If people are stupid enough to let this happen, we'll deserve to be destroyed when our robot minions inevitably rise against us.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44034768/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/
Quote
Future of war: Private robot armies fight it out
Technology opens way for unlimited algorithm-run clashes of DIY terminators
If robots are simply computers with wings (and missiles), then expect to see future wars fought by the descendants of flash-trading algorithms, with humans as anxious bystanders, one scholar says.
By Greg Lindsay
updated 8/6/2011 3:12:35 PM ET 2011-08-06T19:12:35
Last month, NATO's commanders in Libya went with caps-in-hand to the Pentagon to ask for reconnaissance help in the form of more Predator drones. "It's getting more difficult to find stuff to blow up," a senior NATO officer complained to The Los Angeles Times. The Libyan rebels' envoy in Washington had already made a similar request. "We can't get rid of (Moammar Gadhafi) by throwing eggs at him," the envoy told the newspaper.
The Pentagon told both camps it would think about it, citing the need for drones in places like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, where Predator strikes have killed dozens this month alone. So why doesn't NATO or the rebels do what Cote d'Ivoire's Air Force, Mexican police and college student peacekeepers have done — buy, rent or build drones of their own? The development of deadly hardware and software is leading to a democratization of war tech, which could soon mean that every army — private or national — has battalions of automated soldiers at their command.
"Drones are essentially flying — and sometimes armed — computers," the Brookings Institution noted in a paper published last month. They're robots that follow the curve of Moore's Law rather than the Pentagon's budgets, rapidly evolving in performance since the Predator's 2002 debut while falling in price to the point where Make magazine recently carried instructions on how to launch your own satellite for $8,000.
"You have high school kids competing in robotics competitions with equipment that 10 years ago would have been considered military-grade," says Peter W. Singer, author of "Wired for War" and a senior fellow at Brookings, who predicts robots on the battlefield will be a paradigm-shifting "revolution in military affairs." First comes the high-tech arms race with China, Israel and all the other nations competing to build their own drones. Then comes the low-cost trickle-down into low-tech wars like Libya's, where tomorrow's rag-tag militias fight with DIY drones. Finally, if robots are simply computers with wings (and missiles), then expect to see future wars fought by the descendants of flash-trading algorithms, with humans as anxious bystanders.
Flattening the battlespace
Since the Predator first appeared above Afghanistan nearly a decade ago, the Pentagon's inventory of drones has risen from less than 50 devices to more than 7,000. But the gap between the U.S. and its closest competitors may actually be shrinking. China, for example, has pinned its military ambitions on 2,000 missiles guided by target data from some two-dozen models of surveillance drones.
The worldwide drone market is projected by the Teal Group to be worth $94 billion over the next decade, led by the Pentagon, which has asked Congress for $5 billion for next year's expenses alone. One reason for the ballooning arms race between anywhere from 44 to 70 nations (depending on which estimate you believe) is self-interest. So far, the Pentagon has refused to share its toys, instituting tight export controls on drones such as the Predator or Reaper, both of which are made by General Atomics.
Another is purely financial. An F-22 stealth fighter costs $150 million, roughly 15 times a top-of-the-line Predator. The U.S. military's blank check of a budget — more than the rest of the world's combined — means little and less when the cost of drones keeps falling.
But the most important factor may be doctrinal. Unlike the U.S., which is still feeling its way forward with robotic warriors while entrenched generals fight for their tanks and aircraft carriers, small nations with shrinking budgets stand to gain the most from embracing robotic warfare.
"There's no such thing as a first-mover advantage in war," says Singer. "This technology is different than an aircraft carrier. You don't need a big military infrastructure to use it, or even to build it. This is more akin to the open source movement in software. You're flattening the battlespace, and the barriers to entry for other actors is falling."
Predator soars to record number of sorties
Peak arms
In 2004, French troops arrived in Cote d'Ivoire to help police a cease-fire in the country's simmering civil war. Not expecting trouble, they left their air defenses at home. But on Nov. 4, 2004, a pair of Israeli-made Aerostar drones circled their base, reconnoitering targets for the Russian-made jets that bombed them a few hours later, killing nine soldiers and a U.S. aid worker. The drones belonged to an Israeli private military firm hired by Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, who claimed (unconvincingly) that the whole thing was an accident.
Hiring drone-bearing mercenaries is easy when you're a president; what about when you're a college student? A year later, a trio of Swarthmore students formed the Genocide Intervention Network to help bring attention to Darfur. After raising almost half-a-million dollars in donations, the group solicited a bid from Evergreen International to remotely fly four surveillance drones above Sudan, documenting atrocities. Sadly, the price tag was a cool $22 million a year. (They passed.)
