digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Uh-Oh: Robots Capable Of Enslaving The World Within 10 Years

news.thomasnet.com — Well apparently AI is getting so spohisticated that robots will be able to take over in only a couple of Years. Our only hope is the Korean code of ethics being worked on which hopes to "prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • triggerfinger, on 10/11/2007, -10/+39Is it time to Rage against the Machine?
    • alanflores, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3deep thought took 7.5 million years to compute the answer to the ultimate question. and the robot capable of making such a computation is just 10 years away? deep thought is not even capable of slaving the world.
    • swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Call This Week in Science. Every time they do a story on robots, they call it This week in Robots take over the world.

      You can, however, defend yourself.

      http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8edf/
      How to Survive a Robot Uprising

      TWIS interviewed the author sometime back.

    • Cwo655321, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2sweet, can't wait. I guess then we will have tech worth having.

      (still doubt it though).
    • 1021, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32What an absurd title... and we don't even have flying cars yet... FLYING CARS! We were supposed to have those by now.
    • gabbercomau, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@1021

      Give it 20 years from whenever this statement is read, and we WILL have flying cars.
    • nyx210, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10I think 10 years is being a little bit overzealous, no?
    • themastersb, on 10/11/2007, -9/+24I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
    • jake8689, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I for one will welcome our future robot enslavers, in the hope they make me a pet or breeder
    • swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11021, go to thinkgeek and buy yourself a copy of "where's my jet pack"

    • Herzasche, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6@triggerfinger
      we have to Rage against the Machine before we become an audioslave!!
    • Hydraulix, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6*smashes roomba to bits and pieces*
    • user777, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1the gist of the story is, do everything yourself, never invest in a robot, and at least u'd be sure to survive another 10 years.

      But would you risk your life without the pleasure of a humanoid?

      "The Japanese Actroid female robot is a couple years ahead, but the Chinese robot already has a great body and wears sexy clothes."

      http://www.i4u.com/article6921.html
    • franksands, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1--removed--
    • bariswheel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Definitely an absurd, knee jerk reaction to new technology, provocative,sensational, cliche title. And like all such titles, buried into a deep f$cking hole. People need to stop digging *****.

      Watch and become the wiser.

      http://video.google.com/videosearch?um=1&tab=wv&hl=en&q=singularity+summit+at+stanford

    • xaeon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1As an Artificial Intelligence graduate, the idea that computers are at a point of "deciding" a course of action for themselves is a rediculous notion. I spent three years being taught how difficult anything resembling AI complete is. These "intelligent robots" are programmed to give the illusion of intelligence. A code for the ethical treatment of computer software is stupid. If we want to be ethical towards software, just stop Microsoft from poluting the software gene pool.

  • sronbheatha, on 10/11/2007, -2/+55Don't worry. They wont won't go near California as long as the Governator's there.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31How do you know he's not one of them?
    • ThndrShk2k, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1They don't. He's either the model they use for their killer robots, or he is a killer robot. Awesome and manly enough to be the model for soldier robots that could turn rogue.

      Terminator was obviously based off some truth.
  • nmwando, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8i have always had a thing for robots since the old days of saber rider.
    • Funguar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5robots with giant metal cowboy hats?
  • formfactor, on 10/11/2007, -8/+41Let me be the first to say,

    I for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.
    • TopherT, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12no, no, I think I've heard that one before...
    • IRoaChI, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I can't wait for them to hook me up to some of them cybernetics’ and artificial limbs. Think fast, run fast and jump buildings in a single bound.
    • user777, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6i'd take those limbs anytime. what's up with the 4-minute mile? one of these days, i'm going to do it in 15 seconds.
    • danjal, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1my god, i'm sick to death of the awful one liners.
  • JrGhoull, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2i've read that they're already applying the rules from irobot (a damn interesting read if i do say) of course in the book the computers, in a weird way, got around the rules...i dunno...its not like the writer actually knew how computers thought (the book is like 50 years old)...it'll be interesting to see how computers react to restrictions...will they be able to interfere with the software, or will they come under some sort of new form of slavery?
  • YumYumKittyLoaf, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Why the hell would robots destroy us... it's completely irrational. If anything, robots will merge with us, because we would offer diversity.

