Robot and AI, why make them human?

[Nimos]

So found this one which is a guy that interviews an robot/AI:

They talk about some general things, but also stuff like free will and souls etc.

The video is from 2017 and found another video, that is only 2 years old and it is clear that a lot of changes have been made to its look.

If we take Star wars and C3PO:

Obviously he is inspired by human anatomy and we can laugh at some of the stuff he does etc. Yet he is not trying to achieve the look of a human in that sense. He serves the purpose of being a translator, which in itself is rather useless because there would probably be far better ways to do that, than having him tagging along.

We are most likely going to use robots to explore the Universe for us, but there doesn't seem to be any benefit in them looking like humans, they could just as well look like this:

Why do you think that it is important for them to make these robots look and behave like humans. Because looking at her, clearly, it is one of the goals and the same with ChatGPT which is trying to emulate the human brain?

Do you think it is merely for the challenge or what?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think its just programming atm but with open ai or machine learning, it will become well past that where ai itself will take in a life of its own volition.

Did an AI Really Invent Its Own 'Secret Language'? Here's What We Know

A new generation of artificial intelligence (AI) models can produce "creative" images on-demand based on a text prompt.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[kadzbiz]

I guess as humans, psychologically it's probably more instinctive to talk to another humanoid figure, rather than a toaster?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I guess as humans, psychologically it's probably more instinctive to talk to another humanoid figure, rather than a toaster?

I think that's when things start getting dangerous once ai is let loose without anyone controlling it.

It's one area of sci fi admist many stories, that I'm thinking will actually come true at some point in the future.

 

[We Never Know]

I think that's when things start getting dangerous once ai is let loose without anyone controlling it.

It's one area of sci fi admist many stories, that I'm thinking will actually come true at some point in the future.

I read about this a few days ago....

"What is My AI on Snapchat and how do I use it?​

My AI is an experimental, friendly, chatbot currently available to Snapchatters.
In a chat conversation, My AI can answer a burning trivia question, offer advice on the perfect gift for your BFF’s birthday, help plan a hiking trip for a long weekend, or suggest what to make for dinner. My AI is there to help and to connect you more deeply to the people and things you care about most.
You can give My AI a nickname and tell it about your likes (and dislikes!).
We’re constantly working to improve and evolve My AI, but it’s possible My AI’s responses may include biased, incorrect, harmful, or misleading content. Because My AI is an evolving feature, you should always independently check answers provided by My AI before relying on any advice, and you should not share confidential or sensitive information."

https://help.snapchat.com/hc/en-us/articles/13266788358932-What-is-My-AI-on-Snapchat-and-how-do-I-use-it-

 

[Stevicus]

Why do you think that it is important for them to make these robots look and behave like humans. Because looking at her, clearly, it is one of the goals and the same with ChatGPT which is trying to emulate the human brain?

Do you think it is merely for the challenge or what?

I think there are probably lots of useful applications for AI in many different areas. But, as with any technology, it can be used for good purposes or malignant purposes.

I didn't watch the entire video, and I've played around with ChatGPT a few times. I'll admit, there seems to be some potential here, but I'm just not sure if this is just a souped-up mechanical parrot or something more.

I think the real question is how much do we truly understand our own minds, as humans, to be able to replicate it electronically? The human mind is a pretty complex piece of work, and even humans can't understand why we do what we do.

If humans can't figure out how their own minds work, how can they build a robot mind to emulate a human mind? I'll admit it's a fascinating topic, and popular in sci-fi.

However, perhaps they can make a different kind of mind which wouldn't attempt to emulate humans, but could still be just as useful and helpful to humankind as the robot in the video says. We don't need AI to emulate humans, as that seems more some kind of cheesy gimmick than anything else.

 

[Heyo]

So found this one which is a guy that interviews an robot/AI:

They talk about some general things, but also stuff like free will and souls etc.

The video is from 2017 and found another video, that is only 2 years old and it is clear that a lot of changes have been made to its look.

If we take Star wars and C3PO:
View attachment 75645

Obviously he is inspired by human anatomy and we can laugh at some of the stuff he does etc. Yet he is not trying to achieve the look of a human in that sense. He serves the purpose of being a translator, which in itself is rather useless because there would probably be far better ways to do that, than having him tagging along.

We are most likely going to use robots to explore the Universe for us, but there doesn't seem to be any benefit in them looking like humans, they could just as well look like this:

Why do you think that it is important for them to make these robots look and behave like humans. Because looking at her, clearly, it is one of the goals and the same with ChatGPT which is trying to emulate the human brain?

Do you think it is merely for the challenge or what?