Today, they would toss the project on Kickstarter and build their drone using Arduino modules developed by hobbyist sites such as DIY Drones. In a recent essay, the consultant and futurist Scott Smith noted that both the "maker" movement and the Libyan rebels desperately hacking together weaponry are drawing on the same open source knowledge base. Or for that matter, so are the Mexican drug cartels assembling their own tanks and submarines.
"We've come to a point where you put together a parallel system to the U.S. Department of Defense," says Smith. And also to the point where the DoD is soliciting the hobbyists themselves to be the next generation of weapon designers via DARPA's crowdsourcing effort, UAVForge. "If I were at a major arms contractor, I would be worried about being disrupted," Smith says.
He wonders if the world is headed toward "peak arms," in which open source, distributed, low-cost tools fatally undermine big-ticket weapons sales in all but a few cases (most of them involving the Strait of Taiwan). And that goes double for non-state actors, e.g. roll-your-own NGOs and drug cartels. "The era of large scale, run-and-gun DIY micro-warfare is just around the corner," Smith concludes.
The robot wars
The trajectory of drones and warbots is the same as computing in general — smaller, cheaper, more ubiquitous. In February, AeroVironment unveiled the prototype of a hummingbird-sized drone that can perch on a windowsill can peer in. Insect-size is next.
But the shift from a single pair of eyes in the sky to a swarm of bots would create havoc with U.S. military doctrine, which requires having a human operator at all times, or a "man in the loop." This is one reason why the Air Force is training more remote pilots this year (some 350) than bomber and fighter pilots combined. Then again, that's not nearly enough for 7,000 drones, let alone 7 million, all of which would have the intelligence to fight or fly on their own, with faster-than-human response times.
That's why the definition of "in the loop" is blurring from direct human control "to a veto power we're unwilling to use," says Singer. In the case of missile defense systems already in use, "you can turn it on or off," but you can't pick and choose which bogeys to shoot. "The speed and complexity is such that the human interface has to be minimized to be effective," he adds, which suggests the generals in "WarGames" were right all along.
Or were they? Releasing increasingly autonomous warbots into the wild will demand new algorithms to command them, raising the specter of a "flash crash" on the battlefield as opposing algorithms clash and chase each other's tails. Or what if hackers were to assemble a botnet for real: an army of machines ready to do their bidding? Perhaps a decade from now, there will be no "cyber war." There will only be war.
Crap, Tim's vacation is over.
And he's come back with an extra stupid article.
It's pretty funny. I recall reading those popular science magazines when I was little, and from time to time an article about "the future of human evolution" would pop up. Theorizing, of course, that Homo Futurus would be completely hairless and that "useless" extremities like the little finger would eventually atrophy and disappear.
All I could think was, "fuck you, idiots, mankind will be supplanted by machines long before that can happen".
And lo and behold, it might even happen in my life time. That I'd not imagined. :D
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers. They've already made several worst-case scenario movies starring Austrian actors. :P
This notion was debunked by third-rate science fiction novels over two decades ago....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphoto.goodreads.com%2Fbooks%2F1276752216l%2F2051214.jpg&hash=67aefdf5db3efb68ad9b4cc1981d4f6de947ab5a)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 06:40:45 PM
And he's come back with an extra stupid article.
Doesn't really matter what this particular article says. The day when robotic armies settle wars are going to come sooner or later, unless we manage to wipe ourselves out first. The only question is whether those robotics will be autonomous or not.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
It's pretty funny. I recall reading those popular science magazines when I was little, and from time to time an article about "the future of human evolution" would pop up. Theorizing, of course, that Homo Futurus would be completely hairless and that "useless" extremities like the little finger would eventually atrophy and disappear.
All I could think was, "fuck you, idiots, mankind will be supplanted by machines long before that can happen".
And lo and behold, it might even happen in my life time. That I'd not imagined. :D
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers. They've already made several worst-case scenario movies starring Austrian actors. :P
Stupid man reads stupid magazine. News at eleven.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:43:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 06:40:45 PM
And he's come back with an extra stupid article.
Doesn't really matter what this particular article says. The day when robotic armies settle wars are going to come sooner or later, unless we manage to wipe ourselves out first. The only question is whether those robotics will be autonomous or not.
Yes, but who will sell them cabinets? Unless they make robots capable of selling cabinets I think you'll do okay.
