Would there be a robot rebellion inside a robot rebellion?

[LMNO]

To tell the truth, I would love an implant that could accurately calculate probabilities at speed.

[Chelagoras The Boulder]

well, to address the first part, I was trying to argue for cyborgs as a shortcut to the level of grace and autonomy that were trying to achieve with robots like Asimo. why teach a robots to walk and run and shit when we can already do that stuff?

Admittedly I admit i think i might not understand what you mean by biomedically, which here i thought meant small stuff like pacemakers, or replacement limbs, and not augmentative things like brain to brain telepathy. If it is the proper term for what i'm trying to convey, (installing electronics directly into our meaty bits) then i'm sorry, not just for being ignorant but also for being dismissive.

Also, i blame that mad scientist wet dream I posted just now mostly on that Choice of Robots game. It has sent my imagination to some very odd places lately.

Maybe you should start by defining what you mean by "cyborg", because you seem to be using it to mean something different from "a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device", which is, precisely, a biomedical application for robot or computer technology.

You SEEM to be asking whether robotic technology could possibly be interfaced with the human body. I am running out of ways to say yes.

Yours works for what i'm talking about.

to put it simply, i'm asking what robotic future you think is most plausible: one where pure robots make and do just about everything, one where robots make everything but we dont bother making them smart, a mixed bag where cyborgs and robots exist, etc..

or to put it even more simply: are we gonna we living in a Terminator future, a Ghost in the Shell future, some kind of Dresden Codak thing, or what? I'm not asking for a definitive answer here, it's just fun to talk about. I'm honestly a little surprised how seriously you're taking this.

[P3nT4gR4m]

To tell the truth, I would love an implant that could accurately calculate probabilities at speed.

Think bigger. If an implant happens it'll tether to your mobile. All your communications, navigation, calendar, apps and web traffic, routed straight through your head. I'm not thinking much will have changed from where we are now in terms of what the device is capable of computing, just a leap forward in interface fluidity that would mean all that information would be accessed by just thinking about it, rather than fiddling about with a little box in your pocket.

We'll see AR rolling out over the next year or two, as it matures it should be a halfway step to what I'm talking about. Depends on how much we can squeeze out of eye and ear bandwidth. Just being able to vocalise a query and have the solution appear in your field of view will make a big difference and that's so close to done it's scary. Imagine the "Correct me if I'm wrong" App, which monitors your conversation and throws up an article link if you're talking shit or corroboration if not.

[LMNO]

I'm talking about something that can be constantly running Bayesean priors in the background and give me an accurate probability distribution at an instant.

You're talking about a real-time google app jammed into my brain.  And you say I'm thinking too small?

Perhaps I'm not making my case clear enough.

1% of women at age forty who participate in routine screening have breast cancer.  80% of women with breast cancer will get positive mammographies.  9.6% of women without breast cancer will also get positive mammographies.  A woman in this age group had a positive mammography in a routine screening.  What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?

Hypothesize a sensor on your kayak that tells you when you're about to attempt something that will kill you.  You're a good kayaker (obviously), so you run into this situation about 1% of the time.  The sensor goes off correctly (you will die if you do this) 80% of the time.  The sensor goes off incorrectly (you won't die) 9.6% of the time.

You're in the water, and the sensor goes off.  What's the probability you'll die if you attempt to take that wave?

Most people get that answer wrong.  I want something in my head that gives me the right answer.

[LMNO]

You know what?  It's just a different goal is all.  Neither approach is wrong.  You seem to be focusing on data collection, I seem to be focusing on data processing.  Either one would be beneficial.

Though I still want life extension.

[Reginald Ret]

I'm talking about something that can be constantly running Bayesean priors in the background and give me an accurate probability distribution at an instant.

You're talking about a real-time google app jammed into my brain.  And you say I'm thinking too small?

Perhaps I'm not making my case clear enough.