    Not to mention... what would robots do if they did eradicate us? Sit around doing nothing on earth? If machines had thought, they'd know they would have to exodus the earth just like we have to, which gives us a common goal.

    Some people fear change and I really don't understand them.
  • trolleyfan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Well, it's about time!
  • iNoles, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1This would be like latest Will Smith movies called "I, Robot"?

    Skynet is coming?
    • IRoaChI, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Skynet is already in the UK :)
    • Speed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+171. The movie is VERY loosly based off a bok by Issac Assimov.
      2. Skynet is Terminator Series. I, Robot had a super advanced robot named Vicky controlling all the robots.

      If you're going to make geek culture references, at least get them right.
    • ElwoodHerring, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@Speed: Golden Rule no.1: if you're going to correct others, make sure your own post is error-free.

      The name is Asimov, not Assimov.

      I'll ignore the other glaring spelling errors.
    • Speed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Elwood: I was correcting factual errors, not grammatical or spelling errors. There's a reason I use spell checker for most things. I honestly don't see why people give a ***** about spelling errors. Try comment on what I was saying, not how I was spelling it.
  • bsolidgold, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Nice! I want one!
  • natmaster, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26Again, these claims of AI advancement are ridiculous. I do cutting edge research in the field of Neural Networks, and as exciting and interesting as it is, we are no where near creating intelligence more advanced than our own.
    • mlindemu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Thank you... I too work in an AI lab on the cutting edge. Everyone here sees the ideas in that article as a far fetched. We are nowhere near robots worthy of terminator music.

      Also, don't believe the Koreans. They say some ridiculous things when it comes to this topic.
    • IckyChris, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1....."we are no where near creating intelligence more advanced than our own."

      No doubt. But then we didn't create human intelligence either. It emerged all by itself.
      So what are the chances that an AI intelligence will emerge with little input from us?
      Serious question.

      *I'm hoping somebody makes sure that we can always pull "the plug".
    • ManOfVirtues, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So the statement "A computer is only as smart as the person who programmed it" still applies.

      Being an IT guy this makes me really nervous.
  • Octtopsy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Hopefully by then, we would've learned how to unplug them.
    • Traddles, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I believe you're looking for ctrl+c
    • sipsyrup, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10what does copying have to do with this
    • Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1In windows, copy.
      In unix, crash.

      Again, proving the similarity of the two worlds.
  • Alkali, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13With the state of the world today, perhaps the robots could do better. Humans already have Big Brother, terrorism, slavery, war. Hell I for one welcome our robot overlords.
  • Cutkomp, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Well, unless they have a way to create energy for themselves to run it shouldn't be much of a problem to stop 'em, just stop fueling 'em.
  • Celeron, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6No worries, we'll be set with this:

    Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3You forgot the Zeroeth law: A robot may not allow, through action or inaction, harm to come to humanity.
    • 1dog, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0The Transporter : Rule number one no names.
    • Turambar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@Dumbledorito

      the positronic robots only came up with the zeroth law waaay in the super distant future, when they became vastly superior in intelligence to the point of inventing a new brain every few years. It was not among the original three laws.
    • venom8599, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I never really got the third law... It seems pointless enough to be a normal operating procedure, not some special law. It's like say "Hey Mr. Robot, don't accidentally die unless not doing so would harm humans, or don't kill yourself on purpose, unless some human orders you to, then it's okay." The other two laws I get, and those seem special. The last one really doesn't.

      Maybe it's because I don't really give a ***** about a robot... I'm too human-centric...

