Could we potentially see a seamless transition to being an android race?

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Betonhaus

Betonhaus

Irrefutable Rationality
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 30, 2023
As the birth rate in the more technologically advanced countries fall, more and more people are growing old without ever having children or families. If we develop fully sentient androids and people buy them to be companions and caretakers, overtime they would be teaching those androids their culture and family legacy, and those androids could carry that on long after the owners die.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Horrifying
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: Ted's of Beverly Hills, greatUncleShitHeel, HIVidaBoheme and 5 others
The issue with sentience is that the way computers are built and run is completely antithetical to what sentience actually is. You will never have a computer that develops a point of view. An android society would just be machines building machines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Otterly
I looked at trying to compare a human mind to a computer before, and it’s really difficult to. Like, a chip is a series of linearly connected transistors. If you compare a neuron to a transistor..

The transistor can be in one of two states, on or off essentially. They’re gathered into groups that connect to other groups and can mimic more complex structures, but fundamentally transistors can only be relative to each other in series or parallel, like any electronic component. It can at most connect to two other transistors.

Neurons can connect to thousands of other neurons via dendrites, and we’ve identified something like around 200 different neurotransmitters so far? So we can’t even really calculate the number of states a neuron can be in
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: LatinasAreTheFuture and Space_Dandy
I see why one might think this, but I must strongly disagree.

Such autonomous, seemingly sentient AI, that might be able to live after humanity dies is still science fiction. Despite such incredible advances in AI and other tech that we've seen in recent years, we must separate the hype from the reality of what we actually have. We can't even get self-driving vehicles to work correctly. Computers just struggle to interpret visual data properly, as a camera only returns a 2D image. We humans with context and sentience can tell the difference between a small object and a distant one, but a computer will fail that determination a certain percentage of the time. Also there's hardware limitations, where circuitry starts wearing out and causing small, millisecond long delays that don't matter on your home PC but could be fatal on the road.

Now take those, seemingly insurmountable problems with self-driving vehicles, and multiply them by a thousand and you'll get to the ballpark of what you're describing.

My career has shown me that progress is very slow in high-performance tech. Sure the private industry may release gadgets and entertainment tech that seems to grow exponentially. But when it comes to lifesaving practical functionality, like airplanes, military, or medical equipment, the development is painfully slow. Every small advancement needs to be tested, documented, funded, etc.

I don't expect us to have made significant progress towards self-sufficient, sentient AI androids, within our lifetimes. Perhaps someday its possible, I'm not all knowing or anything, but don't hold your breath.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lowlife Adventures and Mr.Miyagi
Boy do I have a vaguely relevant TV show for you. Enjoy 1 season of exceptional science fiction and watch a slow decline to an ending I admittingly like.

BattlestarCucklactica.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Otterly, Space_Dandy and Betonhaus
I don’t think robotics is anywhere near advanced enough for us to have a practical android within our lifetimes. Also, I saw A.I. too Beto.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Space_Dandy
Otoya Yamaguchi said:
looking back, its already here. AI is already a thing.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. machine learning algorithms are still nothing more than denoisers and statistical analysis engines. They mimic superficial aspects of intelligence. We anthropomorphise them because we interact with them and consequently perceive an intelligence that isn't actually present by doing so, but they're no more "AI" than Eliza, the first chatbot.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: gobbles, WonderWino, Stan and 2 others
teriyakiburns said:
No, it isn't. machine learning algorithms are still nothing more than denoisers and statistical analysis engines. They mimic superficial aspects of intelligence. We anthropomorphise them because we interact with them and consequently perceive an intelligence that isn't actually present by doing so, but they're no more "AI" than Eliza, the first chatbot.
Click to expand...
You're just splitting hairs. This is a semantic difference. It doesn't matter how it acts like an ai, it's still an ai, methodology irrelevant
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: WonderWino
Otoya Yamaguchi said:
You're just splitting hairs. This is a semantic difference. It doesn't matter how it acts like an ai, it's still an ai, methodology irrelevant
Click to expand...
It's fundamentally not AI, though. That's the point. Dismissing this as semantics just shows how little you understand the underlying technology.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: WonderWino
teriyakiburns said:
It's fundamentally not AI, though. That's the point. Dismissing this as semantics just shows how little you understand the underlying technology.
Click to expand...
The perception of the end user matters more than actual facts.
If the LLM produces output that resembles that produced by sentient humans, then it still will appear 'sentient', it doesn't matter that it is basically just a brainless statistically based decision engine in reality.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: WonderWino and teriyakiburns
Only if humanity as a whole gets really good at collecting tetrominoes.

Serious answer : no. I feel like AI (the spielberg movie) nailed how they'd be perceived even if the rest of the movie was lacking.
 
For the most part yes its not as difficult as you believe. We can break the problem down into three different part.
1. Energy storage/generation (this is the big unknown. We can speculate but there is no clear "best solution")
2. Data processing. Technically this can be offset by large data centers pulling the workload with higher difficulty tasks while motor control is handled client side, in the short term.
3. Physical body. The correct choice, and my area of expertise, is soft actuators and bone analogs. With servos and other conventional actuators you get very complex systems to mimic human movement. This comes with extra "pinch points" that'll mangle any loner incel cocks that enter it. To save billions of dicks, researchers at the University of Washington found using artificial bone and tendon analogs could replicate simular movements.
Use aircraft grade aluminum and your waifu will be light and durable. For muscles you can go with McKibben muscles line Clone INCs humanoid robotics but its not the best choice.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QIHhAF&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw0d_lL-fngcFLXNJqKPx_t4
The best choice are silver-coated TCP fibers bound together with flexible capillary cubes woven in between. Optimizing fiber coiling can get you fibers >100x stronger than human muscles of the same weight. Production is easier as well, but that's a trade secret.

Sadly the chicoms are somewhat ahead of us on this problem. They've already started building on the materials science research we've done and have started allocated funding to the problem. Mid 2024 a Chinese funded and led research team in the US (kinda wild) created a simple proof of concept. In the next five years they are probably going continue research. Very few of us in America are even working on it. Most people are simply content with watching a Boston dynamic video in slack-jaw amazement.

TLDR: high power density and the time to peice everything together are the biggest hurdles.
 
  • Late
Reactions: POWER IN MISERY
Sometimes I ponder about the difference between man and the rest of organic life, and try to zero in on what makes us different. Some say art, but you can see art in plenty of things animals create, look at like, I dunno fucking spider's webs and shit. There's plenty of naturally occurring stuff that could be classified as art, as it's aesthetically pleasing etc.

Some say language, and again I say, eh plenty of other species have (rudimentary) language, look at fucking birds and like pack animal calls like wolves or coyotes etc.

So I always settle in on creating tools. Sure, chimps dig termites out of their hills with sticks, and birds know how to smash tasty clams open via gravity. Nevertheless, humans seem to have some overwhelming drive to create. The whole "language" angle, is that we created tools to improve language, namely writing.

As a species we've never collectively leaned back and said "ok, good enough" and stopped (well, at least the more civilized cultures haven't ;)), we constantly keep pushing the envelope when it comes to making shit and improving shit we've already made.

So my schizo theory is this: What if humanity as it currently exists, is just some pupal mating cycle for eventual artificial life/sentience we end up creating? Writing being a tool to extend the concept of language plays a part, look at all this "AI" LLM stuff we're currently tinkering with.

I don't like or tout this idea as a good thing mind you (not a transhumanist in the slightest), but in my mind I ponder some unfortunate distant future where we no longer exist as a species for (insert reasons here), and whatever artificial life we created just looks back on us as some kind of progenitor/creator/link in the chain of their evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back