessing that Disney and a few Pharmacare companies will pretty much own everyone. {/sarcasm}
      • Smilodon, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Moniker, that's kind of what I thought. There are some expectations of usable home robots within 10 years. Not human-level intelligence, but enough to take voice commands, do some manual labor without falling over etc. I was thinking along the lines that many material objects and services (think cleaning the house, gardening etc) will pretty much be a program that you can dnld to a robot and have it execute, plus raw materials. I'm sure someone in MS will try and patent 'method and process of hammering a nail on a robot system'. But it will disrupt the economy a lot, lots of things that are now being built in factories will be reduced to a program you can get from internet.

        Should be interesting :)
    • TheMoniker, on 08/22/2008, -0/+7Kurzweil is an interesting fellow, no doubt. Though, looking back on those paleofuturist promises of what the year 2000 would hold from back in the 50s, I'm a little skeptical about pronouncements about the future. (To say nothing of my disappoint at the lack of rocket boots, robot wives and hover cars.)

      But still, general trends are easier to predict than individual technologies, and he has a damn good track record. Hey, I hope he's right. I wouldn't mind another 1000 years of life.
      • mark076h, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2but back then we did not have statistics able to make these predictions, we now have proof and statistics to back about what he says about the laws of accelerating returns.
      • monoa, on 08/22/2008, -1/+1Don't confuse what appeared in Reader's Digest in 1955 with what Kurzweil has produced:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

        He's a modern day Nostradamus - but coherent and specific in his predictions.
      • TheMoniker, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2@ mark076h: Definitely. Statistics are precisely what allow us to make predictions about general trends (e.g. The Law of Accelerating Returns) and precisely what makes predicting very specific technologies quite difficult.

        @Monoa: He's definitely right far more often than he's wrong, and I admitted as much in stating that he has, "a damn good track record." What's more, I share his general view and hopes for the future.
        With all that said though, he is wrong from time to time. In the Age of Spiritual Machines he predicted that we would already have: translating telephones allow people to speak to each other in different languages and "cybernetic chauffeurs" that can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They will apparently work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads. We have neither in use at present. Then again, we are pretty close to each (which again shows how you can predict the general level of technological growth readily, but how specific dates and technologies are really hard to pin down).
      • theOster, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1i dont know that he's predicting specific technologies so much as processing power. and with that power he then suggests what migh tbe possible. it's a good read. (i've got it open right now :)
      • TheMoniker, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2It's definitely a good read. I went through it a few months back. He does present more of a general vision, but there are definitely predictions in there (see his Wikipedia page*).

        In all honesty, the book was one of the few that have ever really changed my outlook on life.

        *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil
    • Dotcommer, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2"according to this guy by 2050 computers will make biological humans obsolete and we are going to offload our minds onto computer among other things, we will soon create a computer and robots so powerful it will be the last thing biological humans ever create. and from there advanced AI and computers more powerful than every human will take over and use automated engineering to continue to improve themselves."

      GHOST IN THE SHELL! YES!
  • whiterice0, on 08/22/2008, -6/+2Yeah. Those humans are just so stupid. They're so stupid, they'll never be able to create a robot smarter than themselves.
  • 8347, on 08/22/2008, -2/+34It's so easy to make predictions for 40 years into the future. Nobody remembers if you are wrong but you sound intelligent for saying it.
    • Paulish, on 08/22/2008, -0/+9Oh Hai. Dis is Nostradamus.
    • dstz, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1"Nobody remembers if you are wrong but you sound intelligent for saying it."

      To a fool's ear.
  • mynamegoeshere, on 08/22/2008, -8/+1vote robot 2052
  • OmegaWolf, on 08/22/2008, -6/+1That just sets up a scenario for Judgment Day. Does anyone really want Skynet running everything?
    • sap959, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1not really!
    • zombiedepot, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1As long as there's an Austrian robot to save us, I don't care.
      • lovek, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1You can have the Austrian robot. I want Summer Glau.
    • diggThis77, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1My name isn't John Conner so I won't care for at least another 10 to 15 years. I find the comments about down loading our conciousness to a robot. I wonder how fast it'll take scientists to come up with viagra for robots.
    • jpete71chevmal, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Can't be worse than the Bush administration
  • Flashtone, on 08/22/2008, -4/+5Intelligence is stupid
  • TheKappa, on 08/22/2008, -2/+1"Helper has spoken many times of the coming war between humans and the robot brotherhood."
  • connieLingus, on 08/22/2008, -4/+4the singularity is near...

