How Robots Will Steal Your Job  
Author Message
Airy R Bean





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 0:14:00 Top

java-programmer, How Robots Will Steal Your Job Humour. Lost on you?

CyberLegend aka Jure Sah <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> Airy R Bean wrote:
> > Are owls more intelligent than chickens?
> > Have you ever seen a shop selling Kentucky Fried Owl?
> As a mater of fact I have never seen a shop selling Kentucky Fried
> Chicken. I don't live in the USA.
> It would be curious to know what your point was tho.



 
Airy R Bean





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 0:14:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Humour. Lost on you?

CyberLegend aka Jure Sah <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> Airy R Bean wrote:
> > Are owls more intelligent than chickens?
> > Have you ever seen a shop selling Kentucky Fried Owl?
> As a mater of fact I have never seen a shop selling Kentucky Fried
> Chicken. I don't live in the USA.
> It would be curious to know what your point was tho.



 
softeng3456





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 2:21:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job "R. Steve Walz" <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...
> Roedy Green wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:42:57 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna
> > <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted :
> >
> > >I'm pretty convinced that insects are about as conscious as some
> > >machines.
> >
> > If consciousness is a quantum phenomenon,
> ----------
> A fallacious notion from the world of NON-physicists.
>
> -Steve

If you take out the "NON-" part, the quote is accurate.
The "consciousness" connotations in Quantum Physics go all
the way back to master politician Bohr in Copenhagen.
 
 
softeng3456





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 2:28:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Programmer Dude <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...

> Indeed. I don't assume mechanical sentience is possible. It may
> well be--and if it is, someday we'll find that out--but my opinion
> right now is that it may not be.

Of course not. Why would a machine need "sentience", a concept
carefully formulated for the purpose of justifying (i.e. satisfying
internal psychological inconsistencies involved in) the killing
and eating of animals?
 
 
bcd





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 4:49:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job In article <email***@***.com>,
>
>I would say due to the point evolution makes: We've all been evolving
>for the same amount of time, humans cannot be said to be in any way
>supperior to dogs.

Evolution doesn't guarantee that two different species achieve the
same "adapted"ness within the same amount of time. Evolution tends
towards local maxima and we may very well have hit upon a better local
maximum than what dogs have.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - email***@***.com - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
 
 
bcd





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 4:52:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job In article <email***@***.com>,
soft-eng <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>Of course not. Why would a machine need "sentience", a concept
>carefully formulated for the purpose of justifying (i.e. satisfying
>internal psychological inconsistencies involved in) the killing
>and eating of animals?

I doubt we need any excuse at all for eating things (I certainly
don't). The theory of sentience sounds a lot more like something we
could use to _avoid_ eating some things if we find out they're
sentient.

And I expect a lot of people would still need a good bit of
convincing.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - email***@***.com - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
 
 
R. Steve Walz





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 12:37:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Roedy Green wrote:
>
> On 28 Aug 2003 20:27:40 -0700, email***@***.com (James A. Donald)
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >Biological systems have been selected for robustness, but when
> >we try to design for robustness, it is difficult.
>
> There is a guy who builds little robots, using biological principles.
> He discovered they use far less electronics, and when they fail, they
> fail gracefully, gradually losing capability, rather than coming to a
> dead stop the way most computer programs do.
> Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
---------------
You're blathering about Mark Tilden, and he has dug himself into a
hole at Los Alamos and can't get out. He has been fooling the govt
into believing he has been doing groudbreaking work when he is
actually revisiting 70 year old patents for pinball machine circuits.

He propagates the myth that little robot toys which have a few simple
emergent properties, and which include random RC timing loop circuits,
are somehow transcendant of processor technology, and that's been
shown to be dead-end crap. I think he is now being investigated by
the OMB.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz email***@***.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
 
R. Steve Walz





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 12:56:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job soft-eng wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...
> > Roedy Green wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:42:57 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna
> > > <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted :
> > >
> > > >I'm pretty convinced that insects are about as conscious as some
> > > >machines.
> > >
> > > If consciousness is a quantum phenomenon,
> > ----------
> > A fallacious notion from the world of NON-physicists.
> >
> > -Steve
>
> If you take out the "NON-" part, the quote is accurate.
> The "consciousness" connotations in Quantum Physics go all
> the way back to master politician Bohr in Copenhagen.
-----------------
It was blather when he said it, (probably drunk), and it's blather now.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz email***@***.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
 
