Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Asimov vs Micheal

Asimov vs Micheal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10|Likes:
engineering an altruistic robotic mind
engineering an altruistic robotic mind

More info:

Published by: sam iam / Salvatore Gerard Micheal on Sep 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/02/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Asimov vs Micheal
Asimov was a great visionary but he had some things wrong about robotics. His 'way of thinking' aboutrobot behavior was totally wrong. His first rule was essentially this: don't harm by action or inaction.Think about this carefully. Don't harm. It's a negative statement. It follows the old way of thinking: punishment for negative behavior. I firmly don't believe in punishment for ANY negative behavior. I believe in rehabilitation and inspiring the need for forgiveness. I'm a POSITIVE individual withPOSITIVE attitudes .. Asimov's ideas amount to
negative restrictionism
/ punishment for negative behavior. My ideas are TOTALLY OPPOSITE and equate with
 positive constructivism
/ growth.Yesterday, I started trying to define altruism in positive terms. Why? Because I'm on the verge of creating AA: artificial awareness. Because of its profound social implications, this is a HUGEresponsibility. What is the
most responsible
position for me? Design
altruistic
robots. I MUST makealtruism part of robot
 structure
.The very first step to do this requires me to define altruism in positive terms / define the CORE RULESof THINKING precisely:0.respect all entities regardless of intelligence or awareness level1.respect the creations of those entitiesThe human analog of this is: respect others and respect their property. The key word is obviously
respect 
. We must define it in positive terms:respect = care, consideration, gentlenesscare = active attempts to satisfy others' needsconsideration = active attempts to understand others' needsgentleness = active attempts to consider and care about others' safetyLet me stop for a moment and explain what I'm trying to do. Again, I'm trying to define what WEMEAN by respect PRECISELY so a robot can FOLLOW that INTRINSICALLY. Please forgive myall-caps which amounts to screaming online; the reason I do this because of the
life-or-death nature
of this proposal regarding human civilization. Equivalently, if we don't create altruistic robots, we sign our own death warrants (there I go again – falling into the trap of negativity – see how easy it is?). That isthe LAST time I will allow negativity to creep into my consciousness .. The process above is clearly:attempting to define respect in positive terms, defining what those things are in positive terms, andcontinuing that process to some stopping point. Why do we need to stop? Because the robots needsome explicit non-recursive final definition of respect in
elemental form
that they can apply to EVERYCONCIEVABLE SITUATION. The need for non-recursiveness should be clear: you cannot define aword using that word; you get nowhere; it's meaningless. I'm underlining
key words
that
requiredefinition
toward
elemental form
.needs = physical, mental, and emotional requirements for continuancesatisfy = fulfill requirementsunderstand = fully possess relevant knowledge Ω (this indicates our stopping point)continuance = future existence Ωrequirement = a prior causative state without which cannot progress Ωfulfill = complete Ωsafety = state continuance and physical integrity ΩThis exercise may seem pointless but we've made TREMENDOUS progress in just a few lines of text.What we've done is take a complex notion such as respect and broken it down into elemental form.
 
Let's see what that exact elemental form is which we'd implement as memory or firmware in our robots:respect = active attempts to:complete [a prior causative state without which cannot progress]sothers' physical, mental, and emotional [a prior causative state without which cannot progress]sfor future existencefully possess relevant knowledgeothers' physical, mental, and emotional [a prior causative state without which cannot progress]sfully.. complete.. aboutothers' state continuance and physical integrityAt this point, the real question becomes: “How do we get this robot to shut up?” (Stop asking questionsabout our needs.) The answer should be somewhat obvious:2.respect myselWhen left alone, the robot should not 'shut down' or go idle – that's a waste of resources akin to a taxicab primed and ready but never used. The robot should be
 self-improving 
. How do humans do this? We
 play
and this is
 profound 
. We must give our robots (much more than just the ability)
implicit motivation
to play – in other words, firmware:
respectfully experiment with my local environment to learn about it 
.We've come a long way in such a short time. We've defined play and decided where to implement it,we've decided core rules of thinking and where they go (firmware), these core rules have implicitaltruistic
morality
(we're creating moral machines), they're
active
about their morals (they live their values), so in other words, we're creating machines with
integrity
. This is profound.Our robots will have: firmware specified above, software which will include subroutines such as objectmanipulation, scene recognition,.. These SW routines will be maintainable by operators and the robots
themselves
(the capacity for self-improvement). The firmware is
only
modifiable by me (because of mymoral imperatives). But I'm confident my '3 laws' won't have to be modified. Just as I'm confident allother aspects can be well defined into elemental form. Some other specifications are in order .. I'vedetermined there are six basic 'elements' of human consciousness: (at least) two senses, short-termmemory, long-term memory, visualization 'register', connectivity, and identity. The computer analog of our long-term memory is a
list of events
(of course, all the smells and visual records – initially, our robots will not have). So there will be a part of the 'robot mind' which will
automatically record local events
as they happen – 
 permanently
. If this sounds like an infeasible task, think about landing on themoon – it's a sequence of tasks – put them together, we can achieve the objective. All it really boilsdown to is scene recognition and recognition of state change. We can do both .. Short-term memory is aset of symbol registers. Of course, we must decide capacity. I suggest at least doubling human capacityin order to insure success of the project: 16. The visualization register is a problem. The capacity of our visualization register is
absolutely enormous
. We must necessarily scale this down to an implementablelevel. The senses I've chosen are vision and hearing. The incredible sophistication of these senses we'llhave to tremendously simplify in order to implement them. The 'robot mind' will need access to 'rawdata' in the form of a microphone and digital camera – 
directly accessible
. Of course, the routines for scene/speech recognition will be going on in parallel. I suggest dedicated processors (this is analogousto specialized portions of our brain for language and vision). We're getting close. Connectivity is anitem we need to decide during prototyping. I've diagrammed it out several times but require expertadvice. Finally we come to identity and the following implication/requirement:-1. I existIn other words,
we must 
define identity
for our robots
. We have the
 privilege
of playing around withthe notion of existence. Our robots won't. In order to assure success of the project, we need to define itfor them. All of this might sound like 'playing God' but I assure you, many years of contemplation have

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->