Slashdot Log In
Robots that Lust and Reproduce
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Feb 02, 2005 06:47 PM
from the sweet-robot-loving dept.
from the sweet-robot-loving dept.
redcone writes "The Guardian unlimited is reporting that Korean roboticist Kim Jong-Hwan, who founded the robot football (soccer) World Cup, and is the director of the ITRC-Intelligent Robot Research Centre, has developed a series of artificial chromosomes that, he says, will allow robots to feel lusty, and could eventually lead to them reproducing."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sound-Proofing (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, what is the incentive for robots to reproduce? If they're so smart, they would've realized that they can simply upgrade or replace parts. They might enjoying sexing, but certainly not reproducing.
Re:Sound-Proofing (Score:4, Insightful)
For them to enjoy something they'd have to experience it and therefore have a consciousness.
This professor is very mistaken when he says they will experience lust. Unless you define "lust" as "programmed tendency to move towards another robot and interface to it" or something.
The most that this can do is to program sets of behavior probabilities. It won't by any means cause robots to suddenly become conscious beings.
Parent
Re:Sound-Proofing (Score:3, Informative)
Whether or not we'd be happy to say a robot could experience it, depends to some extent on whether you look at it from a top-down, or bottom-up perspective..
Re:Sound-Proofing (Score:3, Interesting)
He says the software, which will be installed in a robot within the next three months, will give the machines the ability to feel, reason and desire.
Kim says this software is modelled on human DNA, though equivalent to a single strand of genetic code rather than the complex double helix of a real chromosome.
Based on that, it is apparent that this guy is talking about some kind of very primitive AI with a simple level of sentience, based on a genetic algorithm. If this guy isn
We don't know (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not that we can't "re-create it". In fact we might have already. The problem is that we can't measure it.
We can't even measure it in each other, because we really don't know of any measurable physical properties that may determine the presence of consciousness. And because we don't know how to measure it, we cannot know if we've already created it. Not you, nor anyone here on slashdot or anywhere else. For all we know, modern silicon-based CPUs already have some (very) dim, glimmering cognitive awareness of sorts. We really do not know. It is completely unfounded for anyone to claim that it has not happened yet (or likewise that it has happened) if we don't even have a clue what it really is or how to measure its existence. Heck, it's so elusive we don't even have a rational definition for it.
We don't know what physical (or otherwise?) properties of the human brain result in sentience. At all. Therefore we cannot predict what physical properties (possibly already present) could give rise to sentience in man-made creations. We have no 'measuring device' to stick in the brain that 'detects' sentience. (Asking "are you sentient" is futile, because the answer to that is computational.)
In fact we probably never will know if our own creations have "consciousness" until we figure out how to measure if other humans have it.
(Unless you are referring to a computational ability to "compute" and consider the "self", but that is not related to consciousness, that is pure computational machinery, just 'nuts and bolts', the mechanics of processing the understanding thereof. This is most likely completely separate to consciousness; any self-diagnostic system is "aware" of itself in that sense, and an advanced one could conceivably answer questions "Do you exist" and "Are you thinking" purely computationally - with or without sentience.)
Parent
Re:We don't know (Score:3, Insightful)
If that is how you believe science operates, you clearly don't know the first thing about science or scientists. I bet you get all your "science" from the National Enquirer and the Discovery Channel.
Oh, really. And when, and by whom, was this demonstrated exactly? Oh I see - you made it up.
Being an ignorant foo
Re:We don't know (Score:3, Insightful)
[Warning: I've had difficulties explaining this concept to people offline, so I apologize if I am unclear below.]
The differenc
Re:We don't know (Score:3, Insightful)
By this definition, anything that can be perceived has a consciousness.
If you can perceive something, that something must somehow interact with its surroundings (you, at the very least). By the law of force and counterforce, if an entity exerts a force on anything (for example, reflects photons) then an equal but opposite counterforce is exerted on the entity. This counterforce will cause a deformatio
Re:Sound-Proofing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sound-Proofing (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Finally, (Score:5, Funny)
More Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
in the current state of Artificial Intelligence research. I think there are more worthy areas of research, like trying to create intelligence that works . ( It all depends on your definition of Intelligence in AI, do you mean mimicking human intelligence or do you mean capturing the principles of "intelligence" and creating devices that are TRULY intelligent )
If we take the latter notion then we need to make greater inroads in creating true intelligence in our devices
This is a bit of rant, its not meant to be, but when evaluating things like this you need to look at what our notions of intelligence really area...
Parent
Re:More Seriously (Score:3, Interesting)
But then again, creating "lust" in an AI might be a bit harder than increasing the value of some evaluation function. But then again, maybe it isn't? If it look
Re:Finally, (Score:3, Funny)
FCC notified (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone think of... (Score:2, Funny)
Cassanova Dishwasher (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cassanova Dishwasher (Score:5, Funny)
2 days later, the leg starts vomitting:
leg: "i think i'm pregnant, i don't want to put you in a bad position. you can be as involved as you want"
dishwasher: "but, but, you used protection! you used RCP, robot control pills"
leg: "i know! i know!
etc... etc...
Parent
Re:Cassanova Dishwasher (Score:5, Funny)
Do you wear a prosthesis?
Parent
Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Great... (Score:4, Funny)
*shudder* Terminator 4: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Patrick and Kristanna Loken Get it on!
Parent
Getting lusty is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Getting lusty is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Getting lusty is one thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
uh, i'm confused, wouldn't it be an A connector that wants to marry another A connector be the controversial issue here?
