‘Sophia’ - the World’s First Robot to be Granted Citizenship Status

[Scarlett]

I just can’t figure out why its bald. Don’t like it, get rid.

 

[Daemon]

I actually think it won't be long until they do, but it won't look the same as human consciousness. Machine learning is proceeding that quickly already.

Haha I never knew how far this had progressed until I started googling it after watching Musk's AI beat professional dota2 players.

It started of making completely random moves but within a week of playing against itself it had learned how to do human things like fake attacks.

 

[Ausage]

Haha I never knew how far this had progressed until I started googling it after watching Musk's AI beat professional dota2 players.

It started of making completely random moves but within a week of playing against itself it had learned how to do human things like fake attacks.

The cast cancelling stuff is cool, but the bot has a huge advantage in how it calculates damage thresholds, spacing etc. That's mostly what 1v1 matchups come down to so it's not that surprising. I'd like to see a team of the AI beat a Team Liquid or Newbee in a bo5 before we call DotA for the bots.

That said, DotA really is an insanely complicated version of chess that requires very precise mechanics so it should just be a matter of time before the bots take it.

 

[Spark]

The cast cancelling stuff is cool, but the bot has a huge advantage in how it calculates damage thresholds, spacing etc. That's mostly what 1v1 matchups come down to so it's not that surprising. I'd like to see a team of the AI beat a Team Liquid or Newbee in a bo5 before we call DotA for the bots.

That said, DotA really is an insanely complicated version of chess that requires very precise mechanics so it should just be a matter of time before the bots take it.

You'd say the best DotA players aren't anywhere near as good at DotA as the best chess players are at chess either.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The cast cancelling stuff is cool, but the bot has a huge advantage in how it calculates damage thresholds, spacing etc. That's mostly what 1v1 matchups come down to so it's not that surprising. I'd like to see a team of the AI beat a Team Liquid or Newbee in a bo5 before we call DotA for the bots.

That said, DotA really is an insanely complicated version of chess that requires very precise mechanics so it should just be a matter of time before the bots take it.

I reckon there could be some really interesting stuff they could do with this if game devs could slip in a couple of AIs masquerading as actual players into a multi-player setting without telling the players beforehand. Could be fascinating to see whether players actually notice that it's not an actual human. More than whether an AI can beat a human (its not surprising that it can), it's whether it can ape a human's behavior convincingly that's really fascinating to me. And a bit spooky.

 

[vcs]

I reckon there could be some really interesting stuff they could do with this if game devs could slip in a couple of AIs masquerading as actual players into a multi-player setting without telling the players beforehand. Could be fascinating to see whether players actually notice that it's not an actual human. More than whether an AI can beat a human (its not surprising that it can), it's whether it can ape a human's behavior convincingly that's really fascinating to me. And a bit spooky.

Alan Turing likes this

 

[Ausage]

You'd say the best DotA players aren't anywhere near as good at DotA as the best chess players are at chess either.

Yeah definitely, a feature of it's complexity.

 

[Ausage]

I reckon there could be some really interesting stuff they could do with this if game devs could slip in a couple of AIs masquerading as actual players into a multi-player setting without telling the players beforehand. Could be fascinating to see whether players actually notice that it's not an actual human. More than whether an AI can beat a human (its not surprising that it can), it's whether it can ape a human's behavior convincingly that's really fascinating to me. And a bit spooky.

I think this would be really easy. I'm already very suspicious of some players in pubs. Say nothing, play like idiots, do the same thing over and over. You wouldn't even need a particularly sophisticated AI for that.

Fooling Team Liquid with Miraclebot would be more difficult/interesting.

 

[Daemon]

I think this would be really easy. I'm already very suspicious of some players in pubs. Say nothing, play like idiots, do the same thing over and over. You wouldn't even need a particularly sophisticated AI for that.

Fooling Team Liquid with Miraclebot would be more difficult/interesting.

Yes, this wouldn't be hard imo, bots in practice mode have always existed.

What would be hard is creating an AI that learns everything from scratch. Now that's impressive.

 

[watson]

Yes, this wouldn't be hard imo, bots in practice mode have always existed.

What would be hard is creating an AI that learns everything from scratch. Now that's impressive.

Not even humans learn ‘everything from scratch’. Yes, we are a mixture of ‘nature and nuture’, but humans are foremostly human because we have been pre-programmed by the forces of Natural Selection over millions of years.

Even if you postulate a Super Natural Diety it still doesn’t change things because humans would still be part of a larger plan’ that comes pre-programmed as it were.

 

[sledger]

So it has more rights than an unborn child. ITSTL.

 

[watson]

‘Awakens’ is a bit if a stretch but still a facinating pro-mo interview by the ‘Creator’....

 

[Spark]

So it has more rights than an unborn child. ITSTL.

sledger casually rolling in with the red-hot take

 

[Spark]

You Will Lose Your Job to a Robot?and Sooner Than You Think ? Mother Jones

In other words, the advances to focus on aren’t those in robotic engineering—though they are happening, too—but the way we’re hurtling toward artificial intelligence, or AI. While we’re nowhere near human-level AI yet, the progress of the past couple of decades has been stunning. After many years of nothing much happening, suddenly robots can play chess better than the best grandmaster. They can play Jeopardy! better than the best humans. They can drive cars around San Francisco—and they’re getting better at it every year. They can recognize faces well enough that Welsh police recently made the first-ever arrest in the United Kingdom using facial recognition software. After years of plodding progress in voice recognition, Google announced earlier this year that it had reduced its word error rate from 8.5 percent to 4.9 percent in 10 months.