R. Steve Walz





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 12:57:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job soft-eng wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<email***@***.com>...
> > Roedy Green wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:42:57 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna
> > > <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted :
> > >
> > > >I'm pretty convinced that insects are about as conscious as some
> > > >machines.
> > >
> > > If consciousness is a quantum phenomenon,
> > ----------
> > A fallacious notion from the world of NON-physicists.
> >
> > -Steve
>
> If you take out the "NON-" part, the quote is accurate.
-----------
Nope, I know better, I "are" one.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz email***@***.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
 
R. Steve Walz





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 13:09:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Roedy Green wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:37:17 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <email***@***.com>
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >You're blathering about Mark Tilden,
>
> The guy I am referring to made no such elaborate claims, at least not
> in the clip I saw of his little beasts. It would have been on some
> video I got at the library. Sorry I can't be more specific.
> --
> Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
-----------
I have all such videos, he's the only one with that side-show.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz email***@***.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
 
R. Steve Walz





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 13:55:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Bent C Dalager wrote:
>
> In article <email***@***.com>,
> R. Steve Walz <email***@***.com> wrote:
> >That's not up to us, we developed speech BECAUSE we were intelligent!
> >They must do so also.
>
> A lot of animals communicate with one another. None of them have come
> up with a cross-species language (that we know), but then, neither
> have we.
>
> Your criteria for accepting something not human as being intelligent
> is that it should be a lot more intelligent than we are to even be
> considered?
>
> Cheers
> Bent D
> --
> Bent Dalager - email***@***.com - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
> powered by emacs
--------------------------
Only a chipmunk only speaks chipmunk. Humans can speak anything that
matters. They need only learn, but they can't learn chipmunk because
it doesn't say anything they don't already know.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz email***@***.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
 
Corey Murtagh





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 15:19:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job R. Steve Walz wrote:
> Bent C Dalager wrote:
>
>>In article <email***@***.com>,
>>R. Steve Walz <email***@***.com> wrote:
>>
>>>That's not up to us, we developed speech BECAUSE we were intelligent!
>>>They must do so also.
>>
>>A lot of animals communicate with one another. None of them have come
>>up with a cross-species language (that we know), but then, neither
>>have we.
>>
>>Your criteria for accepting something not human as being intelligent
>>is that it should be a lot more intelligent than we are to even be
>>considered?
>>
>>Cheers
>> Bent D
>>--
>>Bent Dalager - email***@***.com - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
>> powered by emacs
> --------------------------
> Only a chipmunk only speaks chipmunk. Humans can speak anything that
> matters. They need only learn, but they can't learn chipmunk because
> it doesn't say anything they don't already know.

This is a totally humanocentric pile of bullshit, not to mention being
logically invalid. Humans can speak a handful of languages, most of
which are related to one of about 5 or 6 roots. Learning a new language
requires assistance from someone who knows the other language, and
preferably knows yours as well. It takes a /very/ long time for two
people with no common language between them to learn each other's language.

Several years ago, during the height of the space craze, a number of
attempts were made to create a system to initiate communication with an
intelligent creature with no familiar language. Lots of linguists
devoted insane amounts of effort, and they eventually came up with a
system that all agreed was very good. Until they tested it. The test
subjects had no common root languages with the testers, were judged to
be of high intelligence, and yet several weeks passed without a single
advancement in communication. From memory the whole project was dropped
at that point, since if it couldn't be used to communicate with an
intelligent subject who was so similar to the testers in every respect
other than language, then what hope did the system have of working with
an intelligent being with a potentially /very/ different mental structure?

But then from what you've already said, if it can't come and make itself
intelligible to /us/, then you don't class it as intelligent.

All you've proved so far is that you mind is more closed than Fort Knox.

--
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

 
 
R. Steve Walz





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 16:03:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job CyberLegend aka Jure Sah wrote:
>
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
> > > > We are here and know we are here, and animals don't.
> > >
> > > Hmm. Interesting assertion, but you'll need to do more than just state
> > > an opinion as if it were fact. Can you communicate with animals?
> > ------------------
> > We're in charge
>
> Better: You THINK you're in charge. Most social animals still devolop
> their normal society within the human oppression, what I laugh at most
> however, is a human calling him self the leader of a pack of dogs that
> he claims possesion of.
-------------
Then we eat the dogs and make you the fool.


> > and kill them. If they were intelligence they would:
> > 1) resent that, 2) try to convince us not to eat them. They don't.
>
> Basicaly, if you take your dog, with whom you've spent your entire life
> and inflict a wound on him that will not be directly leathal, the resent
> will be noticed. And if you do that in a pack of dogs, the other
> membmers will assure you they realise what you have done (if it's not
> the Alpha you've killed).
-------------------
They will kill each other trying to get away, or take over as alpha.


