Artificial Intelligence

OK, all the evil overlord stuff is one thing, but what does the actual cloning gain you? There's still no advantage over natural birth.

The thing is that cloning makes no practical difference, so there is no real use for it.

If you want to see how the Evil Overlord would do it, watch Soldier. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1083934-soldier/

cralkhi wrote:OK, all the evil overlord stuff is one thing, but what does the actual cloning gain you? There's still no advantage over natural birth.

The thing is that cloning makes no practical difference, so there is no real use for it.

Uhm, did you read my last reply at all?

Natural birth means that the prospective evil overlord either has to entice lots of women, or forcibly aquire them, and then get it into a working system. That is quite a BIG hurdle.

Also, you can´t use the speeded up development without also affecting the mother if using natural birth.


It makes quite a big total difference.

JohnRoth wrote:
If by modern you mean sometime in the last 6 million or so years since the line leading to humans split from the line leading to chimpanzees, yes.

Humans have two more growth stages than other primates, one of which is adolescence. Other mammals are adults very soon after they mature sexually. We aren't.

That's biology, not culture.

And completely and utterly irrelevant. Humans can generally start being reliable workers somewhere between age 7 and 15 depending on the job and the person. Wether they have matured 100% doesn´t matter the slightest.

Tenshinai wrote:

JohnRoth wrote:
If by modern you mean sometime in the last 6 million or so years since the line leading to humans split from the line leading to chimpanzees, yes.

Humans have two more growth stages than other primates, one of which is adolescence. Other mammals are adults very soon after they mature sexually. We aren't.

That's biology, not culture.

And completely and utterly irrelevant. Humans can generally start being reliable workers somewhere between age 7 and 15 depending on the job and the person. Wether they have matured 100% doesn´t matter the slightest.

I was responding to kzt's comment, where he said:

kzt wrote:The whole extended childhood and adolescence is a fairly modern invention.

Would you please do me (and everyone else) the courtesy of including enough of the context so we can see what the actual thread of conversation was about?

Actually, that was exactly what I meant. Things like apprenticeships starting at age 11, in which you lived in the masters household and worked for him (or her - dressmakers were mostly women) every day and only rarely saw your parents.

Wow what a topic to miss.

AI strong, vs AI weak.

AI internal or individual vs AI the computer Virus.

Nanotech etc...

Having just watched the wrong movie Transcendence, with the AI weak computer Virus premise. Weak Nanotech and people who have no idea what a quantum computer is.

The notion might help some of you but remember these are Hollywood types who just don't get it or rely upon Kurzweil too much.

In 2000-3000 years reality will not be Honorverse like, even though it would be cool.

More an individual strong AI that is individual based and enhancing us people. More Borg like without the drone mentality and humongous attachments. No FTL and while nanotech in the short term is great it could make for a truly scary beyond anything imaginable result. Anything from universe wide magic to gods of intellect beyond galactic size with immortal beings and humanity long forgotten. Scary stuff. Without the humanoid limitations.

Think of it this way with two hands one head a human can do a lot. With 25 heads and 400 hands what could whatever you call that, do? Then think, if you can, a billion hands and one gigantic intellect, not humanoid zombies or drones but nanotech swarms, no need for stuff or ships or mates or friends or humanity.

SWM wrote:

cthia wrote:Okay, lemon meringue if you're going to throw pies. I always thought a good use of an AI would be to train on the mat. Instead of getting your butt kicked by Honor or Babcock. I know there are disadvantages to that. But it crossed my mind. I guess that's a bit of Laura Croft Tombraider.

Cthia, are you confusing AI with an android? AI generally refers to computers, not mobiles. You could have AIs running mobiles, but that is not the most important feature of AI.

Personally, I simply must accept my own absolute realization of AI. My reasoned response to the 'absolute' or rather 'supreme' use of AI as I intuit it? Mankind, *as well as any intelligent species *we* suppose, has long since felt the call of the wild to play God. As God we feel the desire to create that which is in our own image, the byproduct of which becomes a creation indistinguishable from its creator and able to play surrogate in many situations. Father to the fatherless, mother to the motherless, friend to the friendless, baby to those who cannot bear, children to those parents without, companion to the companionless. A true artificial intelligence can bring all of these innate needs to fruition.

From the outset, as kids, humans create their own companions. Our teddy bears become animate inanimate objects, who have been imparted with this characteristic from the power of our own minds. So strong in fact that many of our teddy bears are never discarded. Children cry real tears for the loss of these 'animate' objects. Some of our more imaginative children create imaginary friends to play 'tea set' or 'doctor.' As healthy adults, we are no less immune to the powerful attraction of artificial intelligence as companions. I remember a study in the nineties chronicling many human's addiction to chatrooms. That addiction continues. What about the many addictions to forums? We only assume we are talking to another 'intelligent' human. Do we know, for certain? Sometimes I question the 'intelligence' factor. May as well question the 'human' factor as well, because for certain I can't know.