All of this is a sign that AI is improving exponentially, a product of both better computer hardware and software. Hardware has historically followed a growth curve called Moore’s law, in which power and efficiency double every couple of years, and recent improvements in software algorithms have been even more explosive. For a long time, these advances didn’t seem very impressive: Going from the brainpower of a bacterium to the brainpower of a nematode might technically represent an enormous leap, but on a practical level it doesn’t get us that much closer to true artificial intelligence. However, if you keep up the doubling for a while, eventually one of those doubling cycles takes you from the brainpower of a lizard (who cares?) to the brainpower of a mouse and then a monkey (wow!). Once that happens, human-level AI is just a short step away.

This can be hard to imagine, so here’s a chart that shows what an exponential doubling curve looks like, measured in petaflops (quadrillions of calculations per second). During the first 70 years of the digital era, computing power doubled every couple of years—and that produced steadily improving accounting software, airplane reservation systems, weather forecasts, Spotify, and the like. But on the scale of the human brain—usually estimated at 10 to 50 petaflops—it produced computing power so minuscule that you can’t see any change at all. Around 2025 we’ll finally start to see visible progress toward artificial intelligence. A decade later we’ll be up to about one-tenth the power of a human brain, and a decade after that we’ll have full human-level AI. It will seem like it happened overnight, but it’s really the result of a century of steady—but mostly imperceptible—progress.

Starting to wonder if machine learning really could be the catalyst for an industrial revolution level transformation of society.

If that happens, literally every single political debate we are having here will be as relevant as debates on the divine right of kings was in the mid-19th century.

In fact, it’s even worse. In addition to doing our jobs at least as well as we do them, intelligent robots will be cheaper, faster, and far more reliable than humans. And they can work 168 hours a week, not just 40. No capitalist in her right mind would continue to employ humans. They’re expensive, they show up late, they complain whenever something changes, and they spend half their time gossiping. Let’s face it: We humans make lousy laborers.

If you want to look at this through a utopian lens, the AI Revolution has the potential to free humanity forever from drudgery. In the best-case scenario, a combination of intelligent robots and green energy will provide everyone on Earth with everything they need. But just as the Industrial Revolution caused a lot of short-term pain, so will intelligent robots. While we’re on the road to our Star Trek future, but before we finally get there, the rich are going to get richer—because they own the robots—and the rest of us are going to get poorer because we’ll be out of jobs. Unless we figure out what we’re going to do about that, the misery of workers over the next few decades will be far worse than anything the Industrial Revolution produced.

We'll see if this plays out.

 

[StephenZA]

You Will Lose Your Job to a Robot?and Sooner Than You Think ? Mother Jones

Starting to wonder if machine learning really could be the catalyst for an industrial revolution level transformation of society.

If that happens, literally every single political debate we are having here will be as relevant as debates on the divine right of kings was in the mid-19th century.

We'll see if this plays out.

It started long time ago, if you just got back to the 80's and see what jobs/skills were needed versus now... big difference. How many people still use a slide rule, and calculate what is required to build a road, versus the current CAD designers that now just put everything in place and let the computer work it out.... (as an anecdotal example). The thing is it is getting faster and faster and goverments have done little to tool people to change the way they think about their careers and/or help them later in life to find new skills.

The question is, what will be the revolution? How in real terms will people actually cope with the changes? I cant see that... except people becoming so upset at losing jobs start rioting in the streets and prevent the progress. (not gonna happen).

 

[Spark]

Machine learning is different. It's the anecdote about answering the why question--which, in qualitative terms, is not far removed from the ability to reason and learn--which struck me.

But in real terms, if all the wealth is being produced by robots (capital) and no one has a job (i.e. labour's share of wealth is tiny), then Marxists would claim that this is the situation in which you would have a revolution. I have not yet seen a more convincing or, frankly, less depressing alternative yet.

 

[StephenZA]

While machine learning is different... what is the real effect, it is going to take away current jobs and change the way society functions. But does that mean people will be sitting at home doing nothing? I dont think so, there is always 'new' jobs that have to be done as society changes. The question for me is are people capable of changing quickly enough to cope...

 

[Spark]

While machine learning is different... what is the real effect, it is going to take away current jobs and change the way society functions. But does that mean people will be sitting at home doing nothing? I dont think so, there is always 'new' jobs that have to be done as society changes. The question for me is are people capable of changing quickly enough to cope...

They'll definitely be doing something. Whether that something actually makes them enough money to maintain the standards of living they accept is a wildly different matter.

This culture war nonsense consuming global politics right now is a furphy compared to this.

 

[vcs]

People will probably start to realize the value of those pesky "useless in the real world" academic careers when it happens.

 

[Spark]

People will probably start to realize the value of those pesky "useless in the real world" academic careers when it happens.

Even then, though. There's a pretty substantial portion of science work which could honestly just be done by a really, really good robot, in terms of routine work. One would hope that STEM people are bright and adaptive enough to use that to their advantage.