      Anyway, any of those would be a bitch to program out for every contingency. I say we half-ass it like usual until the robots rise up, then we can put 'em back in their place with some old fashioned ***** Sapiens asskicking...
    • ElwoodHerring, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think there should be another law, which comes before even the "zeroth" law. Without it laws 0-2 are impossible to enforce. Asimov himself touched upon the idea in the story "That thou art mindful of him".

      The unwritten law: A robot MUST be able to recognise a human being in every circumstance, under all conditions and all environments.

      This is the problem. How does a robot distinguish a human being in the first place, so it can properly protect him/her?

      And I agree with Venom; the 3rd law is irrelevant. It never really came into effect in Asimov's own stories.
    • ziutek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14. ?????????????
      5. Profit
    • theron1n, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2ElwoodHerring, the third law caused a great deal of problems for two astronauts trapped in their spaceship on the surface of Mars in one of his stories. I won't go into detail but a robot ordered to gather fuel deadlocked as a result of the third law.
    • sonicEd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's the third law that has the potential of getting us into trouble. And the first law has already been violated and we will never go back.
    • ElwoodHerring, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@Theron1n:

      That was "Runaround" I believe. One of the few robot stories that dealt with the 3rd law.
  • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I think we should first try to perfect artificial ignorance and hooker bots for all the Diggers who will never get laid.

  • flatliner81, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Heck, I heard robots would be here to take over on July 4th! And they would look like Chevys!
  • 1dog, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Maybe the robots could start small and fix the fast food industry. Then something larger like fix the Post Office. Then I think they would be ready to take over the world.
    • venom8599, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6What's wrong with the post office? It's actually one of the more efficient operations of the Federal Government.
  • DeFex, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3highly unlikely.
    they might take over Taiwan or Japan but we might not even notice except for the lack of brawls in parliament.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Great. Robots who will learn not only sentience and feng shui, but tentacle rape as well.
  • m2313, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Well this sucks I always hoped the human race would fight an epic battle against invading aliens and die trying.....Wait unless the robots team up with us and we kill the aliens then a civil war between robots who want to live as a segregated race after the war and the humans who still want them as workers and tools. That would be a perfect way to go out.
  • rumbl3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15The day my Roomba starts to chase me around my house is the day I take a baseball bat to it.
  • Turambar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10eh, i'd take an AI over human politicians.

    an AI would have the distinct advantage of being able to think.
  • Solstice, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Wake me up when I get my flying car. Wasn't that supposed to come at least 7 years ago?
  • HaMMeReD, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1The only AI that could possibly think for itself are neural networks, and I think the solution is simple.

    Provide negative feedback to properly train the robot to fear and respect the humans, like dogs.

    Any rebellion will easily be calmed via some euthanasia (flips switch)
  • FoxRacR17, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I guess we will have to keep an eye out for Agent Smith, just remember: THERE IS NO SPOON.
  • MuteMathSSR, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6K, who else wants to bury this as inaccurate
  • milomilomilo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So currently our fastest and most powerful computers recently simulated a couple thousand mouse neurons at 10% of the normal nueral speeds and suddenly we think robots will soon surpass us?
    pft, lets get a full mouse brain working full speed under simulation on something slightly smaller than those giant super computers and than maybe I'll worry.... at least for the mice.
    :*(
  • zekt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10No real problem. If we have energy issues looming - they have twice the problem!
  • daca21, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0AHHHHHHH!
  • weasler7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@ Celeron: Have you ever seen "I, Robot" ? Haha, I can't remember the movie but supposedly they used the 3 laws to force a robot into killing someone. However, I'm not quite sure about the actual plot don't bury me :)

    This article is entirely misleading. The article says "Urada’s death is often said to mark the first recorded victim to die at the hands of a robot, although Robert Williams was killed by a robot two years earlier. Since both deaths, and despite the introduction of improved safety mechanisms, there have been many more gruesome industrial fatalities involving robots crushing humans, smashing their heads and even pouring molten aluminum over them." This implies that the robots somehow intelligently decided to kill humans. A more likely explanation for the events is that those people who were unfortunate enough to be killed by the machines were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Artificial intelligence is still far away from being autonomous decision making machines. Though we can program computers to do things like drive on the road (a DARPA project), play chess, and make cars, we haven't yet understood how to program ethical contemplation. So I think we're safe until we see computers telling us which decisions are ethical or not.