For a robot to work optimally in an environment made by humans for humans it is useful for it to be humanoid. We already know that the human form works reasonable, so why re-invent the wheel?
Same goes for AI. It serves us best if it is able to communicate in human language. If it only understands and answers in a specific machine language (as first versions of AI did), you need a human interpreter to make use of it.

 

[Nimos]

I didn't watch the entire video, and I've played around with ChatGPT a few times. I'll admit, there seems to be some potential here, but I'm just not sure if this is just a souped-up mechanical parrot or something more.

I think a lot of people look at it like this, as a bit of entertainment. I showed ChatGPT to my parents and they thought it was funny and impressive. My dad wanted to ask it about the meaning of life and what is beyond the Universe and so on and thought that was fun. But then I asked my mom to imagine that she wanted to write a book about Copenhagen.

So first we told it to come up with topics that the book could contain, about the history, politics, culture, food etc. We then asked it to write about Copenhagen's history, which it did without any problems and in Danish, which impressed them.

This is where the real issues start, because sure it is funny that you can do this, but there are a lot of people who make living writing books and that spend years doing this, meaning having to research everything, write it so it sounds good, needs to test it for errors etc. It's a long process to do. ChatGPT wrote it in approx. 45 seconds. Let's say, you spend a week getting it to write this book and then publish it. There is no author that can do that. So now that everyone is basically capable of writing books without any effort, what do you think will happen to these people writing these types of books?

With the people that work with translating them? and just translation in general? So what started as a fun gimmick is suddenly not just that at least not for these people. In principle, the book market could be flooded with books and no one has any clue whether it is written by a human or someone that has never written a book in their life before.

If you take it further, what will happen to people working in support? if you can get an AI to do that. It can work much more efficiently than any human and can work 24/7.

My point is, that if things go as they normally do in our society, new technology is going to replace humans because they are the weak and inefficient link in most cases. Obviously depending on the job.

And I think that is probably one of the biggest problems today, because people look at these AI's as entertainment, without really thinking about what impact it has when they are getting integrated into companies when they want to save money on salaries and increase their profit.

Let's say they in 20-30 years manage to make that robot Sophia able to walk around like a human, but at the same time have knowledge far beyond the average human. Why wouldn't we use them to build our houses? Solve plumbing issues, and electrical stuff, and paint our walls and what else you could imagine a human could do.

 

[Nimos]

For a robot to work optimally in an environment made by humans for humans it is useful for it to be humanoid. We already know that the human form works reasonable, so why re-invent the wheel?
Same goes for AI. It serves us best if it is able to communicate in human language. If it only understands and answers in a specific machine language (as first versions of AI did), you need a human interpreter to make use of it.

I agree at least to some extent, also the task it has to solve might make for a more optimal design.

For instance, a robot cleaning windows on skyscrapers might benefit from a design that is not human

But if you need robots to "take" on roles of humans, there might be a benefit to that, for instance, we might prefer to speak to one that looks human rather than not. But again, they could just make one that looks like C3PO without any facial movement or human skin, it would in theory serve the purpose just as well. But it seems like they are going for something like Data in Star Trek or the one from Alien. Meaning that it seems to be something that is more than just a tool for humans.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why do you think that it is important for them to make these robots look and behave like humans. Because looking at her, clearly, it is one of the goals and the same with ChatGPT which is trying to emulate the human brain?

Do you think it is merely for the challenge or what?

Someone mentioned the robot C3P-O from Star Wars fiction: this is a good starting place. George Lucas goes ahead and presumes all of the androids in his world are slaves. The word 'Robot' means 'Slave' and comes from the concept of having a mechanical tireless slave, possibly one that has no will of its own. Why wish for such a thing? Because then humans won't have to be slaves and may not even have to work.

The human condition has no perfect solution, in my opinion, yet; but AI represents a new frontier for humans. This is something which need not suffer and which can do all of the menial tasks which plague us. Once this thing is good enough it frees up all of us from working, from bending over, from scrubbing, from all drudge work. This could enable the human race to change and improve. Imagine a world that does not need anyone to be in a lower class. Suddenly there is no justification for a lower class, is there?

 

[Nimos]

I guess as humans, psychologically it's probably more instinctive to talk to another humanoid figure, rather than a toaster?

I agree, but is it desirable? Meaning having robots going around looking like humans?

This is obviously from a game, but let's imagine we reach such a point:

 

[Heyo]

I agree at least to some extent, also the task it has to solve might make for a more optimal design.

For instance, a robot cleaning windows on skyscrapers might benefit from a design that is not human

Yes, but you don't need a general artificial intelligence to clean windows. A "dumb" machine can do that.

