Woo! robotic Immortality Predicted for 2050!
polycounter lvl 18
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/23/brain.download/index.html
If this is true, then I hope when I'm 63 I have enough cash to get me a new kickn' robot body.
Imagine how it would be though? I mean, it would be like owning a computer. Imagine the upgrades? God, I love this kind of stuff!
If this is true, then I hope when I'm 63 I have enough cash to get me a new kickn' robot body.
Imagine how it would be though? I mean, it would be like owning a computer. Imagine the upgrades? God, I love this kind of stuff!
Replies
One scary thought is that this is based on the Cell processor, which is supposed to be able to create huge clusters. Imagine a worldwide cluster of computers as smart as humans! This is f#cking Skynet!
The other scary thought is that this is EXACTLY what started the war in Total Annihilation.
Ah, as long as that means I'll get my android maid within the next twenty years...
PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain
[/ QUOTE ]
And you guys debate whether or not the Killzone trailer is a fake. Hype alert! AGAIN!
My robot body is gona have Jackhammer legs and a fishtank backpack filled with electric piranas that give me unlimited power.
P.S.: In that contxt: Teleportation is also just going to create a perfect copy of you... so I guess comitting suicide just so that a perfect copy can take my place isn't going to happen as long as I can avoid it
P.P.S.:It is btw much more likely that advances in Biotech will bring the breakthrough with immortality, and that would be real immortality (in the sense of 'real' explained above).
Immortality my hair nuts, "I'm sorry Mrs. Johnson but your husband ran out of minutes, don't worry next month is just a few days away!"
and robotic maids and such are actaully predicted to hit the market in 2010.
Though I get what you mean by it just being a copy, which is why for teleporters I'd only go with the ones that dice you into billions of particles and moves you to the desired point.
Though if you were to say, take the organic mass of the brain, modify it with metal plating and such to make it more durable, then place it into a robotic body, then that would be good to go.
Ahem. Also, there are predictions that by 2014 every household would have its own robot.
I'd take nanotech that regenerates your body faster, removes problems your body can't fix and reverses the genetic aging over any robot body. Now THAT would be immortality! And you could even program the nanobots to attack anything that's not you and fling your blood at other people to assimilate them! No armor can stop you, no gun can kill you! Make nanobots that remotely control other people and make them your slaves! BECOME GOD!
Ahem. Also, there are predictions that by 2014 every household would have its own robot.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok so some wacko shoots you in the head with his shotgun and your brains are all over the walls. Now nanobots build you a new brain and you would end up the thing you fear most - your own COPY.
I would take a robot body with my brain suspended inside an armored and shock absorbing canister.
Ok so with all the cyborgs, and the growing population. How would the earth sustain this?
[/ QUOTE ]
It'll all balance out once the great robot wars begin. Time to pick a side.
Robotic Maids: Humans can barely clean up after themselves...I know this as a fact. We don't need machines to provoke our bad habits. Next thing you know we'll have robots that clean us so we don't have to move our arms in the shower.
It's great that we're at a time in technological advancement where these things are possible. But, do we need them? And do we need to let only the rich have them?
Maybe my "penis" will be the nose cone of a f-22 fighter jet. The same f-22 fighter jet I punched with my arm and blew up when it tried to get me.
Elysium: Sounds like the logic some US city (Seattle?) used to ban Segways, "people are already fat enough". But by that logic you shouldn't have a washing machine or a microwave, either. The market will offer what the market buys and if there's demand for android maids there will be android maids. And hell, if she looks as cute as some of the maids in popular animes I'd have her wash me any time.
swampbug: I'd side with ARM. Krogoth or no Krogoth, we got the Vulcan. And the Annihilator.
Noserider: You can be pretty sure about that. Just as all female robots will have vaginas. That's the first thing any scientist builds in.
[ QUOTE ]
"You need a complete global debate," he said. "Whether we should be building machines as smart as people is a really big one."
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahem, yeah, when we actually get to the point where we are able to create a self-aware machine, then we should have that debate.
That's like saying, "we should debate whether being able to deliver pizza by teleportation would be a good idea." Let's wait until we come to that bridge, big guy.
On the other hand, I need to find out how I can become a Futurologist like this guy, and get paid lots of money to recycle ideas from ten-year-old (Snow Crash) and twenty-year-old (Neuromancer) SF novels. THAT would be the sweet life.