> BTW, personaly, I don't belive pray animals deserve to be called
> particulary intelligent tho. But then again, humans ARE pray animals.
------------------
Were, that was a LONG time ago.


> > > Assuming you could communicate with an animal, and that it fully
> > > understood the question, exactly how would it answer "Do you exist?"
> > ------------------
> > It need not know the word yes, but:
> > It would have to be obviously frantic to inform us, knowing what we
> > might do since we are in control, and then make every effort to
> > symbolically communicate. If it can't, then it doesn't exist. Symbols
> > are part and parcel of what we mean by awareness. In other words it
> > better take up a stick and start scratching in the dirt and making
> > sense.
>
> Hmm. When I look at a dog and the dog looks back at me and we run allong
> a cupple of meters, keeping a steady distance between the two of us, the
> symbol communication system in my brain generates that magical gut
> feeling that we understand each other, that system signals to the other
> systems in my brain, one of which logicaly conclude that that constant
> checking on eachother and the fact that we are both carefully keeping a
> constant maximum range between us must mean that we both exist.
---------------------
That dog's advanced existence, and your own, is all in your mind.


> Natural leanguage is equaly extrasensioary.
---------------------
You mean imaginary.


> > > If it understands the question, then it can only answer "Yes."
> > >
> > > What if you were to ask a Frenchman if he existed? If he doesn't speak
> > > English, the chances are he'd say something like "Quoi? Je ne comprend
> > > pas. O?est le th?" So are French people who don't speak English
> > > self-aware or not?
> > -----------------------
> > Disingenuous, they are using symbolic methods.
>
> So are most animals. Are you faceblind or something?
----------------------
Heck no, I like Teddy Bears, myself. I can't stand to hurt them.


> > > Self-awareness of computers is another interesting question. Are they?
> > > If so, are we committing ratiocinicide when we turn them off? How
> > > will we know they are self-aware until they can tell us?
> > --------------------
> > No entity is a being and has a right to life until and unless they
> > are bright enough to demand those rights in a manner that any other
> > such being can understand. That means symbolically.
> >
> > They AREN'T till they make the effort! Nothing IS alive or DESERVES
> > the assumption that it IS alive, until it can demand that it be
> > respected! Until they can do that, they are FOOD!!
>
> So... are you saying every Omega wolf in a given wolfpack is not actualy
> alive?
--------
No, that NONE are. Wolves aren't.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz email***@***.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
 
seebs





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 16:46:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job In article <email***@***.com>,
Airy R Bean <email***@***.com> wrote:
>The people who should, perhaps, "quit it" are those who have
>an alternative agenda about posting styles; an agenda that is
>irrelevant to this NG in particular and to Usenet in general,
>and who try to masquerade their emotional intolerance as
>another cause.

Agreement on posting styles (for instance, the obvious wrongness of
top-posting) is fundamental to usenet. No structure for communication,
no communication.

-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / email***@***.com
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
 
 
bcd





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 17:48:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job In article <3f50642d$0$1098$email***@***.com>,
Seebs <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>Agreement on posting styles (for instance, the obvious wrongness of
>top-posting) is fundamental to usenet. No structure for communication,
>no communication.

As far as I'm concerned, there are two separate Usenets. One in which
participants respect eachother enough to make an effort to make their
posts legible to their readers. And another in which posters couldn't
care less about their readers and so top-post and mass-quote with gay
abandon, leaving it to the readers to decipher the resulting mess. I
only participate in the former and have a highly honed delete-key
reflex to deal with the latter :-)

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - email***@***.com - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
 
 
R. Steve Walz





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 17:57:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Roedy Green wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 05:08:46 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <email***@***.com>
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >> >You're blathering about Mark Tilden,
>
> blather means "loquacious nonsense"
------------
Yes, and?


> I think my report was accurate, even if you discredit the guy's work.
------------
Many do.


> I do run on often, but I think I described that succinctly.
-------------
Sure, but you repeated his own lies.


> Are you aware of the term "gratuitous insult"?
--------------
Oh yes, I like giving them very much.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz email***@***.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
 
Chris Uppal





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 17:59:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Bent C Dalager wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned, there are two separate Usenets[...]

Nicely put.