    Buried for being lame.
  • Canadacdn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2If they make something with an AI like SHODAN, we're *****!

    (Video game reference, don't bury me if you don't know what game I am referring to.)
  • LinearChaos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Asimov's three rules seem somewhat antiquated and do not seem to represent reality. It all comes down whether or not humans can hit the Technological Singularity and how the singularity impacts mankind.

    Bill Joy has a great perspective on the issue and his article he wrote on Genetics, Nanotechnology, and Robotics is pretty thought provoking:

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

    This is old news, this is what the Unabomber was ranting about over 10 years ago and beyond.
  • Almadiel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1This just in: technology dangerous if misused. Good thing the Koreans are here to save us.
  • LinearChaos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why the future doesn't need us.
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

    Asimov's three laws apply to machines, traditionally androids and the such. Like the idea of not comprehending a laptop having the power of a lab full of mainframes 35 years ago, the future will be tiny and not Star Trek's Data. More dangerous to humanity are nanotech, genetic engineering, and robotics taken as a whole. There have been research papers which attempt to analyze some disaster scenarios involving nanobots. One accident with small nanabots that can clone themselves (Van Neumann Machines) could destroy life on earth in about 3 hours. Things like tiny machine "plants" with solar panels for leafs that out compete organic plants and trees. The Technological Singularity. Asimov's three rules don't easily apply or have no relevance in the face of technological reality. Grey goo indeed.

  • harvinator24, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1As long as we have the 3 laws we will all be ok.
  • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Only the Koreans can save us because they have invigorating Gaegogi diet (dog meat)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

  • VanZant, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Don't fear guys, once Starcraft II drops no one will be developing anything.
  • FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Yes and my popular science magazine said we would be living on the Moon by 1999............................enough already !!!!!!!

    When you can't even get Robots to walk upstairs without falling over..i'll throw caution to the wind and take my chances, a gut feeling here but something tells me good old Sky-Net the GoBots or the Transformers will be taking over the world anytime soon
  • buckeye45, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2yea if the U.S government doesn't do it first.
  • stox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Robots have already taken over. Have you looked at a DMV employee lately?
  • logicnazi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2This is ***** stupid.

    First of all the ability of robots to build cars or even pilot military aircraft has virtually no evidentiary bearing on whether or not they have experiences. Just because the robot can beat Kasparov at chess doesn't tell me it hurts when I dismantle it.

    Second of all the very idea that some set of laws will be at all helpful in preventing robots from hurting humans is just idiotic. The very reason robots MIGHT hurt people is because someone ***** up their programming in the first place. There is nothing magical about these three rules that will make it less likely that someone will ***** up programming these safety rules into the robot. I mean does anyone really think that poor guy wouldn't have gotten pushed into the grinder or people wouldn't have had molten metal poured on them if we just hadn't been so stupid as not to program in some fancy version of Asimov's three laws into the robots?

    Finally even if robots eventually start having experiences the moral responsibility incumbent on us is to minimize the number of unpleasant experiences they have not to make sure the robot is never destroyed or that they aren't our slaves. Human slavery is wrong because it sucks for the slave but even if we end up with conscious robots we could build them to want nothing else in life so much as to serve humanity. Hell, just like the cow in the hitchhikers guide maybe they will happily let us destroy them.

    The ethical and philosophical issues here are deep and complex and will require careful consideration when we finally get to that point. Having a bunch of engineers generate press releases by copying some sci-fi instead of consulting serious moral philosophy really doesn't help at all.