/jzero
Two, I'm more interested in having a computer in my head aiding my memory and allowing me to do complex calculations and spell-check at a moments notice.
Plus who needs a digital camera? One of the nice things about this is you could then replace your body as it wore out. It could also pave the way for near-fearless spce exploration as we could send copies of ourselves to far off reaches of the galaxy or just send empty shells and beam your brain over when your other body safely arrives.
Not that there are zero concerns like some asshole cracking your brain and killing you but I've got a frying pan that can do the same thing without an isp or wi-fi and hell I could also just strangle you with my network cable... But the possible gains are great and the downside can be dealt with. I'd be willing to be among one of the first wave of test subjects, my only fear is that once free of reprecussions my copy would go tourettes on me and start airing my dirty laundry laugh and start rapidly duplicating itself across the network...
It could also pave the way for near-fearless spce exploration as we could send copies of ourselves to far off reaches of the galaxy
Or we could just build robots in first place and do that without violating someone's personality rights.
Come to think of it, if we had humanlike robot bodies, who would have the right to look like you? A whole new area for IP lawyers to explore!
Anyone could look like anyone else thus creating a need for a way to verify the identy of someone that is tied to the brain, easy.
said to myself "Somebody ready Neuromancer eh?"
then I realized that concept has been done a bajillion times.
BTW: Do they still publish Omni?
Toomas: I wonder if that holds true if you modify your brain to be distributed, i.e. it has backups scattered throughout your body which are acrtively part of your brain. I mean, this is pretty much a philosophical discussion so the question is how much one can replace until the "self" leaves the body. Gets a whole lot easier if we assume there to be no persistent self (i.e. you are a new "self" every tick) or no time (which would simplify a LOT of problems).
Elysium: Sounds like the logic some US city (Seattle?) used to ban Segways, "people are already fat enough". But by that logic you shouldn't have a washing machine or a microwave, either. The market will offer what the market buys and if there's demand for android maids there will be android maids. And hell, if she looks as cute as some of the maids in popular animes I'd have her wash me any time.
swampbug: I'd side with ARM. Krogoth or no Krogoth, we got the Vulcan. And the Annihilator.
Noserider: You can be pretty sure about that. Just as all female robots will have vaginas. That's the first thing any scientist builds in.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tru but it raises other questions like, when some part of you falls off, the nanobots will rebuild both you and the part so there will be two of you. How the bots know when to stop? Or when you get blown to pieces then which piece is the one that should be rebuilt (assuming the bots know to only build one of you)?
Weiser: I'd imagine IP law will play a large role here, i.e. you couldn't look like some copyrighted character and from there on you could expand, i.e. no existing people, no designs other people chose already, etc.
Also, this would open a HUGE opportunity for terrorists unless you want to place a security checkpoint every fifty metres or something, make them look like an employee (perhaps even fake their bio data), stuff the body full of explosives (probably as large as a fission warhead, you have more space to work with since you can remove some things like the metabolic system, if there is such a thing), get into the building and BOOOM! Think T-800 that looks like someone you know.
Not everyone will want to be converted, especially religious people will not agree so you can't just assume everybody is a cyborg. Sure, you could give them the choice to get assimilated or die but in that case I'd DEFINITELY side with the ARM.
Again I'd imagine in the future security is going to rely on a lot more than how you look, it already does I can walk into almost any place I want as long as I look like I belong there no one will bat a lash at me. At the pentagon or more sensitive locations? Probably not.
Warhead? Yeah right. you wouldn't need be within ten miles to take a place out with wmd's. You'd want to truely secure the border to prevent that and watch that no one gets their hands on fissionable material. Add a few detectors across the city and you can assure relative security. A better solution to nuclear terrorist is to wipe them out, but that's another disscusion(an let's not let my volatile veiwes derail this conversation). Let's just say I think it's better to confront the future than to hide from it.
I agree that not everyone will want to be converted, but they can go live with the amish for all I care. Assimalation is too harsh a term, I see it as a natural evolution. SUre the media might scare a few people with wild made up stories about cyber-orgies and other exploites of our sinister cybog overlords. but given enough time(and maybe a stock bubble) it'll become as banal as the interweb.
yeah sure just like we were all supposed to have jetpacks and be living in sky cities by the year 2000.
[/ QUOTE ]
...i have a jetpack...
ps
flying car
Get ready for old men maiming people in midair...
Murphy: "Well, could my robot be a- heh, beautiful woman?"
