My first thought on reading this sentence was of a sexbot going yandere. Dear god >_>
Well yeah, make artificial humans and they can be just as crazy as the real thing.
No single intelligence, artificial or otherwise, should have too much power. Anyone can flip out, or be subverted, or have a very inconvenient systems failure. Checks and balances!
Tut-Tut. A legion of identical yandere sexbots with a hivemind. :twisted:
All this AI rights stuff, reminds me of the droids in Star Wars. They express desire and freewill, but they’re all treated like property… even the holier-than-thou Jedi have no problem with it. Bothered me that George Lucas was fine with that… they were slaves IMHO.
I thought Xenosaga portrayed this android rights idea, and the politics that might accompany it, rather interestingly, with different “gradations” of humanity–cyborg (Ziggy), biological robot very similar to a human (Realian, i.e., MOMO), android (KOS-MOS).
I want a MOMO. Less interested in the rest.
Could I have one of each of the MOMO models :twisted: ?
You sick, deviant pedophiles! I am disgusted! I am shocked! I am enraged!
Leans over, whispers timidly, and slyly slides a full envelope underneath the table
I’ll take twenty… delivery at the usual.
non-chalantly walks away and whistles
Everyone is controlled in a similar way from birth. This is how people are taught language, are taught right from wrong, and are taught how to function in society. There are all kinds of feedback mechanisms built into society to train people to behave in ways which society approves of, many of which are so subtle that they’re hard to notice if you grew up with them.
Why, for example, can someone with a respectable job simply decide not to spend money on a house, and just pay a business a couple bucks a night to sleep on a cot in the back? This could be advantageous in lots of ways: No commute - during the week, you live right near where you work, on the weekends, you crash at friends’ places. Is this a good situation for everybody? No, it has tons of drawbacks. But living space is expensive. So expensive that some people would find it attractive. Yet it’s not done.
Why? There are a lot of reasons. For example, zoning laws prevent businesses from renting out sleeping space formally unless they follow the hotel industry regulations. But why? Surely, if hordes of people wanted to make such arrangements, they would have enough political clout to demand the laws be altered to permit this. The real problem, is that this would be looked down on by society. Someone who did this would be viewed - most generously - as a kook, and probably be discriminated against the same way homeless people are. And why is that? Because society isn’t set up to deal with the situation in that way; it has created other solutions to this problem (renting and roommates, cities optimized for commuting), and not for this method. Thus, someone doing this would be viewed as being someone who opted for such an unconventional solution unnecessarily, and would also catch flak for causing a lot of trouble for those around him.
Net result? Nobody does it. Sure, most people wouldn’t want to. But some people would, because the cost savings would be so large.
As a programmer myself, and having studied AI methodology a bit, I can say this: Even if you did have a true AI that adapted and learned, the AI’s learning mechanism is itself a tool. You can program it in any way you wish. It would, for example, be possible to program the learning mechanism to simply recognize a set of user-configurable facts as axioms, and the AI will reinterpret any fact to fit those assumptions, or outright disbelieve it if the conflict is unavoidable. And before you say such a thing wouldn’t truly be sentient - yes, it could. The same thing happens to people on a disturbingly regular basis; any religious or ideological zealot has (more or less) done this, turned their belief into an unshakable ‘fact’.
I am of the opinion that - when it becomes an issue (which right now, it isn’t) - laws ought to be passed making this sort of “directed AI” illegal.
Difference is… our programming can be broken by personal choice. It has happened enough times that our behaviour is not completely determined by pre-set algorithyms or societal interference. More than likely, we could not create an AI like that, something else would have to occur for true sentience and conscious awareness.
Of course we teach people that one thing is preferable to another and provide positive feedback that guides them in various directions. But people can and do still make choices. Real person-level intelligence requires a lot of fuzzy logic and priority juggling. (And, probably, the simulation of emotion. People have weird ideas about the emotional/logical split which don’t really hold up.)
If you have an “AI” which is so tightly controlled that it cannot make any choices, you don’t have a real AI, you have the sort of “AI” I write in games, which runs through a loop of if-then statements and cannot deviate from them.
Admittedly it’s been ten years since I’ve been in a class on artificial intelligence, but to the best of my knowledge the field hasn’t really advanced much. Neural nets were promising a while ago but they’ve been stuck in a rut for a long time.
Religious zealots are still capable of changing their minds. They may not do it often, but slam them up against a contradiction long enough and they’ll either go into systems meltdown or have an epiphany. 
Our nemesi (is that the plural for nemsis?) rear their ugly heads once again:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … ence-women
Unfortunately for them, most of the commentors disagree with them :lol:
I believe the plural of “nemesis” is “nemeses”, but English is weird. It’s hard to say what’s considered “proper”, and this might be one of those situations where there are multiple accepted plural forms. I doubt it though. “Nemesises” is too hard to pronounce.
nemesi and nemeses are both valid plurals of nemesis! I’ve never seen nemesi actually used in practice, though; just nemeses.
Hey guys give a look in this funny article about banning in eroges.
Did you guys ever considerated how Eroge Characters feel about all that banning? :lol:
So true. Too bad the idiots that give fictional characters human rights are completely oblivious to their idiocy. We need a title translated that has that disclaimer and fourth wall breaking conversation.
I should buy the game just for the few lines!
That’s Softhouse Chara’s newest title. Heh, Softhouse Chara has always been fond of its rape themes (“light rape”, if that makes any sense). The main character is almost always a rape addict–sometimes he’s almost apologetic about it.
Since it was brought up in this thread: [b]Japan is still giving the world the finger on whale hunting.[/b]
Here’s a pic of that 2 million dollar Ady Gil boat and some detailed info about it.
For what it’s worth though, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society are like anti-whaling terrorists. They’ve done some pretty ruthless things, so I’m not exactly feeling sorry for them. Then again, what Japan is doing is illegal, so more power to them for having the balls to go against a much larger ship like that. Still… what a waste of a badass boat.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_IV:_The_Voyage_Home]I thought that in the future, super aliens would get pissed at us[/url].