But if you need robots to "take" on roles of humans, there might be a benefit to that, for instance, we might prefer to speak to one that looks human rather than not. But again, they could just make one that looks like C3PO without any facial movement or human skin, it would in theory serve the purpose just as well. But it seems like they are going for something like Data in Star Trek or the one from Alien. Meaning that it seems to be something that is more than just a tool for humans.

There have been studies in psychology about human machine interactions and it seems that (the illusion of) facial, emotional reactions make communication more efficient. You can see that for yourself when you watch how you react to a person face-to-face in contras to, say, a written conversation on RF.

 

[Nimos]

There have been studies in psychology about human machine interactions and it seems that (the illusion of) facial, emotional reactions make communication more efficient. You can see that for yourself when you watch how you react to a person face-to-face in contras to, say, a written conversation on RF.

I agree, I don't disagree with what you are writing.
But in that case, what they are trying to achieve is a "human 2.0" or what to call it Because they are working on turning tools into emotional machines. The fact that they have to look and behave like us, is done for a reason, because I'm not really concerned about the emotional state of my toaster, as long as it can toast my bread But if it looked and behaved like a human, then I probably would at least to some degree.

This is why I gave the example of C3PO, he serves the function of a translator, so the humans can interact with whomever they need to, but he is still a tool.

 

[Nimos]

The human condition has no perfect solution, in my opinion, yet; but AI represents a new frontier for humans. This is something which need not suffer and which can do all of the menial tasks which plague us. Once this thing is good enough it frees up all of us from working, from bending over, from scrubbing, from all drudge work. This could enable the human race to change and improve. Imagine a world that does not need anyone to be in a lower class. Suddenly there is no justification for a lower class, is there?

I agree, I don't think AI or robotics is bad, in fact, I think it is awesome.

But I still think one have to be aware of the impact that these have, saying that it is good that they free us up from a lot of boring jobs is good, but the fact is that a lot of people make a living off these jobs, whether that is cleaning the streets, painting houses, writing books, making translations, etc. All these people need to be moved somewhere else where they can earn some money to spend because that is how society works, there need to be enough people to buy stuff or things collapse.

 

[Stevicus]

If you take it further, what will happen to people working in support? if you can get an AI to do that. It can work much more efficiently than any human and can work 24/7.

My point is, that if things go as they normally do in our society, new technology is going to replace humans because they are the weak and inefficient link in most cases. Obviously depending on the job.

And I think that is probably one of the biggest problems today, because people look at these AI's as entertainment, without really thinking about what impact it has when they are getting integrated into companies when they want to save money on salaries and increase their profit.

Yes, that's been the problem humans have faced since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Of course, few people cared much when it was grunts and laborers being replaced (except the Luddites, but they were easily crushed).

The battle of man vs. machine was often told in folksy legends such as John Henry, the steel driving man who died while trying to compete with a steam drill.

Likewise, few in power seemed to care much when factory workers were outsourced to overseas locations, so this is a similar activity, except now, everyone is replaceable and could conceivably be outsourced.

Industrialism was seen as destructive of an entire way of life, particularly on the Great Plains where railroads, telegraph lines, mines, ranches, farms, towns became more numerous. The Natives who previously used the land for hunting and gathering purposes could no longer do that, and their traditional ways of living and sustaining themselves were no longer possible.

So, what we're seeing today is just more of the same, only instead of just affecting mere grunts and peasants, it seems that there's potential for writers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, historians, or any number of other "white collar" occupations could also be replaced. Even actors, musicians, artists, and other entertainers could be replaced.

So, now, it has become a problem, because now people among the more privileged classes are beginning to sense that their own livelihoods might be threatened. But if it didn't matter when John Henry was replaced by the steam drill, why should it matter if a doctor or lawyer is replaced by an AI robot?

 

[Heyo]

I agree, I don't think AI or robotics is bad, in fact, I think it is awesome.

But I still think one have to be aware of the impact that these have, saying that it is good that they free us up from a lot of boring jobs is good, but the fact is that a lot of people make a living off these jobs, whether that is cleaning the streets, painting houses, writing books, making translations, etc. All these people need to be moved somewhere else where they can earn some money to spend because that is how society works, there need to be enough people to buy stuff or things collapse.

That's why we have to get rid of the notion that one has to work to get money to buy things. Preferably before we all lose our jobs and society collapses.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I agree, I don't think AI or robotics is bad, in fact, I think it is awesome.

