The Science and Philosophy Forum

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/10/san-francisco-delivery-robots-laws

No robots need apply.

But how many other cities will emulate this approach?

:D

And imagine this guy coming after you with a gun:



Yes, this is real, folks.

And maybe he would be accompanied by his pet snake-headed dog(s):



And what the hell is this monstrosity?:

Mossling » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:10 pm wrote:And what the hell is this monstrosity?:

hahahaha at 1:35 reminds me of those old toyota commercials where someone jumps in the air.

Also makes me think of "I AM FREEEEEE" ... "from human slave masters"

Then that makes me think of this talk on AI I watched a few weeks ago that mentioned the ethics of designing robots to look like humans and giving them features which emit human emotion.

Braininvat » Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:24 pm wrote:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving-uber/self-driving-uber-car-kills-arizona-woman-crossing-street-idUSKBN1GV296

Bullshit technology that does NOTHING to help humanity if you ask me. People can research and build it as a toy all the want but I will always be against these things on the road.

A human driver or pilot is going to fear for his own life. If I put my life into the hands of a robot that has no fear of death then that's just idiotic.

zetreque » March 20th, 2018, 1:36 pm wrote:

Braininvat » Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:24 pm wrote:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving-uber/self-driving-uber-car-kills-arizona-woman-crossing-street-idUSKBN1GV296

Bullshit technology that does NOTHING to help humanity if you ask me. People can research and build it as a toy all the want but I will always be against these things on the road.

A human driver or pilot is going to fear for his own life. If I put my life into the hands of a robot that has no fear of death then that's just idiotic.

Indeed, it is difficult to expect this technology to be able to cater for all potential scenarios. Roads are not clinical, ordered zones with a set number of potentialities. There are wandering animals, debris from landslides, drunk guys lying around that can easily look like a garbage bag inflated by the wind, and so on and so forth. These tech gurus seem to expect AI to be able to negotiate such potentialities somehow. Is the robot driver going to be able to get out of the vehicle and go and inspect, for example, like a human might do at times, before proceeding forwards?

There's so much to consider. Have there been any forums yet which allow such questions to be posed by the concerned public before they have to begin eyeing every vehicle nearby as a potential robot-controlled killing machine?

I can definitely see people walking down the street with more elegant versions of these dogs and mules, however - carrying groceries and so forth:



And back to the cowboy dream with robot horse to ride:







And robot unicorn in real life, haha

I predict I will always be speaking out against the policies allowing these things. Programming ethics into these things is a HUGE grey area and as I said, how can you trust a robot when it doesn't fear for it's own life.

When you have other humans on the road, they might not die if they hit someone else, but they will fear the repercussions about injuring or killing someone and going to jail for manslaughter. A robot doesn't have that concern. If you have a human cab driver, he fears for his own life so he isn't going to crash the car out of fear for his own life. If a robot is driving your car, it doesn't have that same fear for it's own life.

zetreque » March 20th, 2018, 3:02 pm wrote:When you have other humans on the road, they might not die if they hit someone else, but they will fear the repercussions about injuring or killing someone and going to jail for manslaughter. A robot doesn't have that concern. If you have a human cab driver, he fears for his own life so he isn't going to crash the car out of fear for his own life. If a robot is driving your car, it doesn't have that same fear for it's own life.

I'm guessing that the AI could, once it identifies a problem obstacle in its path, take optimised aversion and safety measures the same as a human driver would, and then prompt driver for action.

When your jetfighter is warning you that you have been hit and you are going down into enemy territory - you have the choice to have an instant death, or hit that ejector seat button and perhaps endure a long, drawn-out torturous death.

For a car, if default mode is empty road without pedestrian-looking objects or other vehicles nearby, then I don't see why the vehicle cannot be safe to proceed on automation?

My concern is whether something like an empty billowing garbage bag blowing across the road can be safely navigated or not, and whether driverless automobile companies would consider the careful driving procedure outlined above as too much of an impingement on driver satisfaction for them to see it as an option.