1% of women at age forty who participate in routine screening have breast cancer.  80% of women with breast cancer will get positive mammographies.  9.6% of women without breast cancer will also get positive mammographies.  A woman in this age group had a positive mammography in a routine screening.  What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?

Hypothesize a sensor on your kayak that tells you when you're about to attempt something that will kill you.  You're a good kayaker (obviously), so you run into this situation about 1% of the time.  The sensor goes off correctly (you will die if you do this) 80% of the time.  The sensor goes off incorrectly (you won't die) 9.6% of the time.

You're in the water, and the sensor goes off.  What's the probability you'll die if you attempt to take that wave?

Most people get that answer wrong.  I want something in my head that gives me the right answer.

Ooh! probability games!

0.00084

... that took a couple minutes.
OK, cool. I get why you would want that.
That took more time and focus than I usually put into these things.

[P3nT4gR4m]

You know what?  It's just a different goal is all.  Neither approach is wrong.  You seem to be focusing on data collection, I seem to be focusing on data processing.  Either one would be beneficial.

Though I still want life extension.

I didn't really understand your use case til you explained it but I think we're on the same page. Data collection is one bit of what I'm looking at. Broadly, I want to compensate for areas my meat brain is lacking (like your probability example) by having software that brings these calculations to my attention, either at will or (as in your example) as an alert.

I'm with you on life extension. I'm not planning on dying. Still feels weird saying that but in a couple of decades time maybe not so much. However, it's being attacked on so many fronts that maybe we'll rewrite our DNA or maybe we'll upload our consciousness to a cloud server. Both possibilities seemed a lot more far fetched ten years ago than they do now.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

well, to address the first part, I was trying to argue for cyborgs as a shortcut to the level of grace and autonomy that were trying to achieve with robots like Asimo. why teach a robots to walk and run and shit when we can already do that stuff?

Admittedly I admit i think i might not understand what you mean by biomedically, which here i thought meant small stuff like pacemakers, or replacement limbs, and not augmentative things like brain to brain telepathy. If it is the proper term for what i'm trying to convey, (installing electronics directly into our meaty bits) then i'm sorry, not just for being ignorant but also for being dismissive.

Also, i blame that mad scientist wet dream I posted just now mostly on that Choice of Robots game. It has sent my imagination to some very odd places lately.

I still can't figure out exactly what you're asking. Can you distill it into something concise and specific? "installing electronics directly into our meaty bits" is hopelessly vague. Are you talking about putting a computer "brain" inside a human body? The human brain is already much much better than any computers are and possibly better than we can ever make them. Are you talking about adding enhancements, like implanted internet connectivity? That could be neat, and will almost certainly happen.

Depends on the application. The human brain is fucking terrible at processing straightforward numerical and logical calculations to any measurable degree of accuracy. So much so that the number of these operations it can deal with in one second averages out to less than one, whereas machine speed is fast approaching trillions on a bog standard chip. Memory and recall have already been enhanced beyond recognition by machines.

OK, that's true. Humans are not very fast pocket calculators. We also make fairly shitty conveyor belts, and are pretty much useless at flying. But from the perspective of moving around and interacting with the world, complex analysis, and creative problem-solving, there is no mechanical replacement that even vaguely comes close.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For example, we were able to say "hey, we are not very good at doing complicated mathematical problems very fast. Perhaps let's invent a machine that will do that fast for us, to get out of having to do all the tedious calculations on paper".

Although I love my Casio Classpad 330 statistical calculator, I doubt it is capable of inventing a pocket-sized machine that would make its existence less tedious.

[LMNO]

The brain is also prone to bias, fallacy, and scope insensitivity.  I would love to have some assistance in overcoming that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

well, to address the first part, I was trying to argue for cyborgs as a shortcut to the level of grace and autonomy that were trying to achieve with robots like Asimo. why teach a robots to walk and run and shit when we can already do that stuff?