-- chris


 
 
R. Steve Walz





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 18:10:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Roedy Green wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:32:26 -0500, Programmer Dude
> <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted :
>
> >> There should be a discontinuity in anatomy.
>
> there IS a discontinuity in anatomy.
>
> The human brain is made of three parts, sometimes called the
> reptitilian brain, the mammalian brain and the rational brain.
>
> Reptiles have only the reptilian part. It deals with basic survival
> like respiration and eating.
>
> Mammals have the reptilian part and the mammalian part. One thing the
> mammalian brain handles is emotions.
>
> Then there is the rational brain that handles things like deductive
> reasoning.
>
> Some psychological troubles can be traced to the imperfect integration
> of the three. They can be at odds.
>
> If you use that is your discrimination of value or intelligence, you
> run in to a problem. Elephants and whales have much larger rational
> brains that humans do.
>
> Those tarred with religious-induced species chauvinism argue their
> larger brains do not count because these animals have bigger bodies.
>
> This is invalid on three grounds.
>
> 1. Whales have no more complex musculature than humans.
>
> 2. the fine control of musculature is not done by the rational brain.
>
> 3. brontosauri managed to control humongous bodies with brains smaller
> than a walnut.
> Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
------------
All that is nice, but where are their efforts to communicate?
Where are their artifices.
If we can kill them, they can't be brighter than we are, that
would be stupid by definition.

Brain weight is not as important as brain structure.
Who says the cortex has to be used for deduction, it may only be
needed for spatial interpretation of sound in cetaceans?

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz email***@***.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
 
R. Steve Walz





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 18:12:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Roedy Green wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:49:00 GMT, Roedy Green <email***@***.com>
> wrote or quoted :
>
> >I see similar arguments put forward why animals can't be intelligent
> >or can't be conscious.
>
> I think what we mean by conscious is "does this creature suffer?".
>
> We assume that a computer churning away for hours seeking a solution
> to some problem does not experience frustration.
------------
Give us a break!


> It is really then an ethical question. Which creatures is it
> permissible to frustrate or kill? Or just how big a sin is it to do
> so?
>
> It is likely silly to go to great inconvenience to care for one of
> those Sony mechanical dogs. There is likely nothing home inside.
> However, it appears to me there is likely something inside a real dog
> quite capable of suffering if it is mistreated.
>
> An ethical view might be the idea is to minimize the total suffering
> in the universe, with differing notions as to how pain should be
> shared.
-------------------
No "universe" suffers.


> The crazy thing that seems to be about to happen is computers take
> over, and change the world in some way, yet not actually enjoy in any
> sense the fruits of their labours. All we humans could be gone and
> this empty shell of a culture keeps running propelled solely by the
> notion of natural selection. Without some consciousness to enjoy the
> show, what point in producing it?
-------------------
Ain't any, that's why we're here, so IT is.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz email***@***.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
 
Hans-Georg Michna





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 20:33:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Roedy Green <email***@***.com> wrote:

>My Oxford defines sentient as having the power to perceive via the
>senses. This suggest only animals could be sentient. Perception by
>other means does not count.

Roedy,

that makes my robotic lawn mower sentient, because it has a
sense of touch. :-)

I would rethink that definition.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
 
 
Hans-Georg Michna





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 20:33:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Roedy Green <email***@***.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:49:00 GMT, Roedy Green <email***@***.com>
>wrote or quoted :

>>I see similar arguments put forward why animals can't be intelligent
>>or can't be conscious.

>I think what we mean by conscious is "does this creature suffer?".

Roedy,

this leads us not very far, because the word suffer is again
very poorly defined.

For example, an insect apparently suffers when subjected to
damaging forces or heat. But you could build a robot that acts
exactly like the insect, and we could probably today build a
robot that has the same brain and nerve functional structure
with respect to suffering. In other words, such a robot would
suffer exactly like an insect---no difference.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
 
 
Corey Murtagh





PostPosted: 2003-8-30 23:29:00 Top

java-programmer >> How Robots Will Steal Your Job Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:32:26 -0500, Programmer Dude
> <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted :
>>
>>>There should be a discontinuity in anatomy.

For crying out loud, Roedy... that was YOUR statement that PD was
replying to. If you're going to respond to something, do so as a
response to the message itself, not some damn quote of it.

Or are you so confused that you don't recognize your own posts?

<snip>
> The human brain is made of three parts, sometimes called the
> reptitilian brain, the mammalian brain and the rational brain.
<snip>
> If you use that is your discrimination of value or intelligence, you
> run in to a problem. Elephants and whales have much larger rational
> brains that humans do.
>
> Those tarred with religious-induced species chauvinism argue their
> larger brains do not count because these animals have bigger bodies.

I really don't think religion is the primary cause of species
chauvinism. IMO ignorance and arrogance are the more prevalent causes.

--
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"