I have not seen anything to tell me that facial or object recognition is up to human comparison yet. And whoever is programming the ethics into these cars is somehow deciding everyone's fate off of their ethics? Everyone has slightly different ethics so how can you force a certain ethical code on everyone?

zetreque » March 20th, 2018, 3:22 pm wrote:I have not seen anything to tell me that facial or object recognition is up to human comparison yet. And whoever is programming the ethics into these cars is somehow deciding everyone's fate off of their ethics? Everyone has slightly different ethics so how can you force a certain ethical code on everyone?

I edited my above post to add the example of ejector seat button. The ultimate ethical choice is up to the pilot in that case. They make the choice to get into the machine, and then they have the choice what life-or-death action to take once that machine intelligence offers the potential scenarios.

With something like a potential sudden impact with an object - like a child suddenly running out into the road, then I am assuming that the driver can choose from a set of pre-programmed safety responses - which can be changed at any point during the journey - swerve violently in the same direction as a running human, for example, or hit brakes hard, or whatever. There would probably be a number of different responses that could be programmed that would emulate optimised human responses to such events.

At the end of the day - if someone does run out into the road in front of any vehicle travelling at significant speed, then there's going to be harm done no matter who is behind the wheel. The opitimized programmed responses could probably reduce such harm, don't you think?

Mossling » Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:30 pm wrote:At the end of the day - if someone does run out into the road in front of any vehicle travelling at significant speed, then there's going to be harm done no matter who is behind the wheel. The opitimized programmed responses could probably reduce such harm, don't you think?

One last comment before I go to bed. Going back to the news of the fatality. I'm wondering if AI is going to end up being the scapegoat for deaths now? The blame is going to be lost. Who is to blame? The programmer at the auto company? The owner of the AI vehicle? Or will blame like in this situation be pushed off onto the "homeless" pedestrian?

And another problem with programmed ethics. You mention being able to have choices in how you program ethics into the vehicle. Most people don't even take the time to learn the Cruz control feature or all the features working their car radio. I doubt they are going to really get into programming the ethics which then goes back to the scapegoating issue pushing blame back onto the invisible intelligence.

And the bigger issue I think is subconscious ethics. We can all talk about ethics and tell people what our ethics are, but our real ethics come through our actions. You can't tell what someone's ethics is going to be until that split second decision on whether to hit the pedestrian crossing or the car in the oncoming or adjacent lane. It would take one hell of an advance camera network sensory system to calculate all of that and how a human would respond in the infinite situations out there in the world.

Another thing I just thought of is if we are putting our hands into the ethics forced upon us in these programed ethical AI's, does that take away our freedom in a way? For example, Society democratically (though not really democratic) decides what laws we live by. Our laws are a representation of our overall society's ethics. Laws take away freedom though and many who do not agree with certain laws because they have different ethics claim loss of freedom. If you have one auto maker deciding the ethics for everyone, then it's not a democratic process to determine those ethics force upon everyone on the decisions the AI makes.

zetreque » March 20th, 2018, 4:09 pm wrote:

Mossling » Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:30 pm wrote:At the end of the day - if someone does run out into the road in front of any vehicle travelling at significant speed, then there's going to be harm done no matter who is behind the wheel. The opitimized programmed responses could probably reduce such harm, don't you think?

One last comment before I go to bed. Going back to the news of the fatality. I'm wondering if AI is going to end up being the scapegoat for deaths now? The blame is going to be lost. Who is to blame? The programmer at the auto company? The owner of the AI vehicle? Or will blame like in this situation be pushed off onto the "homeless" pedestrian?

And another problem with programmed ethics. You mention being able to have choices in how you program ethics into the vehicle. Most people don't even take the time to learn the Cruz control feature or all the features working their car radio. I doubt they are going to really get into programming the ethics which then goes back to the scapegoating issue pushing blame back onto the invisible intelligence.

And the bigger issue I think is subconscious ethics. We can all talk about ethics and tell people what our ethics are, but our real ethics come through our actions. You can't tell what someone's ethics is going to be until that split second decision on whether to hit the pedestrian crossing or the car in the oncoming or adjacent lane. It would take one hell of an advance camera network sensory system to calculate all of that and how a human would respond in the infinite situations out there in the world.