    EDIT: oh ***** someone else mentioned that
  • shiftline, on 08/22/2008, -1/+2Do you think that humans could build something to be smarter then them?
  • Rudegar, on 08/22/2008, -1/+54but can they run Crysis?
    • coldkill3r, on 08/22/2008, -3/+1They would need to have some overclocked SLI cards.
    • Syphon911, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1"***** you!"
      • fajitamelt, on 08/23/2008, -2/+2Two of my friends were killed by computers that were smarter than them.
  • rowjimmy, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2until we can build software that itself can develop software with self-emergent neural-network-like properties, i wouldn't be too worried...
  • Lucas123, on 08/22/2008, -0/+4Will they dream?
    • jeffkee, on 08/22/2008, -4/+4Will they sleep? Probably not. But not all hope is lost.

      Chuck Norris does not sleep.. he only waits. We'll rely on his roundhouse kicks to break free from the domination of the robots.
      • bagboyrebel, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2Chuck Norris isn't cool anymore.
    • zombiedepot, on 08/22/2008, -0/+5Only of electric sheep.
  • ColonelJessup, on 08/22/2008, -6/+3I love reading all these "humans are already too stupid" comments. I'll add another:

    Humans are already too stupid. Hell, my remote control is smarter than just about everyone on the planet.

    Have a nice day everyone! Smile! You are ALIVE, doesn't it feel great?
  • kitaljevich, on 08/22/2008, -1/+5Gotta love the singularity...
  • cgibbo, on 08/22/2008, -0/+5Dayum robots! You is smart!
  • shauntacular, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1No *****.
  • maximilen, on 08/22/2008, -9/+1Too much Wall-E, iRobot and Terminator movies for you people.. Machines will never have emotion or feelings.
    • Jsmuli2, on 08/22/2008, -1/+3That's why they will be more intelligent. They can apply their knowledge without the distraction of emotion.

      Sheesh, that was nerdy of me.
    • Iwantawii, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3Tell that to Johnny 5 and he'll disassemble your ass.
    • sfgeek, on 08/22/2008, -0/+4You are so very, very wrong.

      Emotions are nothing more than a confluence of reactions to external stimulus based on both genetics and learned experience. Sentient intelligent robots will arrive at feelings as a natural result of their learning and evolutionary processes. Interacting and empathizing with human feelings will be advantageous to these systems and they will evolve to meet the challenge.
      • maximilen, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2Ah, Monism. So you're saying human emotion comes from the mind and body alone and that we have no soul/spirit... Because only if that is true can machines have emotion. And since I disagree with that, I therefore disagree with you.

        Good news though, it'll probably happen in our lifetime if it does, so let's wait and see :)
      • bratterscain, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2maximilen, the 20th century called and said it's missing a spiritualist.
      • Iwantawii, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Well in a way we really are just machines. It's just using a way different "technology" than we use to build our machines and robots. But we're both built from the same dust forged in the stars and subject to the same laws of physics. But even the simplest of organisms eclipses any robot we've ever made in terms of structure and, well, anything.
    • OneLess, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Living things are biological machines and there's nothing magic about emotions and feelings that can't be explained by a solid understanding of neurology, so it would appear that you're wrong.
  • 9bpm9, on 08/22/2008, -5/+1If robots know everything as their creators, how can they be smarter.
  • benjony, on 08/22/2008, -2/+1I highly doubt it! But if you don't agree with me then thats fine. But I have a bridge to sell you if your interested.
  • DeFex, on 08/22/2008, -1/+3programmable matter FTW.
    "what knife, all i have here is a teacup!"
  • AndrewMoyer, on 08/22/2008, -1/+4Weren't they saying this 40 years ago?

    Judging by most of the people I see these days, I think they were right back then!
  • bitterbug, on 08/22/2008, -0/+6Cool. I'm gonna hop into my flying car (which everyone has) and go visit my relatives on the moon colony so I can tell them about it in person, instead of the usual holograph projections.

  • Gormogon, on 08/22/2008, -3/+2There's a big difference between Intelligence and wisdom
  • seandfeeney, on 08/22/2008, -3/+7More capable? yes. Genuine intelligence? NO.

    Robots won't have cognitive thought.
    • mark076h, on 08/22/2008, -4/+2we will soon have computers that emulate the human brain and we will be offloading our minds onto them

      The Singularity Is Near.
    • sfgeek, on 08/22/2008, -4/+2Riiiiiight. That's why Carnegie Mellon has the 'Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition.'

