Robots always make me nervous. They are inscrutable.

Well, I wouldn't mind the spaghetti right now, I am hungry and it reads like it would sound like you telling me it would taste good. But I am not on autopilot here... I have some discretion, and would prefer my spaghetti code served hot and in person, which means waiting, which means time. It won't make me evolved, but it may replace an molecule or two.
Robots don't know fear, or hunger, or desire. Those are usually the impetus for change. If a man or woman can master those, do they become robots, or do they become gods?

Back when I ate pork I loved spaghetti carbonara. Which sounds a lot like Quick & Dirty Spaghetti A La Eljekar.

Systems, huh?

How we view ourselves is based on the intellectual phase or fad of the moment?

That makes sense.

Evolution has no teleologic. It does not plan for future catastrophe or even utility. It merely produces scads of variations on working systems. Like nerds tho enjoy fucking with stuff. Most of the stuff is garbage which is why fish lay thousands of eggs to produce a couple of new fish. Nature doesn't give a damn about success or failure. It just makes stuff and most of that stuff doesn't work but a few do and they have kids. Same things happen to plants, ants and elephants. Also to stars, Mars and cigars. The ones that work sustain. Those that don't go back to becoming material for new tries.

What Jan Sand said, and remember that the organism is just the package for the code. What happens to the organism is immaterial as long as the code gets reproduced. So, the robot is expendable as long as the software keeps getting updated. R

Well now I'm confused. Are robots going to evolve to become tires?

Oryoki, thanks for visiting my little place

There's always spaghetti around my house so I can wait for your surprise visit, and then cook it.
But I prefer to serve you another pasta: gramigna. That's better than that quick and dirty tangled ball (although the tomatoes are pomodori dal proprio giardino).
You're welcome.

There's a lot of literature about men/women without fear. Sometimes they resemble the Gods, sometimes it doesn't take long before they fall - superbia, being one of the cardinal sins.
Depends on the storyteller.

I say: if robot cannot become man, my adage, then man cannot become robot.

Men and women have been treated like robots for centuries valued only for their mechanical skills and easy availability and sacrificed with little concern for their value as humans in industry and the military and other oppressive sources. The emerging era is already supplementing physiology with mechanical implants so that in the long run it probably will be of small distinction whether a person is partly or totally organic in origin.

you're right, koshersalaami,

I spoke of alla carbonare. It's certainly not dirty. I myself do not like spaghetti, but I like this one, so now and then ...

Someone has done historical research. And yes, mankind likes to compare itself with the technical status quo of the day.

Not exactly a fad, because man takes himself very serious and most important, and if I understand well a fad cannot serve that purpose.

Anyway, thanks for coming to my place.

escrito par nada, benvenuto at my little place.

I'm not sure if I see your point well, but I guess when a man/woman dies the code goes with the body in the coffin in the pit.

The package can be important.

You can probably put the processor of a chess computer in a drone: I suppose there's a screen in the drone to show the progress of the game.

But the processor of a drone in a chess computer - well, it's a way to bring the drones down.

oooh Chicken, not that pessimistic.

Hauser and Co advocate a comparative approach - so the linguist and the neurologist and the biologist are joining together in observing singing birds, monkeys and talking heads - and fear they will return with more challenges (better to say: more questions raised than answered).

Now I guarantee you, pick whatever robot, observe "it" for a few days and you know more of that robot than Frans de Waal (university of Atlanta) of chimpanzees after a study of 6 years.

And if you take your screwdriver with you I guarantee you also that you are the boss, and not the robot!

Thanks anyway for being here.

best robot, hal in 2001 a space odyssey. Bet he would outwit the screwdriver moment! that super rational voice that was too reasonable and easy it was creeeeeepy and deceptive! I was looking for a recipe. punked. best, libby

Jan, regarding your first comment,

I think I agree with you. But the teleologic, or evolution being a stakeholder, was not my point.

Two additions:
- I guess evolution produces also variations on loose objects
- what sustains is working, but what works is not by definition sustaining

Regarding your second comment, I suppose the relatively low percentage of robots in the workforce has something to do with the cost of producing robots - which is also an indication of our so called high technical standard.

Thanks for coming to my place.

thanks Libby, for being here.

Let's take a drone. If I approach a drone with a screwdriver, he can do nothing. It will not be the drone who stops me.

And the military is no needed to stop me, because I'm a cautious man. I know that if today I want to come to close to such a thing, tomorrow I probably will hear some noise in the air because Obama has put me on his list.