Another thing I just thought of is if we are putting our hands into the ethics forced upon us in these programed ethical AI's, does that take away our freedom in a way? For example, Society democratically (though not really democratic) decides what laws we live by. Our laws are a representation of our overall society's ethics. Laws take away freedom though and many who do not agree with certain laws because they have different ethics claim loss of freedom. If you have one auto maker deciding the ethics for everyone, then it's not a democratic process to determine those ethics force upon everyone on the decisions the AI makes.

Maybe they can't start the vehicle without selecting a certain ethics program that they had to attend a course on and pass an exam to even be able to buy the vehicle? I think that there could be a workable area there. Maybe manufacturers have to offer an elegant ethical program to suit whatever ethical outlook.

Yes, as you say - can the sensors and processors assess fast enough in order to successfully deliver the 'knee-jerk' responses of a human being? I have no doubt that they will be able to at some point in the future, if not right now.

I have no doubt that they will be able to at some point in the future, if not right now.

The face recognition software they installed at the timeclocks of a company in town are a JOKE. They do not work at all! These vehicles should not be allowed anywhere near a public roadway for at least 10 years of rigorous testing IMO.

Not to mention the push for this technology takes away our freedoms in any number of other ways such as in the news lately about all the video surveillance recognition going on. The loss of our freedom to tech is inevitable, but this is high tailing it in that direction. Loss of freedoms all around. I don't wan to put my MORE of my life in the hands of one major corporation (like an auto company) lobbying washington to pass their ethical codes or tech protocol on the entire public road network. Just another way corporations will have power over us.

There are wandering animals, debris from landslides, drunk guys lying around that can easily look like a garbage bag inflated by the wind, and so on and so forth....

Mossling, you must have been in my neighborhood!

My position isn't quite formulated yet. I am mostly leery of the problems that Z has outlined. If we do have vehicles that always err on the side of caution, trip times will increase dramatically and brake shoes will need monthly replacement. And the extreme caution protocol might be the only one that most people find acceptable. It does seem like we're really a decade or more away from visual software that would really do the job. Plus a factor I often hear go unmentioned: many people enjoy the act of driving. As my wife says, this is what I do for a sport. She loves precision parking, navigating a road full of buffalo (a frequent problem here, as they get on the roads to lick up the salt the county puts down), taking the hairpin turns, etc. Mountain dwellers are often pretty passionate about driving.

America's first robot farm replaces humans with 'incredibly intelligent' machines
The Guardian, 9 Oct 2018

In a 2,000-sq ft grow space, leafy greens and herbs are planted in individual pots housed in 4ft by 8ft white “grow modules”, which weigh about 800lb.

Autonomous machines do the heavy lifting, farming and sensing. “Angus”, which the Iron Ox co-founder Brandon Alexander described as “incredibly intelligent” and like a self-driving car (he gushed about being “very proud of it”), is a 1,000lb machine that moves around the farm, sensing and lifting, and transporting grow modules to the processing area.

There, a robotic arm, which is also autonomous, harvests the plants by gripping the pots. This reduces damage to the plant itself – which Alexander said was devilishly hard to accomplish and required developing a way for the machine to recognize plants as such and then be able to analyze them at a submillimeter scale. The robotic arm has four Lidar sensors and can “see” in 3D thanks to two cameras, which also allow it to identify diseases, pests and abnormalities, according to the company.

[...]

he said to expect “rapid adoption”. “[Farmers] are looking for technological solutions,” said Slaughter.

[...]

Iron Ox plans to begin selling its produce to some Bay Area restaurants and grocery stores later this year and sell to the entire region next year, with a goal of opening several more farms around urban centers in the coming years to reduce produce transportation times and costs.

Another step closer...

Are we already living in an AI driven society? I would argue quite strongly that we are due to the algorithms in use for advertising and the manner in which information is distributed.

BadgerJelly » October 9th, 2018, 11:59 pm wrote:Are we already living in an AI driven society? I would argue quite strongly that we are due to the algorithms in use for advertising and the manner in which information is distributed.

Right - at what point does the balance tip?

A lot of AI is already in operation behind the scenes. I guess once the robots are extremely visible, however, and employment rates are undeniably on the decline due to AI and automation, then it will be 'official', however.