Sparks: "Uh, yeah. Sure."
Murphy: "Then you'd better believe I'd put my brain in a robot's body!"
I'd take nanotech that regenerates your body faster, removes problems your body can't fix and reverses the genetic aging over any robot body. Now THAT would be immortality! And you could even program the nanobots to attack anything that's not you and fling your blood at other people to assimilate them! No armor can stop you, no gun can kill you! Make nanobots that remotely control other people and make them your slaves! BECOME GOD!
Ahem. Also, there are predictions that by 2014 every household would have its own robot.
[/ QUOTE ]
hahaha.. i cant wait to let my girlfriend read this.. she is a nano scientist.. she always gets a kick of what people think "nanobots" are.. they are not really robots at all.. but organic polomers and such that can be made to do very simplistic tasks.. like a switch .. not programmable deathbots or little robotic insects.. where do people come up with this stuff???
i would never do that crap either.. if there came a time where people could download themselves into some giant network i would let them.. i can just image all the looney peta tree huggin vegan nazi foodnotbombs hippie punk anarchist sheep going and blowing the whole thing up cause its not humane... and by that time we would of already ate all the animals and killed all the trees so they would have nothing else to do.. hope you guys have fun in your virtual funeral..
Science fiction and ants then to color the expectations people have about micromachines. Sure right now they are just little, useless motors but there's potential there. A way to defend against acid is to sloth off areas affected before the acid does more damage. I wonder if people would have access to better defenses than this since there are military applications.
Well, acid doesn't require a lot of programming to take apart pretty much any material, a macromolecule that splits certain common atom groups (e.g. one that can split many kinds of carbon-carbon connections) and regroups them to form copies of itself would be rather nasty. Or a set of macromolecules, if you want. Single celled organisms can do that, I'm sure there would be some ways of further reducing the size of such a system.
[/ QUOTE ]
this seems to be everyones "fear" of nanotech.. and its the only thing i heard about the technology before i met my girlfriend and she said its one of the biggest rumors in the field.. here is a metaphor correctly discribing the self replicating systems and why this could never really happen...
"I think one of the fundamental things which is not understood at this point is that artificial replicating systems, manufacturing systems, are going to bear about as much resemblance to the biological variety as, say, a 747 bears to a duck,"
He gave a simple example: When a biological cell replicates, the copy contains the DNA that describes its own blueprints. But these onboard blueprints would be unnecessary in an artificial system, where a human controller could broadcast instructions to the device and tell it to make a copy of itself. It's called a broadcast architecture, something that's well known among those who study self-replicating systems and it's "very nonbiological," Merkle said.
there is also tons of real info on nano technology in this scientists blog
http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_11_02_nanobot_archive.html#106789094846753055
Personally, I've got about as much artificial life extension going on right now as I can handle. I wouldn't want to extend my life artificially into a world so messed-up that robotic immortality would be available. Count me and my 'Right to Death' movement out of that.
Actually, it would be cool to see a film about the ultimate futility and unforeseen failure of robotic life-extension. Rickety cyborgs wandering around, forlorn in their constant need for spare parts that their insurance plans won't cover; pitiful bot-men losing cohesion in their neural nets, only half-remembering who they are. The 'Alzheimer Series' of biomechanical failures consigned to life as dazed 24-hour Wal-Mart greeters... They can't die, and it's illegal to kill them, so they just waste away, one diode at a time. Ahh, the future! So unforseeably dirty.
/jzero
Awesome! No NOW is the time to start building your robot body so it'll be done by 2050...at least the titanium or carbon chassis. I'll take 4 arms and hocks like AlphaWOLF's wolf pls.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nice one, General Grievous...
Scott
The traditional sense of limitation is a limitation that exists and stops you, e.g. some circuit that shuts the bot down should it attempt to kill a human, of course he would desire to overcome that since it is an artificial limitation. Would you program a robot in a way that forces him to obey against his will? No, you'd make him not desire what you don't want him to do. If you don't want your robot to kill, you make him not want to kill humans, you might even make him want to protect humans. Control begins at the will, when you control their will you control everything. Therefore it's kinda hard to say whether a robot is self-aware since there are no set limitations from its point of view, just as a human doesn't perceive his programming as a limitation but rather his "own choice". The robot isn't forced to be productive, he WANTS to be productive. The human isn't forced to have sex, he desires it (unless he's malfunctioning).
Therefore it's kinda hard to say what is self-aware and why humans are it.