http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25727110 (For those not wanting to click) A world wide web for robots to learn from each other and share information is being shown off for the first time. Scientists behind RoboEarth will put it through its paces at Eindhoven University in a mocked-up hospital room. Four robots will use the system to complete a series of tasks, including serving drinks to patients. It is the culmination of a four-year project, funded by the European Union. The eventual aim is that both robots and humans will be able to upload information to the cloud-based database, which would act as a kind of common brain for machines. Common brain The system has been developed by research scientists from Philips and five European universities including Eindhoven. "At its core RoboEarth is a world wide web for robots: a giant network and database repository where robots can share information and learn from each other," said Rene van de Molengraft, the RoboEarth project leader. The four robots selected to test the system in a public demonstration will "work collaboratively" to help patients, he told the BBC. One robot will upload a map of the room so that others can find their way around it, others will attempt to serve drinks to patients. "The problem right now is that robots are often developed specifically for one task," he said. "Everyday changes that happen all the time in our environment make all the programmed actions unusable." The aim of the system is to create a kind of ever-changing common brain for robots. "A task like opening a box of pills can be shared on RoboEarth, so other robots can also do it without having to be programmed for that specific type of box," he added. Home robots The cloud-based system will also mean that some of the robot's computing or thinking tasks can be offloaded, meaning that a robot wouldn't need so much onboard computing or battery power. Robot assistants are likely to be available in homes within 10 years, experts believe. It is already possible to buy robot vacuum cleaners, robots that wash the windows and robot lawnmowers. More humanoid robots, able to assist disabled or elderly people, are now being developed. Author James Barrat, who has written extensively about the dangers of robots gaining their own intelligence, thinks there need to be safeguards. "In the short term, RoboEarth adds security by building in a single point of failure for all participating robots," he said. "In the longer term, watch out when any of the nodes can evolve or otherwise improve their own software. The consequences of sharing that capability with the central 'mind' should be explored before it happens."
That's not scary. Eugenics is scary. http://qz.com/166699/a-chinese-comp...gy-to-let-parents-pick-their-smartest-embryo/
This is me playing dumb here purely because I'm interested to know other people's opinions - but who does this hurt and why do people think this form of eugenics is a bad thing? (As in, you aren't technically killing anyone to improve the gene pool, without getting into an abortion debate - let's just view it that the UK government's perspective on timing is correct for the sake of conversation)
There is nothing more complex than the human brain robots will never have the emotions we have. What would drive them to over throw the human race? They don't have greed, jealousy or a hunger for power. Monkeys were tested to see if they could feel when something is unfair. When a task was completed they kept giving one a grape (a real treat) and the other something not as good, the monkey was getting really fed up cause it wasn't fair. Robots will never feel those things.
A couple of flaws with that reasoning. First, you mix up feelings with morality. Second, feelings are the subjective experience and interpretation (quality, if you will) of neurobiological functions. Robots could interpret their inbuilt/programmed directives/imperatives as feelings just as well as we interpret our evolved biological ones as such. Keep in mind that we're just machines made out of meat. What would drive robots to kill off the human race? Logic, for one. Unless we program them with ethical directives prohibiting them to do so, of course, in which case they may feel it's the wrong thing to do.
Watch Gattica. Only certain people can afford it, meaning you get a 2 tier society. Poor people spend their life savings + take out huge loans to make 1 child super intelligent in a bid to make their own lives better in 20 years when they get a job as doctor/laywer etc. The minimum IQ bar is raised from 100 to 120, so people start 'tweaking' their kids to get more and more intelligent so you get high functioning sociopaths - or more likely psychopaths - who are super productive but not really very functional people, or, you get black-market trade in doing it on the cheap, making god-knows-what. Asian societies and families are largely hell-bent on getting ahead at any cost because of the lack of social benefits and focus on family/position in soceity. Ethics don't apply when you can overwhelm logic with the thought of your son making you tons of money and how proud he'll make you as a successful person. It's less risk. No one here wants a less-intelligent child; they go to school from 8am to 8/9/10pm!! If one country does it another country HAS to do it too, otherwise they risk losing out later. The government promotes it. Politicians spin it. Industries make money from it. Then where do you stop? Invite military families to make their kids super soldiers for free? "NSA certified" embryo programs?
So what I've learned from this thread is that I should probably watch Gattica (and Star Wars at some point - I will eventually I swear).
I think it's possible, even easy, to over estimate the role that intelligence plays in income potential. Breeding for emotional intelligence, outgoingness, sociability, etc etc is probably a better bet than raw IQ. Too often in our history the geniuses have ended up dying in poverty while the con-men made fortunes on their ideas.
True, you can be clever enough to con people. Clever people are not always hard working. But butbut, I recently read about parents top things they convey to others to express proudness. In US/Asia it was always "he/she is so intelligent", while EU was mostly "he/she is so happy".
Thanks all. Watched Gattaca a few months ago and loved it. I think it's settled eugenics via genetic modification is a bad thing.
But (devil's advocate again here) isn't this what is already happening anyway? More intelligent people usually have more ability and resources to raise more intelligent children. These maintain or elevate their position on the socioeconomic ladder and raise more intelligent children... Before long you have different socioeconomic strata: the dumb, poor people whose time and energy is absorbed by just trying to survive, who live unhealthy, deprived lives and create unhealthy, deprived children with a stunted development; and smarter, wealthier people who live healthier lives and create healthier kids, who they have the time and energy to invest in. These develop to their full potential. The cycle continues. In biology there is the notion of "privilege": that which the parents pass on to the children (beyond their genes) to maximise their survival. The yolk in an egg is privilege. A warm nest is privilege. The food they gather for them is privilege. Children growing up in higher socioeconomic strata are privileged in much the same way. It is not all about genes --that is just the next logical step in parents wanting to give their children the best start in life.
I think there are always breaks to this cycle though. A friend of mine grew up extremely poorly, but crucially, his mother absolutely loved him and his brother, totally unconditionally and did everything humanly possible to help them. In terms of tangible resources, there was very little though. He's the only person I know that will be a (genuinely) self made millionaire by the end of this year - and with the greatest respect to him, he's not the smartest guy I know. He just works bloody hard and gets **** done when it has to be, takes a few risks at very well judged times. The kind of social intelligence that Cthippo mentioned and hey, at 24 he's already bought his first house. Is it genetic? I doubt it. His 26 year old brother, who I think conceivably is technically smarter, is an off the rails alcoholic with 3 kids and a wife who spends money they don't have. Or maybe it is, I guess they grew up in the same environment. TL;DR - I know nothing about genetics.