Enter Artificial Intelligence. Model 'HOPE-2B.' "Mom, can Hope take me to get ice-cream?" "I don't have time right now sweetie, have Hope help you with your homework." A true imagined AI will be able to substitute in any situation. Because of man's addictive nature, we will fall in love with our AIs. As men we already talk to our cars, and have been for decades. Only now, since Siri have they been able to talk back. And she can be a bitch sometimes. And many of us say as much. Vehemently. "Bitch, don't you understand what I am saying?!" Now we can just scream at the human-like entity sitting in the passenger seat telling us for 'certain' that we are lost!

The most 'important' use of AI could be argued to be the application of very capable computers, assisting doctors with diagnosis, research professionals with successes. Cures imagined. However, to limit such an intelligence to an immobile computer if mobility is achievable in my opinion would be short sighted. If we can indeed create Stephen Hawkins, why not give him legs this time around?

* **Remember the movie AI? This level of AI is the ultimate for humans. It is in our psyche. From the mind of the first human who initially stroked our imagination of it, Mary Shelley with her Frankenstein, motivated by experiments dealing with galvanism.

The movie Short Circuit, Electric Dreams, I, Robot, Terminator and my personal favorite Cherry 2000. The notion of the ultimate end user application of AI is already ingrained deeply within us. Our imagination does the rest.

SWM wrote:Cthia, are you confusing AI with an android? AI generally refers to computers, not mobiles. You could have AIs running mobiles, but that is not the most important feature of AI.

I think the most important feature of Artificial Intelligence is the Intelligence. Where we choose to install that intelligence, is limited only by our willingness and imagination. Morality wouldn't be an obstruction. Humans have no morality.

I don't know why the subject reminds me of the discovery of atomic energy, yet it does. There would be so many uses...militarily, commercially, personally. Examples: firefighters, bomb teams (we already have dumb robots in this capacity), trainers (aforementioned martial arts, wrestlers, pitchers...)


The moral considerations would undoubtedly manifest itself. I can already imagine the future studies, "The Dangers of Our Children Being Raised by Artificial Surrogates." Television raises many of our children nowadays. It would be a short jump to AI. What would latchkey kids be called then?

Now, if you'll excuse me, my Hope-2B, affectionately named Cheery 2000, requires my...attention.

JohnRoth wrote:If by modern you mean sometime in the last 6 million or so years since the line leading to humans split from the line leading to chimpanzees, yes.
Humans have two more growth stages than other primates, one of which is adolescence. Other mammals are adults very soon after they mature sexually. We aren't.
That's biology, not culture.

Tenshinai wrote:And completely and utterly irrelevant. Humans can generally start being reliable workers somewhere between age 7 and 15 depending on the job and the person. Wether they have matured 100% doesn´t matter the slightest.

JohnRoth wrote:I was responding to kzt's comment, where he said:

kzt wrote:The whole extended childhood and adolescence is a fairly modern invention.

JohnRoth wrote:Would you please do me (and everyone else) the courtesy of including enough of the context so we can see what the actual thread of conversation was about?

kzt wrote:Actually, that was exactly what I meant. Things like apprenticeships starting at age 11, in which you lived in the masters household and worked for him (or her - dressmakers were mostly women) every day and only rarely saw your parents.

Admiral David G Farragut, United States Navy
http://www.history.navy.mil/bios/farragut_davidg.htm

This used to be normal for humanity to start at this age.

The old saw went that ADM Farragut tried to join when he was nine years old and was told he was too young to join the Navy and to come back again when he was ten.

By his twelfth birthday he was giving command as prize master of Alexander Barclay captured by the USS Essex under command by Captain David Porter to return to port.

Lord Skimper wrote:and while nanotech in the short term is great it could make for a truly scary beyond anything imaginable result. Anything from universe wide magic to gods of intellect beyond galactic size with immortal beings and humanity long forgotten. Scary stuff. Without the humanoid limitations

I don't buy the nanotech = does anything idea. The nano-scale is REALLY small and so the available power will be very limited (plus it wouldn't take much energy to literally break something that size apart, any molecule breaks down if it's heated enough).

And the complexity is also limited. We're talking something the size of a large complex biomolecule (eg protein, DNA) or a virus. Viruses are in fact pretty much the closest thing to natural nanomachines... and they can't self-replicate on their own, they need a cell to do it.

I think that if/when we get nanotech, it will be basically "artificial viruses and bacteria" (bacteria are really bigger than this scale but, so what) -- possibly with a different chemical basis than natural Earth life.

They could be extremely useful in e.g. medicine, and might be able to make things given time, but "high energy" applications would probably be mostly off the table.