07 Feb 19
@Metal-Brain
You are talking about the implementation of gripping arms and such and robots can in fact do jobs humans cannot do.
AI is the intelligence behind the physical stuff so that IS the limitation.
If you use a robot to guard a border and it is armed what is it that allows it to not kill a child or rabbit but to kill an armed adult intruder?
Of course that is not at present a real possibility but what is it that gives that robot that kind of discrimination?
07 Feb 19
@sonhouse saidI can't even get a Roomba to clean the right room. Robots with guns? Yeeeeikes.
@Metal-Brain
You are talking about the implementation of gripping arms and such and robots can in fact do jobs humans cannot do.
AI is the intelligence behind the physical stuff so that IS the limitation.
If you use a robot to guard a border and it is armed what is it that allows it to not kill a child or rabbit but to kill an armed adult intruder?
Of course that i ...[text shortened]... not at present a real possibility but what is it that gives that robot that kind of discrimination?
07 Feb 19
@wildgrass
I was thinking of robots that can do human operations with better precision than human physicians. If a doctor has some operation that will take 15 hours, instead, a robot doing that job will not get tired or weak.
07 Feb 19
@sonhouse saidCan a robot replace a mirror in the Hubble Telescope? Nope.
@Metal-Brain
You are talking about the implementation of gripping arms and such and robots can in fact do jobs humans cannot do.
AI is the intelligence behind the physical stuff so that IS the limitation.
If you use a robot to guard a border and it is armed what is it that allows it to not kill a child or rabbit but to kill an armed adult intruder?
Of course that i ...[text shortened]... not at present a real possibility but what is it that gives that robot that kind of discrimination?
Can they contain a meltdown and clean up fuel rods? Nope.
Is AI the obstacle? Nope.
07 Feb 19
@sonhouse saidAgain, I can't get one to vacuum my living room in a predictable way. How is that robot going to troubleshoot if he goes in looking for colon cancer and finds a parking cone instead?
@wildgrass
I was thinking of robots that can do human operations with better precision than human physicians. If a doctor has some operation that will take 15 hours, instead, a robot doing that job will not get tired or weak.
08 Feb 19
@metal-brain saidThe difficulty with the Fukishima example is that the limitation is not so much the physical capabilities of the robots, but that electronics tends to be fried by high levels of radiation.
You are like a broken record. AI is not the problem. It is the physical ability of the robot that is lacking, not AI.
Do you ever read what I write or do you fool yourself into thinking I said the opposite of what I did? I used Fukishima as an example of the limitations of robots and nothing more.
Regarding an automated lunar factory, one could construct robots with the required body parts, and condition the AI to do the work but one would need humans to oversee it because an AI is an artificial idiot. They are conditioned they aren't trained or educated - as far as I know we are nowhere near that stage - and they are conditioned on large numbers of examples. They'll mess up regularly and one would need a few humans on hand to pick up the pieces.
I don't think the risks are excessive, a base capable of supporting up to six people would require some shielding against solar radiation, some emergency procedures for coping with meteorites and reserve escape vehicles. I don't think new technologies would be required.
08 Feb 19
@deepthought saidCan't the electronics be shielded with lead or something?
The difficulty with the Fukishima example is that the limitation is not so much the physical capabilities of the robots, but that electronics tends to be fried by high levels of radiation.
Regarding an automated lunar factory, one could construct robots with the required body parts, and condition the AI to do the work but one would need humans to oversee it because an ...[text shortened]... ping with meteorites and reserve escape vehicles. I don't think new technologies would be required.
The Parker Solar Probe has good shielding, right?
08 Feb 19
7 edits
@metal-brain saidI am an AI expert. Let me educate you;
Can a robot replace a mirror in the Hubble Telescope? Nope.
Can they contain a meltdown and clean up fuel rods? Nope.
Is AI the obstacle? Nope.
Who is ignorant?
Can a robot replace a mirror in the Hubble Telescope? Yes, it is just a matter of when, not if, they become advanced enough to do so.
Can they contain a meltdown and clean up fuel rods? Yes, it is just a matter of when, not if, they become advanced enough to do so.
Is AI the obstacle? Yes.
Who is ignorant? You are.
You are wrong on all 4 accounts.
It is just a matter of when and not if some robots will be given human-like hands and arms and an advanced AI that gives them the same kind of dexterity as that of humans. Giving them human-like hands with soft flexible elastic surfaces with good highly sensitive touch sensors will be the easy part. The AI part will be the much harder part and will take a lot longer but even then, it is just a matter of when, not if.
I hope my current AI research will (very indirectly) make it happen a bit sooner and just maybe even within our life times if we are very lucky although I think that would be a bit of a stretch because, as I explained in another post, and despite the huge hype and massively overoptimistic forecasts to the contrary, we are a VERY long way from giving an AI any meaningful and useful GENERAL intelligence.
You choose to be ignorant.