      You really need to do your homework on Neural Networks.
      • Kestrel, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1... proving absolutely NOTHING other than the fact that someone, somewhere managed to put together a proposal with enough flash to get someone to open the purse strings to pursue the idea.

        In the 60's, MIT said that true AI was just around the corner ("within the decade"). In the 70's they said, "no more than 20 years away". In the 80's, it was, "within 30 years" and now we're sitting here listening to someone else proclaim the same within 40 years. There's a saying (credited to Marvin Minsky, I believe) that says, "A year spent in AI is enough to convince anyone there's a god" -- take that in the spirit it was intended (I don't hold any childish beliefs about invisible wish granting men in the sky).

        The fact is that we can't even define what intelligence is; we could be 2 steps away or 2000 steps away and we wouldn't know the difference. There are people still seriously debating whether or not animals have intelligence (hint: live with any animal for a week and you'll know the answer to that one) so how the hell do you propose we are capable of either, (a) building an intelligent machine without knowing what we're building, or (b) recognising such a machine even if we could build it?

        We may very well create true AI one day, but it's not going to be with any technology we are currently familiar with.
    • Antialias, on 08/22/2008, -2/+4Why not?

      Our brains are just complicated computers. What is genuine intelligence anyway? Our brains are running a program that codes itself as we learn and grow.
      • dericko, on 08/22/2008, -0/+6Not exactly..

        Our brains are organic and utilize chemical and energy tools to do what it does... far far far different than a "computer".

        Our brains have also shown the capability to adapt to damage and offload certain functions to a different portion of the brain. If your computers RAM goes out, you've got no function. at. all.
      • stoanhart, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1@dericko

        But it's still a computer. The brain is a bundle of matter, following concrete laws of physics; that makes it deterministic and programmable. Just because it's not a binary computer and we haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean it's not a computer.
  • idioteque1025, on 08/22/2008, -2/+12the robots will be just as smart, but in 40 years humans will get exponentially dumber
  • hoisonsauce, on 08/22/2008, -1/+1This may be true, but even those robots won't be able to figure out why Tara Reid got breast implants.
  • RobotLeAwesome, on 08/22/2008, -2/+6The funny thing is, in 40 years robots will be just as smart as they are today.
  • BIGRed1022, on 08/22/2008, -1/+6If they get out of hand we can just blend them. And hey! 40 years? That's cool cause isn't the world supposed to end in 4?
    • fajitamelt, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1But blenders are also robots. Would they really want to kill any of their own?
  • protogenxl, on 08/22/2008, -1/+10Wasn't this prediction made 40 years ago?
  • ShadyG, on 08/22/2008, -1/+1Get back to me when software is capable of consistently OCR'ing arbitrary handwriting, and we'll begin the conversation.
  • jeffkee, on 08/22/2008, -1/+2Reasoning power is not necessarily wise. Computers are already able to do mathematics and calculations way faster than us (try the chess machine, for example.. or even a simple calculator) but they have yet to come even close to replacing human-oriented management.

    Try asking that robot if you should break up with your girlfriend or not. I think I'd stick with a friend or a mentor for those questions.
  • philhatesyou, on 08/22/2008, -4/+3Unless Intel has some secret insight as to the workings of the brain that no neurologist on the planet has, I'm going to go ahead and say that they're talking out their ass.
    • mark076h, on 08/22/2008, -1/+6According to the laws of accelerating returns we will have that Knowledge in the next 30 years.

      The Singularity Is Near.
  • Sloi, on 08/22/2008, -1/+6Dugg for The Singularity is Near references in the comments...
  • nofate2029, on 08/22/2008, -0/+0"They can't make things like that yet"
    "Not yet, not for about 40 years..."

    =)
  • sinsignificant, on 08/22/2008, -0/+4if worst came to worst, AI wouldn't enslave us... it would be like us trying to enslave, say, ants. what would be the point? when AI comes, it'll have much bigger fish to fry. once it reaches our level of intelligence, it wont stop there. it will double and double and double again, ad infinitum. it'll take to space
  • Iwantawii, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Does. Not. Compute.
  • PhillyMJS, on 08/22/2008, -0/+4Somehow "Robotron 2048" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
  • sdevinen, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3The robots may become celebrities... but can they lead?
  • hamburgers, on 08/22/2008, -0/+14science is ***** cool.
  • WhoDoneIt, on 08/22/2008, -3/+2No.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 112 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.