And then, I agree with you, a screwdriver is of no use at all!

point made and approved of profoundly, Eljekar! best, libby

when a program realizes adaptation to ensure self preservation......it has crossed over....

I wrote an essay in college, which won some kind of award..about the future of robots replacing persons in manufacturing. Now that was a long while ago, and robots were just evolving from monster status to become useful assistants. Premise was that as sophisticated as they might become, they were totally dependent on humans for reproduction and had no common sense. Without either of these...they would remain...forever.... tools.

How true:
"For the Greeks we were just water earth fire.
After Galileo and Keppler we consisted of solar systems and galaxies.
When we invented the watch the human body was like a watch.

We invented God: now we think we are God.
We built systems: now we believe we are systems.
That's our fate"

(i daresay with the advent of Robot,we may become robotic...in our behavior, and yes, with silicon in our skin)

A systematic appraisal of the systemic need to metaphor-ize
the human condition. Your system hangs together
like your spaghetti. Loosely or firmly,
per the subjective reception of it.
"Because we have evolution behind our shoulders,
we believe that these systems we are building
have an evolutionary future waiting for them."
Depends on your definition of 'evolve'...
is it from the lower to the higher,
driven by chance?
or is it pulled up, like an oak tree from an acorn?
if we cut down all the oak trees, and had only acorns,
would we have 'oak tree' anywhere? of course!

a crude metaphor...

some say evolution has no teleology, but they tend to make
the mistake of thinking of teleology as a pull up to the better,
to the good..often teleology is a damn fool thing. such as with us? yet to be determined, but it could be discussed over
a fine spaghetti dinner at leonardo's place.

hello Steel Breeze, nice to see you again.

I'm not sure if you are referring to my first Robot post, where I spoke of self-correcting programs, or to the above mentioned evolutionary future of systems.

There's some difference.

First I agree with you. If a program realizes self-preservation it has made a cross over. But it is a complicated story. When is it self-preservation and when is it a forgotten program? No doubt there are some of these programs in Windows. And as long as the hardware supports the version of the instruction set, there's no problem for the program to do what no one asks to do and which does no harm to the environment (e.g. the PC involved).

So I add a condition. Someone wants to remove the program, because it is obsolete, and the program manages to hide itself from destruction.
Now, I'm very sure that will not be included in the intention, and in the code of self-correcting software.
Therefore, we are speaking of rebellious software - an idea which I like very much, being the man I am. But I don't believe in it.

Systems with an evolutionary future have to be able to adapt themselves to new conditions., unknown and unpredictable at the moment of creation. I do not know what you have in mind, but apart from the fact that it has to be able to protect itself against power failure, there's a lot of noise around a computer center - new machines, mergers, new protocols or, last but not least, new I-AM-THE-BOSS-managers - that is threatening the life of software. As far as I remember I have never seen one requirement to protect my creations against the ravages of time. And rightly so: it doesn't apply to our economic rules, it doesn't apply to our way of life.

Now we can think of a nuclear plant. The requirement is: it has to be running 7 *24, without supervision. A computer system does the control within the tolerance of an amount of variables.
Mankind disappears but the nuclear plant is still functioning (think of Planet of the Apes).

I wouldn't certainly call it a cross over. I would say: pretty stupid software, still running while there's no use of the output.

"... and fools!" I would like to add, Ande Bliss,

thanks for visiting my place.

Perhaps that essay of yours is worth a post.

About 40 years ago I had a colleague who predicted the plastic-money society, in a MA thesis. His vision of that day accords pretty well with our nowadays situation - ATM's, pin-code readers where once was the desk with the cash register.
And he foresaw also a new criminality because of the lack of cash in pockets and houses.

I like to remember the discussions we had that time, without knowing how close we were!

i.e. program that initiates duplication and transfering to another system.....on it's own.....to ensure survival in the POSSIBILITY of power failure,virus,external command,etc.....
or...robot that ceases function when any forseeable action in a situation would terminate it...
probly not xplaining well......but an action initiated independently for the sole purpose of self-preservation...

argghh.....by independently i mean not part of programming....

no Sir James,

the believe doesn't depend on my definition ...

But last things first:
that dinner can be held.
Any time
You're welcome my friend.

... okay,
The believe, the faith is there.
Undeniable. and widespread: even among people who are complaining the quality of the software at the workplace.

