View Single Post
  #818  
Old 01-27-2018, 12:08 PM
Tripler is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: JSOTF SDMB, OL-LANL
Posts: 7,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Which how do you care about? You realize that I don't realistically know. There are multiple converging paths. They all lead there. Once we get there the paths we didn't take will probably become feasible.
I care about any "how." There are not multiple converging paths, and the future is infinitely disparate from what we think it is. "They" [the paths] do not necessarily lead there. I'm looking to find your evidence on why you think they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You know, if during the Manhattan project we had decided to go all in on just one of the 3 main methods (calutrons, centrifuge enrichment, plutonium breeding), we'd still have gotten nukes. Slightly sooner, even. And once we had nukes, going back and exploring the other methods would have been a lot easier to justify. In fact, more recently, we found a fourth method.
If we hadn't gone with one or two of the main methods, we would have had two gun devices during the war. The implosion method was already proven by mathematics, but not supplied by material. Little Boy and Thin Man would have been our devices for decades until we had Plutionium production online.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Right now the method that to me feels the most valid is we work on lower level systems than machine sentience. We use the shit we've already demoed and adapt it to run robots that do just limited scope tasks. Pick this weed, pick up that can, restock those shelves, pickup that rock, drill that ore vein, install that gear, drive that car.

Each task is something in the physical world that humans are currently doing. It's something where there is a correct answer, every time. It's a task you can break into smaller substeps. Where you can clearly define rules for doing the task "better". (finishing the task without dropping something and faster and without hitting the robot arm against something all make your solution better)

And it's a significant fraction of all jobs on Earth.
A "feel" statement is an opinion, and is indefensible/inarguable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Once we get all that working real smooth, we get robots that blow past human ability at doing these defined tasks (they aren't just more physically capable and tireless, I expect them to be smarter. They'll find ways to do these tasks that use less motions and take less time and make less errors than a human would, even without their actuators being better) we can push it further.

Make intelligence systems that use predictive models of physical reality generated from the collective experiences of millions of robots. What I mean is that if you stick any collection of random physical objects that any of the robots in the pool have experience with in front of this new system, it'll be able to predict what will happen if you manipulate them.
How do you make intelligence systems use this method? I understand your ends, but with what ways and means do you intend to affect this change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
It'll know from experience that the red rubber ball will bounce and by how much. That the chip bag will crumple and how. That the gear edges are sharp and can do damage to the robot's own wiring and hydraulic lines.

And then if you ask it to accomplish a task that requires building a rube goldberg machine, and write some additional task solver modules, it'll be able to do it. Not all on it's own, humans wrote the extra software to do it, but humans taking advantage of the existing knowledge and ability the machine pool has. I think you could iterate that way until you crack things like full machine self replication and you could probably crack nanotechnology the same way.
The information given to the machine is only as good as the person giving that information. GIGO. Your ideal machines are prone to hacking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Even non-sentient agents could predict how some carbon atoms are likely to move along a surface in a vacuum chamber when dragged around by atomic force microscope probes.
Cite?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Advanced agents could plan a sequence of steps to move the atoms to form some assembly. Really advanced agents could design an assembly that accomplishes a goal.

You could eventually bootstrap your way up to agents that design for you whole nanoscale assembly lines and armies of nanoscale robotic waldos, and eventually achieve self replication. (note that this is NOT what we think of as sci fi nanobots. It's these big flat plates that are very fragile and covered with I/O ports. The machinery lives in a vacuum chamber and can never see pressure or even visible light without being destroyed. There's a maze of plumbing supplying various gases to the ports. It sucks a lot of power and there's a huge flow of coolant going in and our. The products are either a fine powder or more flat plates.)

I don't know how to go from this to what we think of as full sentience. I'm not really worried about it, I think what I have described is already way beyond human ability in many areas, and I think you would be able to build various "meta" modules that self-optimize other AIs, analyze human speech, and one day you'd reach a critical mass of complexity and self-improvement loops that gives you the AI we've wanted this entire time.
I'm sorry but if you don't know how we get from "A" to "B", then your argument is moot; you're just postulating a utopian society without any evidence to back it up.

Tripler
Open ears.