AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → AI Research and Development

131 29951
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,061 posts
Jester

For those who don't know AI = artificial intelligence, basically a machine that reacts as the human brain does. This means that it has to be able to learn and adapt to change. What I want to know is what AG thinks of it? Anyone automatically thinking of the Terminator and The Matrix?

  • 131 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester


WHY would you give an AI a gun...? are you stupid?

to fight in wars to not let your own people die maybe?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

to fight in wars to not let your own people die maybe?


To a certain extent, robots have already been used in wars. It's only a matter of time before we scale it up fully.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

To a certain extent, robots have already been used in wars. It's only a matter of time before we scale it up fully.


we gave weapons AI but not AI weapons right?
(it's kinda how you interpret AI. now i think of it)
grimml
offline
grimml
879 posts
Nomad

but also keep in mind that quantum computers will be using "qubits" wich stands for "quantum binary units"
it's more a huge upgrade of the binary code then a compleet new one.
but i don't understand it good enoufg. i might be wrong about that

I don't really know much about it either but as far as I understand there are two types of quantum computers in research: One uses 3 the other 5 different states (instead of 2 in the binary system). This will increase our computing power extremely.
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

One uses 3 the other 5 different states (instead of 2 in the binary system). This will increase our computing power extremely.


We already have computers that can operate in base 10, and supposedly the best to operate in is base 2.71.

it's more a huge upgrade of the binary code then a compleet new one.


You're confused what binary codes are. A binary code is just a random assortment of 1's and 0's that are used to represent various things, such as ASCII characters. An example is the binary code for "A" is 01000001. What you are probably thinking of is machine language, which is as close as you can get to the processor of the computer because it interacts directly with the instruction set and everything that is programmed in any language is compiled down to it before being fed to the computer.
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

it's far from random.


But it is, there's no logic behind them, they were just chosen by some computer scientist. You can't possibly make advancements in them. Read the rest of my post.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

If you let AIs wage war, you'll have to ditch the First Law. Eventually, the robot will have to kill someone, and do we really want hackable, murderous soldiers? And why make them fight? We have to fight our own battles, and Man must always be present in the theatre of war.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

If you let AIs wage war, you'll have to ditch the First Law. Eventually, the robot will have to kill someone, and do we really want hackable, murderous soldiers? And why make them fight? We have to fight our own battles, and Man must always be present in the theatre of war.


"Hackable"? Just don't put any wireless in them, make them contained, and you would have to be able to get in range to be able to hack them. Which isn't a place you want to be, a few feet away from a "Murderous soldier".

And why would humans need to wage our own wars? Kings rarely fight their own battles, and when they do, they bring an army with them. Politicians never battle, so why should the common man go out there and get himself killed? Robots will do this happily and efficiently.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

Yes, and what happens when one side wins? Going by the way that most people wage war, they'll take over in their enemies' city, kill insurgents, and slaughter weaklings. It's bad enough when humans do this, but come on, getting robots to slaughter for them? That's just cheap. Let robots take care of people, but leave fighting to the species that does it most, not an unyielding hunk of walking metal.

master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

getting robots to slaughter for them? That's just cheap.


No it's not. We aren't "getting" robots to do anything, we're "making" robots to do a specific purpose. The same way we make a weapon to kill all those people, we can make a robot to kill them too. There's no real difference between a robot made to kill and a weapon, I would call both them by weapons.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Yes, and what happens when one side wins? Going by the way that most people wage war, they'll take over in their enemies' city, kill insurgents, and slaughter weaklings.


What is this, 15 CE? Last I checked, no modern war involves just strolling into enemy cities and killing everyone. Some bombing in WWII, but really not even Nazis went as far as strolling into a defeated city and killing everyone. Sure, they kill insurgents, as in the people who are shooting at them, but if someone is bringing an army to your doorstep and you decide the best course of action is to shoot at them, you are probably well aware of the consequences and should stick to sabotaging trains.

It's bad enough when humans do this, but come on, getting robots to slaughter for them?


I don't see the difference. "Well, my family was just killed in a bombing, but at least it wasn't robots!" isn't something you normally hear.

Let robots take care of people, but leave fighting to the species that does it most, not an unyielding hunk of walking metal.


There are species that fight way more than us, impressive as you seem to think that is.

And here is a picture of "Unyielding hunk of walking metal" just to show you that we have actually had those for a while.

http://encyc.org/pmwiki/uploads/Main/Soviet_Tank_T-34.jpg
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

Is it walking? Those treads don't look like legs. No, I'm pretty sure it's a tank, something a wee bit more fair than a pure bred killing machine. And anyway, we're very far from making anything that powerful. The robots now have only just perfected walking, not even close to dodging or absorbing fire and wielding the largest, most powerful weapons man has to offer as mere assault rifles.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Is it walking? Those treads don't look like legs. No, I'm pretty sure it's a tank, something a wee bit more fair than a pure bred killing machine.


Does that distinction matter? "Well my village just got totaled, but don't worry, the machine was on treads! It wasn't walking, wouldn't that be horrible?"

And why not just put an AI in the already existing tanks?

The robots now have only just perfected walking, not even close to dodging or absorbing fire and wielding the largest, most powerful weapons man has to offer as mere assault rifles.


Why is walking so important? They can get faster with the treads. And, as you may have noticed from the picture, tanks already have the "heavy weapons" thing down.
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

robots now have only just perfected walking


Nobody said they have to have legs that mimic ours, they can use any method they want to move, wether it be wheels, flying, walking, or anything else.

not even close to dodging or absorbing fire


It's not like we have metal strong enough to not get damaged when shot.

wielding the largest, most powerful weapons man has to offer as mere assault rifles.


I'm not sure what weapons you are talking about but with sensors and camera's, we can program robots to see something and shoot at it.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,824 posts
Peasant

Treads can't work well in blown-up urban environments. Human tank commanders can understand that blowing that strut will crush 50 men to die, whereas the "logical" AI will just continue the old one-at-a-time technique. I think it's better o have it as A) a suit or B) have them controlled remotely.

And call me paranoid, but I think you're arguing for the sake of trying to argue. It's annoying.

Showing 91-105 of 131