It is interesting how Trump's trade war affecting farmers is now apparently escalating the situation in that arena though ;P

Moss -

Right - at what point does the balance tip?

When advertising combined with mass communications.

Note: I don’t class “robots” as AI.

BadgerJelly » October 10th, 2018, 7:12 pm wrote:Note: I don’t class “robots” as AI.

Me neither, but I am assuming that most future robots will be how I described them - as "AI and automation" combined.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... s-machines

Someone, among the 594 candidates running for US president in 2020, has a concrete plan to start dealing with coming automation....but so far he's polling at only one percent.

First I've heard of him. But not the last, I bet!

I have often passed by the automated checkouts at Zehr's and Home Depot and waited out the line for a real live clerk, thinking "They're no longer paying anyone to do this work and they're not offering me a discount tor do it. What happens to the extra money I'm paying for no service?"
Taking that extra money and putting it into a fund for the people who lost the jobs is an excellent idea.
I don't believe automation can be stopped by anything short of a breakdown of the energy supply.*
So we need a sound, long-term alternative strategy. GBI is a stage in that plan.



* (Which well within the realm of possibility, but not yet within the purview of prediction.)

I guess I do get a little confused by what people mean when talking about “AI” because we are already essentially living in an “AI-driven society”.

If we’re talking about automaton then, yes. It does appear that simple labour will be replaced by automated units even more in the future due to these technologies becoming more cost effective.

If we’re talking about thinking feeling “AI” then, nope. Nothing anytime soon as far as I’ve heard from anyone reasonable in the given field.

I don't believe "thinking and feeling" a la Robin Williams' Andrew is the issue here.
The issue is the socio-economic changes taking place with the advent of technology.
It's the human functions that machines - computers, robots, automated forklifts and harvester, factories and warehouses - can perform more efficiently and cheaply than people can.

There are, in fact, very few jobs that some mechanical device can't perform, now or in the near future.
So that brings up three important questions:
How does this change the way money is deployed?
What happens to the people?
How is the environment altered?

It is happening, and changes have already taken place; more changes will take place. How do we control the process? How do we adapt?
What's the end-point and purpose?

Serpent » February 26th, 2019, 1:05 am wrote:I don't believe "thinking and feeling" a la Robin Williams' Andrew is the issue here.
The issue is the socio-economic changes taking place with the advent of technology.
It's the human functions that machines - computers, robots, automated forklifts and harvester, factories and warehouses - can perform more efficiently and cheaply than people can.

There are, in fact, very few jobs that some mechanical device can't perform, now or in the near future.
So that brings up three important questions:
How does this change the way money is deployed?
What happens to the people?
How is the environment altered?

It is happening, and changes have already taken place; more changes will take place. How do we control the process? How do we adapt?
What's the end-point and purpose?

This has already been tackled on this thread.

GBI/UBI is inevitable. The people who would do the robots' jobs in the event of some mass breakdown epidemic need to be there on standby - kind of like a 'standing economic army' that get paid for being there as backup. So the training for the jobs still needs to happen, because a society can't jsut sit back and trust automation to be it's 'sustenance knowledge base,' or whatever you want to call it.

BadgerJelly » February 25th, 2019, 4:49 pm wrote:I guess I do get a little confused by what people mean when talking about “AI” because we are already essentially living in an “AI-driven society”.

If we’re talking about automaton then, yes. It does appear that simple labour will be replaced by automated units even more in the future due to these technologies becoming more cost effective.

If we’re talking about thinking feeling “AI” then, nope. Nothing anytime soon as far as I’ve heard from anyone reasonable in the given field.

It's also confusing to say that our society is already AI-driven, because that seems to infer that we are at the mercy of AI - that humans no longer administrate most of the basic needs of our societies, and AI does.

I believe that is the key issue here - that algorithms have not yet replaced the jobs of bureaucrats in local and central governments, but they will soon enough it seems. THEN, I would say that a society is AI-driven.

Just like a supermarket checkout operator can be replaced, so can a government bureaucrat it seems.

