Slog
News & ArtsThursday, December 1, 2011
Science I Robot
Posted by Charles Mudede on Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:21 AM
A pudgy robot rolls up to a mirror and checks out its reflection. After a few moments of consideration, it reacts: "Oh. This is me. Nice."
Not sure if a robot can actually recognize itself. A robot is not even a living thing. A robot is an imitation of life. It is synthetic. There's more life in a single bacterium than in that pudgy robot.
2
God, I could stand to lose a few kilos.
I won't be consuming that saturated machine oil any more.
[Bad Saturday morning cartoon version.]
I won't be consuming that saturated machine oil any more.
[Bad Saturday morning cartoon version.]
4
"A robot is not even a living thing. A robot is an imitation of life. It is synthetic. There's more life in a single bacterium than in that pudgy robot."
Why? What is life other than a molecular machine?
Why? What is life other than a molecular machine?
5
The Robot did not recognize itself. Its first response was that it did not know what the object was. Only after it was told the object was itself and had recorded it as such did it "recognize" itself.
7
for once I agree with Charles...
In a biomechanical sense life may be a "molecular machine" (if nearly infinitely more complex even at the level of bacteria) but that's the only commonality between a robot and a living thing.
And the didn't really recognize itself, it executed program code put there by a living thing and emulated recognizing itself, i.e. it made noises in a language understood by the living thing that claimed recognition - to the robot itself the statement was entirely without meaning.
In a biomechanical sense life may be a "molecular machine" (if nearly infinitely more complex even at the level of bacteria) but that's the only commonality between a robot and a living thing.
And the didn't really recognize itself, it executed program code put there by a living thing and emulated recognizing itself, i.e. it made noises in a language understood by the living thing that claimed recognition - to the robot itself the statement was entirely without meaning.
9
Perhaps one definition of who we are is who we are not. @ 6 Maybe not, but bacteria easily recongnize their "not selves" by secreting chemical agents antagonistic to other types of bacteria which may threaten their environment.
10
@5, 7 - What do you think the word "recognize" means? The ability for robots to take visual information, process it and make conclusions based on that information is remarkable. When I recognize an object, it's because I have information stored in my brain about what that thing looks like. When I come upon a thing that matches sensory information already encountered, that's when I recognize it.
Hell, even the ability for it to take the phrase "this is you" and reflexively re-conjugate the subject "Let's see how I look" is a linguistic marvel itself.
You know you can't make the robot feel bad by trashing its accomplishments, right? But I swear, if you hurt my Arturo...
Hell, even the ability for it to take the phrase "this is you" and reflexively re-conjugate the subject "Let's see how I look" is a linguistic marvel itself.
You know you can't make the robot feel bad by trashing its accomplishments, right? But I swear, if you hurt my Arturo...
11
@7- You haven't named a difference between a living being an a machine, aside from the level of complexity.
14
I'm sure you're familiar with the Chinese Room paradox, Charles? Nevertheless, ARTURO NEEDS TO COME HOME WITH ME NOW.
15
@11 I am fascinated by the idea that some folks believe there is no difference between a machine (robot) and a living thing. A robot doesn't "care" if you turn it off, or destroy it, etc. A living thing (typically) most certainly does care if you turn it off (kill it). A living thing has a sense of itself, self consciousness, that a machine lacks (or only emulates through programming).
I just can't take seriously the idea that a set of circuits which are entirely told what to do by the programmer and made of inanimate matter is equivalent to a living organism. I do accept that much of what we as humans consider as unique to living things is essentially nature-provided "programming" but that doesn't (for me) allow for the leap to any sort of equivalence. A machine is not conscious as a living thing is, it only appears to be.
I am not disparaging the views of others when I say believing a "robot" is like a living thing is just as implausible as believing in any form of god. Life is an accident of the universe, but it is unique from inanimate things in a fundamental way - it is self conscious and it values it's own existent inherently. It evolves and procreates. Yes, you can I suppose, build a machine that builds copies of itself - but that's only a more complex set of instructions given by the human, that is at base just a set of instructions, like a toaster that heats bread until crispy when you push the lever down
For the record, I believe bacteria, plants, et al., are "conscious" but at levels different from humans, apes, dogs, etc. They react to their environment based on sensing it, they act to self preserve, and so on.
I just can't take seriously the idea that a set of circuits which are entirely told what to do by the programmer and made of inanimate matter is equivalent to a living organism. I do accept that much of what we as humans consider as unique to living things is essentially nature-provided "programming" but that doesn't (for me) allow for the leap to any sort of equivalence. A machine is not conscious as a living thing is, it only appears to be.
I am not disparaging the views of others when I say believing a "robot" is like a living thing is just as implausible as believing in any form of god. Life is an accident of the universe, but it is unique from inanimate things in a fundamental way - it is self conscious and it values it's own existent inherently. It evolves and procreates. Yes, you can I suppose, build a machine that builds copies of itself - but that's only a more complex set of instructions given by the human, that is at base just a set of instructions, like a toaster that heats bread until crispy when you push the lever down
For the record, I believe bacteria, plants, et al., are "conscious" but at levels different from humans, apes, dogs, etc. They react to their environment based on sensing it, they act to self preserve, and so on.
16
Even if we were to agree that what brings us "life" is simply a matter of the complexity of our biological machinery, it should be noted that the combined computing power of every machine ever built isn't powerful enough to process even a tiny fraction of what our brains are doing as we breath, walk, and talk—the difference between a pebble and planet Earth.
Sorry for all the blowhard language and run-on sentences, I'm multitasking here.
Sorry for all the blowhard language and run-on sentences, I'm multitasking here.
18
A robot is not even a living thing. A robot is an imitation of life. It is synthetic.
Holy shit, really?!?!
Holy shit, really?!?!
19
So much missing the point here. The video makes no claim that the robot is living, only that it recognized itself. Recognition can be natural, but can also be learned - it doesn't require life. The robot also recognized a penguin, because it had learned what a penguin looked like. Now, if the robot could recognize itself in a rain streaked reflection on a slightly warped window and not just that one mirror, you'd have some impressive programming. Still not life, but definitely recognition. It's just progress, folks, not sudden replacement.
20
@15- I'm fascinated by people who can't name a single difference between a living thing and a conscious machine aside from complexity and yet continue to insist such a difference exists.
We are now using DNA and RNA to build organisms that produce enzymes we want. They are machines constructed by humans made with the materials of what you are sure are living things. Are these constructed things living things? If so, what makes them different from a complex robotic assembly line?
We are now using DNA and RNA to build organisms that produce enzymes we want. They are machines constructed by humans made with the materials of what you are sure are living things. Are these constructed things living things? If so, what makes them different from a complex robotic assembly line?
22
I love his voice. I want one just so I can talk to it. It doesn't even need to know what's going on around it.
"Woah. I am now ready to recognize my-SELF. Let me SEE"
"Woah. I am now ready to recognize my-SELF. Let me SEE"
24
@23- It can actually perform abortions. They're not advertising that feature though, it's a little too edgy.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS