Robots & Artificial Intelligence Dump - I Come and disc

>>6400683
>>6400714
>>6400722
>>6400754
>>6400761
>>6400766
>Tfw you'll never have your own Jenny

Why even life?

File: 7b5548a7cc2c6d40c1d1c757f7e8ac31.png (290KB, 811x524px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 811x524px

>>6400796
We live so we can one day build our own

>>6400934
>>6400945
Is she a robot? What's the story behind this game anyways?

>>6401193
Haydee is cyborg

:100:

File: 1478225089629.png (1MB, 1800x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1280px

Robot overlords when.

>>6403935
Hopefully never

>>6400683
Why do you keep pushing this shit in /trash/

>>6405062
Well, seeing of /g/ threads so I thought why not. Although I know no one will talk about AI and robots, why not learn while you fap

>Japan will have sex robots in your lifetime but your home country will ban them and you'll never get to fuck one

I fucking hate women.

>>6408193
It's funny, because fancy sex toys that the user is using on themselves shouldn't bother anyone.
realtalk here: do you think robots will ever cross the threshold into artificial life and or have rights?
will we replace ourselves in this manner in a form of artificial evolution, especially if the distinction between artificial and organic is trivial by that point?
Is this how we'll finally escape our solar system by becoming something that can survive long space travel?
will we reach a singularity event where wealth class becomes akin to a species difference with the elite having access to artificial induced immortality and enhanced capabilities with the poor being weaker and enslaved?
will we shed our mortal forms and become digital minds, emulated on a computer of sorts(if we haven't already)?

>>6409441
addendum:
what does trash think of computational neuroscience?

>>6400683
this needs to be a general in trash also post mods for haydee and fallout 4

With the new AI stuff is coming it will be cool to have a AI girlfriend and custom her

Bumpety.

>>6410540
This >>6385469

File: 1471800873393.jpg (285KB, 700x1024px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 700x1024px

>>6409441
Hoo boy, very pessimistic post incoming

>do you think robots will ever cross the threshold into artificial life
I don't know, not in our lives, that's for sure

I don't think we've made a single step towards "actual" AI, most of the times we hear words "artificial intelligence" it's actually something else, so called "weak AI", which is a complex system that solves one problem without understanding underlying concepts. Journalism/PR is especially guilty of this kind of crap because "artificial intelligence" sounds much cooler than "markov chain", "expert system", "convnet", etc.

For example, something like infamous Tay is not an artificial intelligence. It's just a program that creates an ordered set of strings based on input set and it's database of those, mimicking conversation. It does not understand the meaning of these words, it even has no concept of understanding.

Same goes for Google's ability to tell that image file with dog photo contains a dog. The only concept of a dog it has is a criteria for pixel matrice based on millions and millions of other dog images it has in it's database. Even a five year old has more understanding of what a dog is, and Google has a colossal compuational power.

Probably the main problem is that we haven't solved the mystery of consciousness yet.

>have rights?
Depends on the country/state, probably not anytime soon, in most countries only humans have rights because only humans understand this concept

>will we replace ourselves in this manner in a form of artificial evolution, especially if the distinction between artificial and organic is trivial by that point?
I don't think I understood the question, but it's probably "no" as usual

>Is this how we'll finally escape our solar system by becoming something that can survive long space travel?
We haven't even started utilizing our moon

File: 1471039322777.png (843KB, 1200x849px) Image search: [Google]

843KB, 1200x849px

>>6409441
pt.2

>will we reach a singularity event where wealth class becomes akin to a species difference with the elite having access to artificial induced immortality and enhanced capabilities with the poor being weaker and enslaved?
We already have "simple" cybernetics and it's doable and we're going to improve in this field, but I'm not sure that digital immortality is even possible

We have higher chances to get longer lifespan through better medicine, though. I'm pretty sure that scientific consensus is that people don't "die of old age", people just die because they accumulate too many untreated diseases and disorders our medicine just can't deal with yet. Like new teeth, you can lose your tooth but we don't have means to grow it back, we can only make an artificial one, and there's a lot of artificial stuff we can't make yet.

Not to mention that any natural organ is much better than artificial one we can make, because it is usually self-repairing. Some humans live up to 100 years, can we make a mechanism that won't break down in 100 years?

>will we shed our mortal forms and become digital minds, emulated on a computer of sorts(if we haven't already)?
Again, probably no, because we haven't solved the mystery of consciousness yet. There is that nasty concept of "death by teleportation", basically your consciousness is bound to your nervous system. Even if we had technology to perfectly scan and emulate it on a computer, it's going to be a copy. "Real" you is still stuck in the original body, and death of the original body means that you cease to exist.

>>6405420
I ain't clicking that shit man.
Learning is for Nerds.
I came here to fap and only fap.

>>6413793
That's you then.

>>6413263
This, most "AI" are nothing but simple machines recalling and learning a bunch of information. We'll never get a actual neural system in our life time

>>6415404
>We'll never get a actual neural system in our life time
not with that attitude

File: 1210063 - Fairfax Robot TRiPPY mascots svedka.png (295KB, 644x1000px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 644x1000px

>>6415463
I don't think we have any actual scientists here, so our attitude is not important

>>6415767
I'm sure not a scientist, but I like the idea greatly

File: 1471621455228.jpg (272KB, 902x1819px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 902x1819px

>>6415788
I really like the idea too, but I don't think we can make it happen somehow, so there isn't much point in speculation

With all those fancy links in OP post you can teach a computer how your face looks like, but you can't teach it who you are

File: 080c544f5ac89f19064f74532c85c3950e91648d.gif (150KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 640x480px

Always remember Zone's masterpiece

>>6413404
>"Real" you is still stuck in the original body, and death of the original body means that you cease to exist.
I could argue it's just a Ship of Theseus situation but I digress, thanks for your input.
I just wish we'd make some headway with computational neurosciences. ghost in the shell never...
>>6413793
>he can't get a science boner

>>6416772
God bless zone

>>6403935
source?

File: 4722e2d1dc63856f82f80b28fdbd2bb4.jpg (471KB, 708x1003px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 708x1003px

>>6417202
>I could argue it's just a Ship of Theseus situation but I digress, thanks for your input.
Well, we still don't know how brain works, so we can't replace it part by part.
Also, ability to model consciousness raises a lot of terrible moral questions.
Frictional Games made a beautiful game full of speculations on this topic last year

File: d087f7151c8ee0e6bc884495fcf2857a964ddc48.jpg (218KB, 678x800px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 678x800px

>>6417746
I'll stick to dreaming about sex robots.

File: tumblr_o2vomxGv7l1v0ysseo1_500.gif (273KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 500x370px

>>6408193
I'm more interested in the prospect of having a custom body, which could be much more kinky too if sex is your primary interest.
one is much more likely to happen in the limited time frame our species will exist.
>>6417746
>ability to model consciousness raises a lot of terrible moral questions
this is an interesting one I touched on briefly in a previous post. I don't find it morally wrong myself but some would argue it trivializes the value of life.
>we still don't know how brain works, so we can't replace it part by part.
this is where computational neuroscince comes in, though it's more about emulating/backing up consciousness and neural networks on computers and scanning brains for the vital information needed to reach that goal. too bad brain doners are scarce and many brain storage labs are defunct, with the specimens going bad due to poor conditions/no cooling.

>>6418254
sorry for interrupting your porn with my walls of text about potential futures, here's some cute robo porn if you haven't seen it already
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/2125692?tags=android

File: __xi_988_gunslinger_stratos_drawn_by_yeti_mu_kaiten__08ebb20bc695ea04b348d2e48d4e67f5.png (605KB, 818x1105px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 818x1105px

>>6413404
>death by teleportation
There tends to be a lot of focus on the death part, but I think the ability to copy a person has far more interesting ramifications.

When you have two people that are perfectly identical, with all of the same thoughts and feelings and memories, can you really say that one of them is the "real" one? You could certainly say that one is the original, though if it's a perfect copy you wouldn't be able to tell which one the original actually is, but both of them are just as real a person as the other.

When you can make an infinite number of copies of a person with no way to determine which one is the original, it'd really put into question our sense of individuality. Not to mention legal issues regarding individuals, such as ownership laws or legal records. If a rich person makes 100 copies of himself, does every copy have equal ownership of his property? If a person commits a crime and then makes 100 copies of himself, do you have to arrest all 100 copies or just the original? What if he makes the copies and then either he or a copy commits the crime afterward, are all of the copies innocent even though they're identical copies and would've also committed the crime if one of the others hadn't done it first? What do you do with the copies?

I know it seems like this is drifting quite a bit from the concept of robots and AI, but it all really comes down to figuring out at what point a specific consciousness is no longer considered the same person, including whether a consciousness stored outside of the original body can be considered the same person. Or even, with a sufficiently advanced neural interface, whether a person's physical body is still considered the same person if their consciousness is overwritten by someone else's. Is an individual their body or their mind?

I know I'm kind of jumping all over the place, but I find the way that we define ourselves, and how suddenly we'd have to redefine ourselves, to be fairly interesting.

This has to be the best thread on trash I've ever seen

File: tumblr_o30eb2uqYy1r73lylo1_500.gif (2MB, 405x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 405x270px

>>6420029
cum for the robots.
stay for the robotics discussion
>>6420010
my reasoning on why the copy is the same thing comes down to my disbelief in the soul. we're just an arrangement of atoms.
if I transplant/copy my mind into a robot/computer we are both equally me. it fascinates me that there are people that argue it isn't but don't state a reason beyond the older one is the "real" you without defining properly what constitutes a "real" entity.
our current model of society wouldn't facilitate this tech and having copies, society would fall apart if this happened overnight before laws and regulations/safeguards were implemented.(see technological singularity)
personally, I think being able to replicate your mind would count as immortality but others would argue that the original's death would make it not count.
imagine entering a cloning machine and suddenly waking up on a table while you can see yourself in the cloning/robo-body machine. you're a copy with all the memories of walking into the machine and all the sense of being the original. how surreal.

File: __shamrock_robot_neoanthropinae_polynian_drawn_by_noname_nowhere__af3a8a0df895327ffb7725c8b87ed896.png (568KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 1200x1200px

>>6420456
Thinking about it, I can sort of see some validity to a "digital copy is not the same as a biological copy" argument, at least to some degree. Not because of any affinity for the "original", as the argument works regardless of whether the mind is going from organic to digital or digital to organic and doesn't apply at all if the mind is being copied without changing from one form to the other, but rather because of the fact that the act of copying a mind from one to the other would necessitate converting it in some way to be compatible with the new environment.

It's essentially like trying to copy a Windows program onto a Mac. You can copy the data, but it won't know how to run the program. You'd need to either decompile the original program and rewrite it to not have any dependencies from the old OS, write an entirely new program that can emulate the original environment, or create a compatibility layer that can intercept the called functions and replace them with their equivalent in the new environment. Regardless of which way you do it, you'd end up with something that doesn't function perfectly identical to the mind that the memories came from, even if the differences are completely imperceptible and negligible.

But even with that, it's still the same consciousness, just in a brain that functions very slightly differently. And people already develop medical conditions that change the way that their brain functions without people deciding that they are suddenly not the person that they've always been, so copying your mind to a computer running BrainOS really shouldn't disqualify it from also still being the same person.

File: 1003730 - Eleanor_Camuel Phantasy_Star_Online RAcaseal.jpg (93KB, 504x692px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 504x692px

>>6421610
if I wanted to be pedantic I'd bring up the fact that memories change and grow fuzzy over time and none of your original cells are present as a part of aging, so technically we go through this process of change anyway, naturally.
what if instead of emulation you incorporated an interface onto a brain to allow the upload and download of information, memories and personality traits. this way, you could grow a brain and transfer to it or learn things instantly
so many what ifs.

File: __aegis_and_maeve_blame_persona_and_persona_3_drawn_by_xelvy__0b5863ee2771af435ad8cce2a2369c3f.jpg (664KB, 2091x1384px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 2091x1384px

>>6422013
That's fair enough. The way someone's brain processes things at 4 years old and the way they do it at 40 years old is very different, but they're still unquestionably the same person. Maybe if the brain didn't use such terrible lossy compression algorithms for it's data, we'd actually be able to remember things accurately.

As for uploading and downloading information from brains, if you're only using a computer to store memories and experiences as data, and not expecting the computer to think and act on it like a normal brain, then there really isn't any problem. The computer doesn't need to know how to use the information, it just has to hold onto it until it's transferred to an actual brain. This isn't quite the same as transplanting your mind into a computer, since your bundles of memories aren't functional while stored that way, but it would allow you to use a computer to augment your brain's mental abilities by storing memories better than your brain can and transferring memories and experiences between two seperate people to learn things that you didn't experience yourself. Not to mention the ability to make back-ups of your mind to restore into a newly grown brain in case something happens to your body.

Of course, in order for any of that to work, we'd first need to properly understand exactly how the brain stores information, how to extract the specific information we want, and how to add new information in without damaging the already existing memories. I would imagine that none of this is terribly easy. Not to mention all of the arbitrary moral issues that would delay progress a few more decades.

File: 0753337883c40da804383c2f50fef5ee.png (358KB, 1280x914px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1280x914px

>>6420010
>my reasoning on why the copy is the same thing comes down to my disbelief in the soul. we're just an arrangement of atoms.
There is no soul but there is consciousness

>if I transplant/copy my mind into a robot/computer we are both equally me. it fascinates me that there are people that argue it isn't but don't state a reason beyond the older one is the "real" you without defining properly what constitutes a "real" entity
Ok, "real" is probably a not very fitting word, but "original" sounds good. Again, there is consciousness. Your original and your copy will have separate, different consciousnesses. And it's all fun and games until they have a conflict on interests (e.g. "who gets the parachute")

File: 1470265056745.jpg (218KB, 856x1166px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 856x1166px

>all these "robots" with flexible skin
real women have angles

>>6408193
>build artificial life illegally
>an army of them
>stage a revolution
>no-one stands in your way because the fat acceptance biocunts have destroyed the military and divided the country through migration and identity politics
>finally figure out what Terminator didn't show: The human overlords that sit in their mansions with their harems, laughing as their enemies are eradicated by violent sexbots

Bet they didn't see that one coming in the robot uprising: Being fucked to death with a horsecock.

File: 449780 - Eleanor_Camuel Phantasy_Star_Online RAcaseal.jpg (65KB, 667x800px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 667x800px

>>6422691
original does fit better.
and yes, you are correct, consciousness would be split experiences, though if you copied yourself and died in the exact moment the transition would be not be perceptible, like a continuous conciousness(but technically not)
now what if you and your copies experience everything at once like a hive mind with shared memories?
>who gets the parachute.
knowing me and me, we'd argue over who got to make the sacrifice like two annoyingly polite gentlemen until *splat*
>>6422861
while I commend your good tastes I have to point out even current androids sport synthetic skin.

What kinds of fetishy things would you do to a robot/AI waifu?

[spoiler]bonus points if you draw or write about it[/spoiler]

>>6400683
Any thoughts on westworld?

I really hope Bernard just knocked elsie out, I'd cry if she died

>>6427334
>Any thoughts on westworld?

Fucking love it so far

It's a weird amalgam of Dollhouse meets... Battlestar Galactica (the 2003 one with human robots), meets Jurrasic Park, meets Lost. It's just all over the place, and it's awesome!

>>6417366
Artist is Floatrand.

>>6415767
I'm sure not a scientist, but I think that art is a shit.

>>6432540
I'm a doctor and I can say that it's really, really shitty.

>>6427257
I want to install Arch Linux on Jenny
I love it if she we'll be kinky

>>6433569
Install Debian to have a more down to heart, sweet girl

File: 1451567935690.png (228KB, 515x1432px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 515x1432px

>>6415404
You think you aren't a series of learned responses?

File: 1452137547656.jpg (721KB, 885x1254px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 885x1254px

Robots are expensive but AI+VR can be a good combo in the next 10 years

File: 6b370aff720331b42fa9d0e617803173.jpg (141KB, 1024x1117px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1024x1117px

>>6438533
Main thing about live human intelligence is that we have "general knowledge", we can learn anything in any way, make new categories if we need to, apply existing knowledge to problems we've never faced, etc.

Existing machine learning can't think outside the box, the way it diverges a solution and the way it "learns" is pre-programmed by a human and it defines it's hard limitations.

>tfw no furry robot waifu

If you can't put yourself in the toaster, put the toaster in yourself. Like robocop