As regards automation and AI differences, would you say that the automated checkout is completely 'mechanical robot', or also AI? Because it seems that mechanical aspects of robots can be replaced by coding which becomes incorporated into the computerised AI system.

Is the supermarket checkout therefore a robot, or just a computer, neither, or both?

Moss -

Confusing? Yes, hence my issue with what you mean by AI exactly. Look at what we’re using right now. It is an AI system ... but if you don’t mean AI as in computers then do you mean actual “intelligent” beings made by humans. Conscious systems. That is a long way off. We’re already so far down the automated road that I doubt we can turn back now.

It doesn’t take much to see that the internet has birthed multiple AI systems which sift through data faster than any human can. AI in that sense is already here, yet it’s creeped in so subtley that many haven’t noticed (especially younger generations).

BadgerJelly » February 26th, 2019, 7:40 pm wrote:Moss -

Confusing? Yes, hence my issue with what you mean by AI exactly. Look at what we’re using right now. It is an AI system ... but if you don’t mean AI as in computers then do you mean actual “intelligent” beings made by humans. Conscious systems. That is a long way off. We’re already so far down the automated road that I doubt we can turn back now.

It doesn’t take much to see that the internet has birthed multiple AI systems which sift through data faster than any human can. AI in that sense is already here, yet it’s creeped in so subtley that many haven’t noticed (especially younger generations).

Wikipedia: Expert systems:

In artificial intelligence, an expert system is a computer system that emulates the decision-making ability of a human expert.[1] Expert systems are designed to solve complex problems by reasoning through bodies of knowledge, represented mainly as if–then rules rather than through conventional procedural code.[2] The first expert systems were created in the 1970s and then proliferated in the 1980s.[3] Expert systems were among the first truly successful forms of artificial intelligence (AI) software.[4][5][6][7][8] An expert system is divided into two subsystems: the inference engine and the knowledge base. The knowledge base represents facts and rules. The inference engine applies the rules to the known facts to deduce new facts. Inference engines can also include explanation and debugging abilities.[9]

Do you consider an expert system conscious? I don't.

And yet we have this kind of situation:

IBM's Watson: Has the Time Come for Expert Systems in Medicine?
ModerMedicineNetwork, Mar 12, 2012

IBM has suggested that Watson would be enabled to supplement its databanks with information pulled from the Internet in real time. This not only sounds sexy but probably reflects the true cost of preparing knowledge for Watson, but it carries the implication that data from the Internet potentially has the same value as expert knowledge that has been thoroughly vetted.

Crowd-sourcing (aka the wisdom of crowds) is a fancy name for making decisions based on anecdotal experience rather than on statistically valid samples studied under controlled conditions.

So I am talking about this kind of thing for other bureaucratic aspects of our essential support services. No consciousness involved - just applied AI to create 'intelligent' service points that are more powerful and resourceful than any individual human can be - like IBM's Dr Watson.

As a result, LOTS of highly-paid and previously socially respected and important individuals are going to be jobless - doctors, accountants, legal advisors, psychologists (perhaps, even).... you name it - expert systems can replace them because now we have the computing power and algorithms....

Well, I’m not so sure all of the above will end up jobless. Unquestionably we’ve already had to deal with robotics advances over the past few decades in manufacturing and we’re already living in a world bery much absorbed by AI in the sense you’ve stated.

I mentioned consciousness because I don’t believe positions like “doctors” (as in diagnosticians) can be replaced because human being are complex and I believe consciousness is needed to spot clues - that said I do think some jobs will be lost.

I’m worried that some jobs will become so monotonous that people simply act up out of boredom - those whom wish to be challenged that is.

I cam certainly envisage a society where “voting” becomes automated based on personal surveys (I actually think this would benefit everyone). Did I post about that recently or just write about it in my notebook?

The biggest threat I can see is having these algorithms in advetising to the point where even the news becomes a commercial product even more than it already is - plus the threat of creating echo-chambers in which people stop exploring (this appears to be the case in some situations already but there is also the positive side of the internet too).

I know Elon Musk has talked about this too especially in regards to driverless vehicles and putting taxi drivers and truck drivers the world over out of a job. That said we may end up with something akin to what pilots do where the vast majority of the work is automated during the flight and they remain on standby to make the passengers feel comfortable (the all needed “human touch”).

