PDA

View Full Version : Self-Replicating Robots



QueenKale
May 12th, 2005, 07:29 PM
I found this article neat and familiar, if not a little disturbing:
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=8459073&section=news&src=rss/uk/oddlyEnoughNews

The worst part of the article was, "....which don't do anything else except make copies of themselves...."

It's just creepy.... :S

Dotus5
May 12th, 2005, 07:39 PM
There is a thread about this already started in 'Off-topic', even though it should probably be put here.

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=12006

6thMonolith
May 12th, 2005, 07:40 PM
Check out http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=11995
Very cool, though

_Owen_
May 12th, 2005, 08:34 PM
This is very interesting, allthough not that far out, we have had the technology to build self replicating robots for a long time, just one question, I did not have time to read the article, do the robots replicate using raw materials or pre-built materials, if it is the latter, then they are not really replicators. Also, do they carry some sort of internal procesing unit with a program on it that specifies what they are to do, or are they constantly connected to the computer and have people tell them what to do, I do not believe it is the latter. If they have an internal procesing unit is a new one replicated from raw materials and then the data is transfered over?

As you can see there are several thing that still leave them very far away from replicators.

Personaly I do not belive that they should go any farther in thier research sure it was a in itch, but now it has been scratched, it was pure scientific curiosity and nothing more, I can not think of any practical reason for a self replicating robot, we can build robots if we need them, we don't need them to build themselves. It is incredibly, the only word that comes to mind is, stupid, to continue the reasearch and to continue advancing the technology behind them, because eventually they will get smarter than us and they will become sentient, this, we can not allow, robots have the potential to be a billion times stronger, faster, and more inteligent than us, and making them so that they can self-replicate only gives them another advantage over us, I am assuming that it doesn't take nine months for one of them to replicate.

My point is it would be dangerous and irresponsible to continue the research any farther. This is a point I am not budging on.

Owen Macri

Darkstar
May 13th, 2005, 01:52 AM
This is very interesting, allthough not that far out, we have had the technology to build self replicating robots for a long time, just one question, I did not have time to read the article, do the robots replicate using raw materials or pre-built materials, if it is the latter, then they are not really replicators. Also, do they carry some sort of internal procesing unit with a program on it that specifies what they are to do, or are they constantly connected to the computer and have people tell them what to do, I do not believe it is the latter. If they have an internal procesing unit is a new one replicated from raw materials and then the data is transfered over?

As you can see there are several thing that still leave them very far away from replicators.

Personaly I do not belive that they should go any farther in thier research sure it was a in itch, but now it has been scratched, it was pure scientific curiosity and nothing more, I can not think of any practical reason for a self replicating robot, we can build robots if we need them, we don't need them to build themselves. It is incredibly, the only word that comes to mind is, stupid, to continue the reasearch and to continue advancing the technology behind them, because eventually they will get smarter than us and they will become sentient, this, we can not allow, robots have the potential to be a billion times stronger, faster, and more inteligent than us, and making them so that they can self-replicate only gives them another advantage over us, I am assuming that it doesn't take nine months for one of them to replicate.

My point is it would be dangerous and irresponsible to continue the research any farther. This is a point I am not budging on.

Owen Macri


the replicator cubes are ideal for space missions probes sent to other planets could repair themselves if they were damaged also if a probe was sent outside our solar system it could act on its own and who knows if it had a power core capable of lasting years it could become a sentient robot? :S

_Owen_
May 13th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Yes it could become a sentient robot, like in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but this would be far more dangerous. Also technology can be built that can repair itself while not allowing it to replicate, so there is still no reason I can think of to continue the reasearch. It is dangerous and iresponsible.

Owen Macri

Supreme Thor
May 13th, 2005, 01:13 PM
Well, I guess there's a good and a bad to this news:

Bad: We'd soon be taken over by our own creation (old plot) and then we'd be struggling against Replicators.

Good: We'd practically be living Stargate...If only we had one...:D

6thMonolith
May 13th, 2005, 02:57 PM
Yes it could become a sentient robot, like in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but this would be far more dangerous. Also technology can be built that can repair itself while not allowing it to replicate, so there is still no reason I can think of to continue the reasearch. It is dangerous and iresponsible.

Owen Macri

I don't think that you could get much more dangerous than V'ger from TMP. That thing was huge, and made of mostly energy. Also, if a deep space satalite was severly damaged, the ability to replicate from raw materials would be very helpful, especially if it lost matter. You could also reduce the cost of sending out a probe to the outer limits by sending maybe a dozen self-replicating blocks. They would get to the destination, build copies of on their own(I forgot the name of this type of robot), just like in 2010(the book/movie, not the episode). There is a difference between sentience and the ability to adapt.

Also, check out http://www.mae.cornell.edu/ccsl/research/selfrep/video/4x4ht4a.wmv For a video of the 'bots in action.

MarshAngel
May 13th, 2005, 06:59 PM
In order for a robot made by humans to become sentient wouldn't it need to have adaptive programming? If the robots are only programmed to perform specific tasks, albeit complex ones, how exactly would they randomly make the leap to sentience without any programmed foundation for that behavior?

If it is so 'easy'(and yes, that's stretching the definition) to create an artificial intelligence wouldn't we already have had more success than we have had with that project? We'd just have to program a computer and wait around.

I know scifi makes it fairly common for this to happen but my instinct says if a computer is going to be intelligent it's going to be by intent not accident.... I could be wrong but somebody is definitely going to have to explain to me why.

_Owen_
May 13th, 2005, 07:18 PM
Thanks for the link that was great.

Theoretically a robot could become more advanced and more dangerous than Vger, it would tak a long time though.

Even without adaptive programing the robot can still become more and more inteligent to the point where it could write its own adaptive programing, even when a robot is only programed to do a single task there is still the possibility of malfuction and or a programing error. While connected to a computer to have its programing updated information could be "accidentaly" downloaded into the robot that would allow it to build its own programs.

There are always bad people with bad intentions, if the technology is available to them it will be much easier to go through with these bad intentions, if the research is stopped, sure, they might be able to create the technology by themselves, however if reaserch on the subject (and you know I don't mean for a school project) is outlawed and there are measures taken into account to search out people continuing this research, it will be a lot harder for anyone to succeed.

There are also good people with good intentions that can make bad mistakes.

Owen Macri

_Owen_
May 14th, 2005, 03:07 AM
They aren't really replicators, as we know them, they are toys with magnets, I would like to know if there programs are stored in the blocks or fed to them by computers through those attachments to the floor, it is probably the latter, in which case they are even less replicator-like.

As primitve as they are now, someone else will want to make them more and more advances, I admit it, they are cool, but they also have the potential to become extremly dangerous.

Owen Macri

Shade
May 19th, 2005, 05:18 PM
Give us a decade and we'll have self replicating robocops or something...who knows?

_Owen_
May 19th, 2005, 08:09 PM
That would be a billion times more dangerous!

We can't allow that to happen.

Owen Macri