But I still think one have to be aware of the impact that these have, saying that it is good that they free us up from a lot of boring jobs is good, but the fact is that a lot of people make a living off these jobs, whether that is cleaning the streets, painting houses, writing books, making translations, etc. All these people need to be moved somewhere else where they can earn some money to spend because that is how society works, there need to be enough people to buy stuff or things collapse.

Another aspect of how society works is that it ignores the plight of those whose jobs disappear. For example when home computers and digital printers came available it ruined and destroyed the lifetime jobs of printers who were quite skilled at running printing presses. All of their lives they had been part of keeping information free and helping people to have news and knowledge, but this did not matter to anybody. Their jobs were gone. For a time they had a high suicide rate, but people got over it and forgot them quickly. Some retrained. Some retired. Some could not handle the shock. That kind of thing has been happening a lot over the last 2 centuries, beginning with the appearance of textile mills.

All new technologies kill jobs and people, and don't try to convince me that people care about it. When the textile mills appeared many family businesses closed. People no longer needed them. The sewing machine killed hand sewing. The automobile killed horse stables. The computer killed just about every job except for service jobs, management and professional jobs. The internet has turned trucking into a low pay job. Virtual machines have greatly decreased the need for IT people. Before you know it (probably less than 10 years from now) haircuts will be done by machines. It will soon be illegal for humans to do professional roofing. Nobody will be needed to take out the trash or to wash the dishes or to run the ovens in the kitchens or to make the soup or the cakes or to serve them. Soon you won't even need to drive yourself. Airplane pilots? Bus drivers? Bowling attendants? Gas station attendants? Burger flippers? Everything can and will go away, and what will be left is the same thing that was left of the printers and for the home sewing community and the carriage builders. Its all in danger of going away, and what will be left are people who have need of robots.

You will need robots to work for you. One hundred years from now you won't be able to find a job anywhere, but you will be able to buy robots that can help you make due. Perhaps you will lease them out to businesses, or perhaps they will grow vegetables for you and make your clothes and repair your home with materials they grow. Two hundred years from now our way of life will be a zany film about what humans used to be like and how silly we were and desperate and about how we filled the world with our garbage.

 

[kadzbiz]

I agree, but is it desirable? Meaning having robots going around looking like humans?

This is obviously from a game, but let's imagine we reach such a point:

I thought my comment conveyed that it is desirable. I’ve played that game.

 

[Nimos]

So, what we're seeing today is just more of the same, only instead of just affecting mere grunts and peasants, it seems that there's potential for writers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, historians, or any number of other "white collar" occupations could also be replaced. Even actors, musicians, artists, and other entertainers could be replaced.

So, now, it has become a problem, because now people among the more privileged classes are beginning to sense that their own livelihoods might be threatened. But if it didn't matter when John Henry was replaced by the steam drill, why should it matter if a doctor or lawyer is replaced by an AI robot?

Good point, they are already bringing the dead back to life in movies, even though it is not perfect at the moment. Whether they can completely replace actors is difficult to say, because even in cases where you don't see the actor itself, like in Gollum in lord of the Rings, you still need him to behave believably and there is a long way for robots to be able to do that. But if you can get an AI to project a 3d model on top of an actor so you can't tell the difference, then one could argue whether they would be paid those insane about of money as they are now. Rather than the studios just inventing their own action heroes etc. basically like a cartoon character and the actor just take on the role that the guy that played Gollum did. A huge amount of movies today are filmed with green screens anyway or whatever they do. If you take something like Avatar 2.

Where I think you make a good point, is that when labour got replaced in the past, let's say when you no longer needed 100 people to work the fields, you could move them to factories and as lots of those got replaced by machines as well, they could move to the service industry etc. But humans suffer from a "flaw" that AI and robots don't which is that they don't need to learn things. We have to spend a huge amount of time learning stuff and mastering it, whereas you could just hook up X amount of robots and AIs to the same knowledge base. And the truth is that not all humans are suited for being astrophysics, doctors etc. Before it was fairly easy to move and retrain an "uneducated" workforce, but I doubt that will be the case here, because where will you move them to?

And I think that is a crucial difference between now and back then, that people assume that it is the same and that people will just do something else, despite them never really giving any good examples of what exactly that is going to be.

 

[Nimos]

That's why we have to get rid of the notion that one has to work to get money to buy things. Preferably before we all lose our jobs and society collapses.

I agree, that it will eventually end like that because I think it is obvious that if a society built on a cash flow and profit, doesn't have this then things will go wrong and it will happen fast. But my fear is that we as humans are going to act as fast as we did with the climate crisis, meaning that we act when it is close to being too late But where the climate doesn't starve or as such suffer from it and doesn't complain, that is not the same with humans.