An article in today’s New York Times says that a recent development in robotic evolution at Brandeis University “revives concerns that computer scientists could eventually create a robotic species that would supplant biological life, including humans.”
What are the issues here? How likely is a Matrix future? What’s to prevent it? What must we prevent to avoid such a future? Will there be a point beyond which the possible dangers of such advances will begin to outweigh the benefits?
[sub]*NYTimes Online requires registration, but FWIW I registered nearly six years ago with no ill effects: never an email from them, and I gave them a misspelled name and have never seen evidence that they’ve sold it.[/sub]
because you only lose 90% of the energy through eating meat.
The Matrix was saying that the computers had a perpetual motion machine(with humans) and also skimmed off energy of it.
I however don’t think that we will be able to create something better than ourselves. Its like trying to create a perfect being as a imperfect one. Now some might be better in some areas but none will be better overall.
I tried go but I lost every time to the computer… I think… I didn’t actually know the rules.
Suppose I take the DNA from one of my cells, and alter it so that it codes for a human being that is a little bit stronger than me, or a little bit smarter than me, or that ages a little bit more slowly than me. I then create a clone from this modified DNA. I will have created something that is every bit as good as me in every aspect, and is better than me in one aspect. Have I not thus created a being that is better overall?
Well, assuming you could do that, then yes. But you only supposed it. I think intelligence is the real issue. We can already make machines that are stronger and live longer than we do. But we can barely define intelligence, let alone understand the genetic underpinnings and tinker with them in a way that would result in something smarter. Maybe we’ll figure it out. Maybe we won’t. Too soon to tell in my opinion.
Lissener, I read the Bill Joy article in Wired you referenced and didn’t find it nearly as chilling as I had hoped. He poses a bunch of wouldn’t-it-be-ghastly-if scenarios, but he doesn’t provide much evidence that these things are on the immediate horizon. He does point out that the new technologies he’s worried about (robotics, genetics, and nanotech) differ from previous technologies in that they’re self replicating, and I think he’s right in believing there’s a unique danger there. As for trying to hold off the advance of science, Bill H said very eloquently in this similar thread:
I sincerely hope we will be eventually replaced by artificial beings of our creation. Humanity is certainly not the end-all be-all of evolution.
Actually, what I hope is that we become our own more than human descendants. It’s about time we took charge of our own evolution (well, other than sheltering our unfit).