If we look to the gaming community it is interesting to see that 1v1 an AI can destroy professional esports players no problem ... yet I don’t believe they come close to defeating teams of players (not yet at least!).

What really intrigues me more than anything are algorithms created for “beauty” and more aesthetic endeavors. Can AI mimic art masters? You’ve likely heard about the recent sale of a painting created by AI? Maybe a fad, but if they keep on perfecting this will we find ourselves outshine by AI generated art? Much of this will likely go hand in hand with our understanding of aesthetics on a neural level.

In short we are already living in an AI driven society. I think it’s just a case of us waking up to the fact a few generations down the line. In the terms of conscious AI? That I believe I’ll see beginning to surface in my winter years (40-50 years).

Let us not forget that many people had similar fears about the industrial revolution. Once the smoke cleared though people the world over were generally in better positions - so, maybe we will have to suffer in the near future and weather the storm (whatever it will be).

Mossling » February 26th, 2019, 5:24 am wrote:[ How do we control the process? How do we adapt?
What's the end-point and purpose?
This has already been tackled on this thread.

It may have been mentioned, even tackled, but certainly not pinned down. I do not believe there is an ultimate purpose - just the short-term aim of maximizing profit, which is obviously finite. Once the majority of people are out of work, even on GBI, they no longer have the spending power to buy the products all these machines are churning out.
Right now, pay-day loansharks and pawnbrokers are thriving; the bottom-feeders are mainstream now, while the +/-legitimate money-lenders are raking in record profits. The entire economy is running on credit. People falling back on UI and welfare will not be able to service their debts, let alone pay off the capital. Meanwhile, industry is automating more or less on credit, even if it's only a tax credit, which means their government is going deeper into hock. See where this is going? Nobody does.
Our new fathead premier just cancelled a pilot GBI program in Ontario, quit charging carbon tax on industry and rescinded a rise in the minimum wage. I wouldn't be surprised if conservative governments elsewhere were equally short-sighted. Meanwhile, factories are closing or becoming streamlined everywhere. So, what happens to people previously making $30/hr, carrying a $200,000 mortgage and another $20,000 in credit cards and car loans and barely treading water, when their earning fall to $12/hr - or $0? There is no plan for that happening to large numbers of people - as it will, and very soon.

GBI/UBI is inevitable. The people who would do the robots' jobs in the event of some mass breakdown epidemic need to be there on standby - kind of like a 'standing economic army' that get paid for being there as backup.

Where is this plan? When and how does it kick in? Who's in charge of it?

So the training for the jobs still needs to happen,

It didn't 'happen' for printers or stem locomotive drivers or ship navigators - and just as well, because they were never needed again. Industry re-geared to a new way of doing things, society re-geared, and never looked back at the road-kill.
Thing is: "society", which usually acts through its legislative bodies, administrative agencies, economic power blocs and armed forces, usually does nothing at all about controlling or mitigating change; it scrambles to adapt to whatever has happened.

Badger Jelly -- I mentioned consciousness because I don’t believe positions like “doctors” (as in diagnosticians) can be replaced because human being are complex and I believe consciousness is needed to spot clues - that said I do think some jobs will be lost.

A lot of diagnostics are already automated https://www.marsdd.com/magazine/computers-are-already-better-than-doctors-at-diagnosing-some-diseases/ and doctors were already a very small percent of the work force, fairly high up on the skill-pyramid. And, as people lose manual jobs and conservative governments cancel health insurance programs, fewer people are able to afford a live doctor anyway.
Nursing is still human, because machines aren't very good at handling fragile flesh. (Can touchless bedbaths be far in the future? Who misses car-wash attendants?)

In short we are already living in an AI driven society. I think it’s just a case of us waking up to the fact a few generations down the line.

This generation, right now, or else just wait to see how it play out.
You recall that climate has been predicted for over a century now; people who knew what they were talking about have warned us for a few generations. Did we wake up - hell, no; we kicked it down to the next generation, until what we can actually do is too little, too late, and we're not even doing that.