How long (Score:2, Funny)
Wow.. (Score:3, Funny)
Thus starts.... (Score:5, Funny)
uh, no pun intended.
This has to be said (Score:4, Funny)
Regards,
Cmdr Data
One step closer (Score:4, Insightful)
pretty cruel (Score:5, Funny)
Not that I've ever been in their position, of course. Ahem.
Re:pretty cruel (Score:5, Funny)
Boy are you in the right place.
Parent
His statements were misheard. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah seriously. How is this important?
If the robots need to reproduce they will have to have ways to build other robots. Robots can't use chromozonal mapping for protien creation like animals can. Therefore cromosomes are useless for robots.
Of course the article could have completely misquoted him or misunderstood him, but in that case how is this news?
Mod editor +1 Redundant
I for one (Score:3, Funny)
I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry.
I wish the article had more detail; I'd like to know how this is supposed to work. Is it just the control software that's "reproducing", or are these robots actually constucting copies of themselves?
Robots with emotions is a cool idea in terms of fantasy/sci-fi, but is there a practical reason for it?
What is the morality of having robots do dangerous jobs instead of humans? Kind of ruins the point of building robots in the first place.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
Robot pr0n? (Score:3, Funny)
Think we'll have to wait until robots are 18 years old before they can be pr0n stars? I'm not sure if it's good to see robot todler pr0n. Then again, I guess they can be adults from birth... hmm.
Oh how Congress will have fun debating the legality of robot pr0n.
We already have robots that reproduce... (Score:5, Funny)
Condensed article.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuzzy logic
Genetic algorithms
Control robot behaviour
"Some time in the future"
It's easy to mimic feelings. Making up new ones or the robots evolving new ones though.. That's the tricky one.
Also, cue a hundred or so futurama related jokes. In fact, I'll just hop on the bandwagon;
- If robots don't reproduce - why are they so interested in sex?
- Entirely for the perversion
robots have more fun (Score:3, Funny)
Are human desires appropriate for a machine? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying that emotions shouldn't be pursued for machines however. Emotions are great for giving us a general feeling about our environment, a sort of basic situational awareness. For example, if you had burned yourself previously on a stove you would probably be more wary of it through association with pain than if you had not.
As for reproduction, in my opinion it's a non-issue that's actually more a bit of flamebait. Your kid ask's you where he came from and you'll tell him 'your mom'. A robot will just come from the factory and that's all. It would simply be one of those facts of life that a mind would learn early and just be one more datum within it's set of common knowledge.
Re:Are human desires appropriate for a machine? (Score:3, Funny)
Wow...
I didn't know Mick Jagger had a 5-digit ID on slashdot, or that he was a l33t Python programmer.
Just what I need (Score:4, Funny)
Gives a whole new meaning to.. (Score:3, Funny)
True geeks? (Score:4, Funny)
Robot: I'm horny; I think I'll build a new robot.
Truly horrifying (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not a casual statement. If you believe that the laws of physics are the most fundamental things there are, then the logic is inescapable. You are determined by the laws of physics, chemistry, and neurology. You have no free will. What you think of as thinking is just neurological machinery over which you have no control - it controls you. There is no such thing as love; all there is is chemical machinery. All we are is machines. (The only escape from this logic is if you don't accept the premise - that all there really is is the laws of physics.)
The horror of the modern position is that we cannot accept that we are just machines. We feel that we are more, that humans are not just machines. And so we feel that we are more, but rationally we are driven to view ourselves as just machines.
If this is the modern human's horror, why do we want to take machines, and give them feelings? If it's horrifying to have human feelings, but rationally be forced to accept that you are only a machine, how horrifying is it to have human feelings, but be trapped in the body of a machine?
Note: The above analysis closely follows the thoughts of Francis Schaeffer. I can't claim much credit for it.
Re:Truly horrifying (Score:3, Informative)
If you believe that the laws of physics are the most fundamental things there are, then the logic is inescapable.
Actually, reductionism/determinism at the level of mental phenomena is a hard sell and is hardly as obvious a conclusion as Schaeffer wants it to be. For one, there's plenty of good work going in CogSci about consciousness as an emergent phenomenon without a strictly causal relation underlying physical processes. For another, there are those (i.e., David Chalmers) who argue that consciousnes
Code for the male robot (Score:5, Funny)
while( 1 ) {
lust();
}
return -1;
}
What, no refrence to realdoll yet!? (Score:3, Funny)
This article's been up for an hour and there's been no reference to combining such technology with realdolls [realdoll.com]? /.ers are getting slow...
Kim Jong-Hwan did NOT found RoboCup (Score:4, Informative)
From http://robocup.mi.fu-berlin.de/buch/chap1/HistoryR oboCup.html [fu-berlin.de] :
But there was Korea and researchers there were also active organizing their own robotic league. In September 1995, Jong Hwan Kim started the Micro-Robot World Cup Soccer Tournament (MiroSot). The first MiroSot competition was held in November 1996 in Korea with 23 teams from 10 countries. Mirosot tournaments followed then every year from 1997 to 2002, sometimes in the same country as the RoboCup events, as was the case in 1998 (France) and 2000 (Australia). However, in the MiroSot league only small robots compete, there is nothing similar to the mid-size robots used in RoboCup and there was no legged league until 2002. There is of course a kind of rivalry between MiroSot and RoboCup, each one claiming to be the World Cup on Robotic Soccer, but the RoboCup events have become much larger, are better organized and publicized as the MiroSot tournaments.