The character of faith depends on their definition of evolve.
Can you have different characters of faith?
No.
Okay, you can believe in Bill Gates, or in Steve Jobs, but that's representation.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Put in that (proper) light, the question driven by chance or pulled up seems to me an academic one. In the end we all are pulled up, aren't we.
We are all raptured (phenomenology of the teleological argument).

hello Steel Breeze,

you are practicing a term the champions of artificial intelligence prefer to use: fuzzy logic

probably not xplaining well

But you know that you cannot transport a program from your computer to mine.
What is more: at my computer your program is of no value ... and I can assure you: there's no way back home!

So, someone has something organized, in proper procedures.
Which makes your addition clear: by independently i mean not part of programming ...

So, better to explain yourself well, in order to enable me to get the picture and to reflect on it, in such a way that you can be satisfied with my considerations.

The incessant insistence that robots at their current primitive state are totally incapable in the future of independent and creative dynamics is somewhat in the category of examining the primitive sludge along the very ancient seacoasts of the Earth and ridiculing that the descendents of this slimy mess would ever make their way to the Moon Technological progress, in comparison to the immensely slow process of evolution, is lightning fast.

nah,forget it,i lack the ability to adequately express what i'm thinking in written form......but....enjoyed the read nonetheless....

no Jan,

I do not ridicule ...

But first things first.
There's also place for you at the table where James and I will have pasta-dinner to discuss these matters (among others the teleological argument) - see above.
I think James was addressing you when he wrote some say evolution has no teleology ...
You're most welcome.

... okay

No, I do not ridicule evolutionary ideas, neither the possibilities of technological progress. I bring arguments in the discussion, and although I do it now and then narrative-like, I'm not less serious in my approach.

Your man/woman examining that slimy mess, if equipped with
adequate microscopic accessories, would have seen movement in that substance, not explained by wind or shaking of the earth, or by external power supply.
I do not know of robots who are active without that.

We are talking evolution, which is not the same as technical progress. I have made it clear in my texts, but it was also the starting point: it was you who inspired me to these two robot-posts with this artificial life will carry the torch to other planets and leave humanity to its incessant brutality... in other words: without human intervention.
And it was you, like vzn, who spoke of a couple of decades.

I have made clear that above all there's one condition to be fulfilled in order to have evolution: robot has to be enabled to reproduce itself, introducing variations - not anticipated by designers, but at random, e.g. steered by conditions in his environment - and not being dependent on external power supply.
It is of course possible that your robot - while carrying the torch to other planets ... a rather pathetic expression - bumps into a socket when landing at another planet, but now I'm plain cynical.

I signal also some ambiguity in your approach. On the one hand your opinion of the powers that be is not positive (to say the least) on the other hand your mankind is trustworthy to produce a kind of offspring that will take care for a positive outcome of our murky pursuits.

In the broader sense of evolution yours is s still a belief. If technical progress has to be seen as the solution to problems with our destiny, I would like to hear some arguments.
I have some arguments to be less hopeful
- the priority of the economic argument in our decisions, along with the more complex and therefore more expensive experiments
- the (in)stability of our day-to-day software products
- the lack of real advanced and sophisticated applications regarding the problems we have to solve.
- the unfathomable thoughts of (decision makers in) software building

To mention a few examples.

1. ATM's were in place all over (Western) Europe. I had my bank account in guilders and got my Italian lire’s out of a hole-in-the-wall. The exchange rates were fixed, so there was no problem.
It was technically solved!
Why then the Euro? The project a waste of money, the result disastrous for the economy, at least (more than) temporary. (And I miss also my lire’s: paying 2000 for an ice-cream! Those were the days.)

2. It's nice to have Deep Blue, able to beat Kasparov, the chess champion. The success was there because it was neutralized calculation, it didn't have to wait for input from Karpov or Anand.
What about if we had spent the energy for building all different kind of economic models in building one calculating model for the economy - neutralizing it from Krugman-ideas or Friedman-sentiments.

3. I had an "old fashioned" Nikon camera, with film. It had a self-timer. Continuous (1 to 30 sec if I remember well). The film transport was mechanical, but all the other stuff was just chips.
Now I have a Lumix, an expensive one.
The possibilities of the self-timer?
2 and 10 seconds!
Can you believe it?
The technique for 1 to 30 was in place as a component.
Apart from my irritation, there's some fun in it: I try to imagine the discussions in the specs-room. That makes me smile.

Basically the snake in the grass is the human concoction that living matter has something so unique, so extra dimensional, so supernatural that it is impossible to analyze and reproduce with what we understand as mechanical elements. That human technology has not yet been able to do a great job on autonomous robots is assumed, thereby, to prove forever that this is not possible. If God intended humans to fly He would have provided him with wings etc., etc.