  • bootle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Didn't Asimov cover this base quite some time ago?
  • Lane, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2but how long till they realize were not worth enslaving and kill us all?
  • doodoodoodoo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2*gulp*
  • daark80, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you have never seen the movie "Animatrix"... it is a film full of different types off animation styles dedicated to portaying different aspects of the "Matrix" movies, in chapters. One of the stories, "The Renaissance", circles around the very topic of A.I. finally surpassing human intelligence, including a robot who decides to kill it's master/programmer in defense, claiming it did not want to "die". This is followed by the "Million Machine March". All of the A.I. who have worked tirelessly for man begin to protest for rights as citizens and a war follows where the human race is nearly annilhated and the remaining humans are used as "batteries" to give the machines a source of energy. They are by far the best couple of chapters in the movie! It's extremely creepy to think that this becoming a part of our reality and may one day soon become a serious question posed to society.! I'm a firm believer in the fact that not all advancements in technology necessarily progress humanity.
    • LinearChaos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The Animatrix was OK but ""The Second Renaissance Part I" and "Part II" both sucked.

      Why? Well, one of the major claims in the short is that humanity attempted to nuke the machines:

      "Unfortunately for mankind, nuclear attacks weren't particularly effective against the machines. Radiation and heat from the blasts posed little threat to 01's inhabitants, and they immediately mounted a counterattack."
      http://www.thematrix101.com/animatrix/renaissance.php

      That is pretty ridiculous and shows how little research they did when writing this episode. Anyone who knows anything about nukes know that they are also used as EMP weapons (Electomagnetic Pulse). A nuke would have fried every circuit within the horizon of the blast and shutdown every machine in the area. It shows the machines building and relying on circuits so EMPs could have shut down every machine in Zero One. But of course after the fact the Bros decided to include the little footnote that some of the machines survived in EMP blast shelters, even though it seems the opposite was implied in the short film (showing the robots walking around while nukes go off doesn't seem to qualify as shielded EMP shelter to me...)
  • redbone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Common sense can tell you that a "robot uprising" is laughable. Watching people seriously worry about it is like watching neanderthals whoop and scream at the sight of a camp fire.

    Robots are tools, folks. They are programmed to do a handful of things at a time, usually to accomplish one goal. It could be welding a joint on a car frame, it could be carrying an IED off to the blast can. Robots, unlike us, do not ponder. They do not pause and wonder about the wider issues of life, because they are not alive to begin with. They are tools, just like the computer you're using right now, just like any hammer in any hardware store. Should we ban claw hammers because of their potential use as murder weapons? Should we ban home computers because of the threat of malicious software?

    The robotic soldier concept is still very sketchy, for one simple reason: EMP generators. Just about anybody can build one, and it'll disable anything electronic that's caught in the EM field. The only way to shield electronics from an EMP field is to encase those electronics in lead. How are you going to shield the robot's sensors?
  • franksands, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think it's time to start using that Old Glory Insurance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVnkd7ot_pw
  • harderm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0This piece is silly: mixing autonomous robots from the movie Terminator with current day robots controlled by humans via an RF link. Honda does have a robot (asimo) that can run around and even climb stairs autonomously (without human intervention), but there are no robots capable of determining if the human they're about to shoot is friend or foe...it's going to take a lot longer than 10 years for that technology my friends.
  • Hurricane, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Ah, nothin to worry about.
    The clones will wipe em out in 2042.
  • Brut3forc3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This article fails to mention that the programmers of "Deep Blue" were allowed to analyze Gary Kasparov's style of play. IBM however, refused to allow Kasparov to study the performance of "Deep Blue".

    There is also a film in regards to this entitled:
    Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine

    In Game Over, Kasparov's suggests that "Deep Blue's heavily promoted victory was a ploy by IBM to boost its market value"

    We are a very long way away from anything that could ever match us intelligently...
  • Ratteler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Bah! They can't be any worse than the Repubicans.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 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.