08 Feb 19
@humy saidYou are no expert on AI. People can remotely control robots. There is no need for more advanced AI if people are operating the robots. The physical limitations are the obstacle, not AI.
I am an AI expert. Let me educate you;
Can a robot replace a mirror in the Hubble Telescope? Yes, it is just a matter of when, not if, they become advanced enough to do so.
Can they contain a meltdown and clean up fuel rods? Yes, it is just a matter of when, not if, they become advanced enough to do so.
Is AI the obstacle? Yes.
Who is ignorant? You are.
You are wrong on ...[text shortened]... take a lot longer, but even then, it is just a matter of when, not if.
You choose to be ignorant.
Can a robot replace a mirror in the Hubble Telescope? Nope.
Will it happen anytime soon? Nope.
08 Feb 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidI am. I did and passed a univerity AI course with reasonable grade + currently doing some AI research. What are YOUR AI credentials?
You are no expert on AI.
People can remotely control robots.That would be inadequate for a self-sustained robot colony on the Moon.
There is no need for more advanced AI if people are operating the robots.Wrong; there is that need. It would be better if people didn't have to operate them because a AI is developed to do the same job reasonably enough or at least about as well.
The physical limitations are the obstacle, not AI.
No, the AI is the main obstacle, not the physics or engineering part which is the easy part in comparison.
See
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/30/technology/robot-hands.html
for evidence of this.
As you can see in the above link, a human-like robotic hand has ALREADY been made, and PHYSICALLY works just fine. The only reason why it isn't yet used much isn't because of the physics but rather the AI part is still just far too limited for the vast variety of jobs we would like it to do because we just do not yet have AI with meaningful GENERAL intelligence, like that of a human.
Can a robot replace a mirror in the Hubble Telescope?Yes, just not yet because of the AI obstacle, and not nearly so much the physical obstacles, which are trivial in comparison.
Will it happen anytime soon?Irrelevant. I do not claim that sort of AI will be developed soon to enable robots to do that. I claim, as an AI expert, you are wrong about AI.
08 Feb 19
1 edit
@humy saidThen you did not learn anything. Now you are moving the goal post to "self sustaining".
I am. I did and passed a univerity AI course with reasonable grade + currently doing some AI research. What are YOUR AI credentials?
People can remotely control robots.That would be inadequate for a self-sustained robot colony on the Moon.There is no need for more advanced AI if people are operating the robots.Wrong; there is that need. ...[text shortened]... ill be developed soon to enable robots to do that. I claim, as an AI expert, you are wrong about AI.
Can a robot replace a mirror in the Hubble Telescope? Nope.
Is AI the obstacle? Nope.
"Yes, just not yet because of the AI obstacle, and not nearly so much the physical obstacles"
You have it backwards and you have posted nothing to prove otherwise. A robot hand? Can it masturbate you? Does it take much AI to do it? You are ridiculous!
I'm not interested in your predictions. Somehow you seem to think making predictions makes you an AI expert. It doesn't.
08 Feb 19
3 edits
Metal Brain
Just endlessly repeating the same opinionated obvious falsehoods, like above, without even a pretence of a supporting argument convinces nobody here. Stop insulting our intelligence. I am an AI expert. You are not. You don't know what you are talking about; I do. People here will be far more convinced by my assertions about AI than yours because they know I am an AI expert while you are just an arrogant opinionated moron.
08 Feb 19
@metal-brain saidThe radiation coming from the Sun is black body radiation, and the Parker Solar Probe's 4.5 inch thick shield is to prevent heating rather than to block nuclear radiation. All the instruments are in the shadow of the shield, they don't "look" at the Sun.
Can't the electronics be shielded with lead or something?
The Parker Solar Probe has good shielding, right?
The main problem for electronics is gamma radiation, shielding it enough makes your device bulky and heavy, but shielding the CPU isn't the main problem. Whether it's AI driven or remote controlled a robot requires a camera and the camera will fail in a highly radioactive environment because you can't shield it and have it look at what it's doing.
09 Feb 19
1 edit
@humy saidPeople can operate robots like they operate military drones and bomb people. This technology already exists and works. AI is not necessary and a 4 second delay is no big deal, although there would be none with a manned moon colony so it is irrelevant.
Metal Brain
Just endlessly repeating the same opinionated obvious falsehoods, like above, without even a pretence of a supporting argument convinces nobody here. Stop insulting our intelligence. I am an AI expert. You are not. You don't know what you are talking about; I do. People here will be far more convinced by my assertions about AI than yours because they know I am an AI expert while you are just an arrogant opinionated moron.
If AI can be applied it will, but your claim AI is the obstacle is bull crap and if you know anything about AI you already know that. You have not even specified what robots are doing what to have the need for more advanced AI than we have today. Most robots will be doing typical repetitive tasks found in factories today.
What specifically are you suggesting needs more advanced AI than we already have today? More importantly, why is it a necessity?
If you cannot answer those questions it is you that are repeating the same opinionated falsehoods. You don't even know what you are talking about and you are a textbook case of psychological projection.