Admittedly I admit i think i might not understand what you mean by biomedically, which here i thought meant small stuff like pacemakers, or replacement limbs, and not augmentative things like brain to brain telepathy. If it is the proper term for what i'm trying to convey, (installing electronics directly into our meaty bits) then i'm sorry, not just for being ignorant but also for being dismissive.

Also, i blame that mad scientist wet dream I posted just now mostly on that Choice of Robots game. It has sent my imagination to some very odd places lately.

Maybe you should start by defining what you mean by "cyborg", because you seem to be using it to mean something different from "a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device", which is, precisely, a biomedical application for robot or computer technology.

You SEEM to be asking whether robotic technology could possibly be interfaced with the human body. I am running out of ways to say yes.

Yours works for what i'm talking about.

to put it simply, i'm asking what robotic future you think is most plausible: one where pure robots make and do just about everything, one where robots make everything but we dont bother making them smart, a mixed bag where cyborgs and robots exist, etc..

or to put it even more simply: are we gonna we living in a Terminator future, a Ghost in the Shell future, some kind of Dresden Codak thing, or what? I'm not asking for a definitive answer here, it's just fun to talk about. I'm honestly a little surprised how seriously you're taking this.

"Pure robots" isn't a term that means anything: AI is separate from robotics.

If we do find we are capable of making true AI, which we might not be, we will most assuredly put it in robots. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Well before that, we will be (and are) using electronics to try to repair and enhance human beings.

That doesn't mean we will put it in all robots.

Yes, it is likely that the future will involve a lot of robot manufacturing, as that is the direction things are already going in.

I can't answer your question about science-fiiction movies; you seem to assume that everyone is familiar with the same fiction you are, and are referencing them in lieu of using your words.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The brain is also prone to bias, fallacy, and scope insensitivity.  I would love to have some assistance in overcoming that.

It is completely possible, and even likely, that the same factors that make us vulnerable to those things are part and parcel of our tremendous complex intelligence.

We already have assistance in overcoming that; it's called "information". Making it more immediately accessible would be useful.

HOWEVER.

I think it is important to note that two humans can look at the same information and come to different conclusions, without one of them being "wrong". Furthermore, one person is capable of looking at another person's seemingly contradictory conclusion, shift their perspective, and say "I can see how you would come to that conclusion".

We may at some point be able to make computers that are capable of perspective-taking, but my guess is that at that stage we will be talking about biological computers, ie. brains.

[LMNO]

Hm.  You make a good point.  Since it's all so interconnected, it's hard to tell what would happen if you forced a change.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm talking about something that can be constantly running Bayesean priors in the background and give me an accurate probability distribution at an instant.

You're talking about a real-time google app jammed into my brain.  And you say I'm thinking too small?

Perhaps I'm not making my case clear enough.

1% of women at age forty who participate in routine screening have breast cancer.  80% of women with breast cancer will get positive mammographies.  9.6% of women without breast cancer will also get positive mammographies.  A woman in this age group had a positive mammography in a routine screening.  What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?

Hypothesize a sensor on your kayak that tells you when you're about to attempt something that will kill you.  You're a good kayaker (obviously), so you run into this situation about 1% of the time.  The sensor goes off correctly (you will die if you do this) 80% of the time.  The sensor goes off incorrectly (you won't die) 9.6% of the time.

You're in the water, and the sensor goes off.  What's the probability you'll die if you attempt to take that wave?

Most people get that answer wrong.  I want something in my head that gives me the right answer.

That "something in your head" already exists. Those kinds of statistical problems are pretty straightforward... if you practice statistical analysis on a regular basis.

If you are looking for a brain enhancement that makes all human cognitive skills immediately available, well, that might be a long time coming. You can use a calculator to find the answer to that statistical problem... but knowing how to enter the data to get the answer is a different matter.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's probably worth noting that we indexed the human genome, and promptly discovered that we understand less than 2% of it.

We are now trying to index the human connectome. Once again, as we learn more about it, it is becoming evident how very, very little we understand.