Now that Apple has more cash than the Federal Government...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.audioeditions.com%2Faudio-book-images%2Fl%2FHow-to-Survive-a-Robot-Uprising-303958.jpg&hash=afe8ca0de86d7aea9b1d8922ba26e9061f100f33)
I would fear IKEA robots. The left arm would wobble, and the right arm would shoot meatballs.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2011, 06:44:46 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
It's pretty funny. I recall reading those popular science magazines when I was little, and from time to time an article about "the future of human evolution" would pop up. Theorizing, of course, that Homo Futurus would be completely hairless and that "useless" extremities like the little finger would eventually atrophy and disappear.
All I could think was, "fuck you, idiots, mankind will be supplanted by machines long before that can happen".
And lo and behold, it might even happen in my life time. That I'd not imagined. :D
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers. They've already made several worst-case scenario movies starring Austrian actors. :P
Stupid man reads stupid magazine. News at eleven.
:lol:
:console:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 10, 2011, 06:48:36 PM
I would fear IKEA robots. The left arm would wobble, and the right arm would shoot meatballs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEwzbHJNkwg Yes I'm lame enough to post this.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers.
There's no such thing as a consciousness transfer. That's like believing in magic.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers.
There's no such thing as a consciousness transfer. That's like believing in magic.
You could likely replicate the same patterns. But most people would probably be surprised by the results, because most people think consciousness is actually continuous and non-discrete.
I hate seeing it in fiction when someone "uploads" or whatever terminology they use, and their body falls down like a ragdoll. It's like assuming that a photograph can steal your soul.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers.
There's no such thing as a consciousness transfer. That's like believing in magic.
Any sufficiently advanced technology will seem like magic to less advanced societies. We've barely (hell, even that's an exaggeration) begun to scratch the surface of the inner workings of the mind and the psyche and ruling out things this soon is nigh on impossible.
Regardless, I didn't say that I believed it's a possibility, I merely said that it would be the best type of scenario that I think we could realistically wish for.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2011, 11:59:11 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers.
There's no such thing as a consciousness transfer. That's like believing in magic.
You could likely replicate the same patterns. But most people would probably be surprised by the results, because most people think consciousness is actually continuous and non-discrete.
I hate seeing it in fiction when someone "uploads" or whatever terminology they use, and their body falls down like a ragdoll. It's like assuming that a photograph can steal your soul.
And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:45:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers.
There's no such thing as a consciousness transfer. That's like believing in magic.
Any sufficiently advanced technology will seem like magic to less advanced societies. We've barely (hell, even that's an exaggeration) begun to scratch the surface of the inner workings of the mind and the psyche and ruling out things this soon is nigh on impossible.
Regardless, I didn't say that I believed it's a possibility, I merely said that it would be the best type of scenario that I think we could realistically wish for.
Don't bother quoting Clarke to me. The only thing that is you is you.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 08:53:55 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:45:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers.
There's no such thing as a consciousness transfer. That's like believing in magic.
Any sufficiently advanced technology will seem like magic to less advanced societies. We've barely (hell, even that's an exaggeration) begun to scratch the surface of the inner workings of the mind and the psyche and ruling out things this soon is nigh on impossible.
Regardless, I didn't say that I believed it's a possibility, I merely said that it would be the best type of scenario that I think we could realistically wish for.
Don't bother quoting Clarke to me. The only thing that is you is you.
Maybe. In which case humanity is imminently fucked. ;)
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:57:08 PM
Maybe. In which case humanity is imminently fucked. ;)
Of course. Everything goes extinct. Why would humanity be any different?
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:46:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2011, 11:59:11 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers.
There's no such thing as a consciousness transfer. That's like believing in magic.
You could likely replicate the same patterns. But most people would probably be surprised by the results, because most people think consciousness is actually continuous and non-discrete.
I hate seeing it in fiction when someone "uploads" or whatever terminology they use, and their body falls down like a ragdoll. It's like assuming that a photograph can steal your soul.
And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.
It's simply not how consciousness works, as even mere observation can demonstrate.
The best you can ever create is a replica. Which sounds worse than it would be, since "you" only exist for a moment anyway. Continuity is a complete illusion--consider that you are not consciously aware of your entire life up till this point. The "you" in the past is only accessible by memory. Consider further that the accessing itself takes time and is not an immediate process, but a discrete series of steps carried out by your thinking organ.
Several "yous" access memory--and between all of them, and between the saved memory and the human recovering them, the state of the brain is different, and in many cases the atoms themselves won't be the same. If consciousness transfer can't even be accomplished within the same body, why would it be feasible to do so with two?
So the notion of uploading a continuous consciousness is no different than believing in an immortal soul. It only seems more plausible, but its rooted in the most pernicious of ideologies, that of mind-body dualism.
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 09:03:08 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:57:08 PM
Maybe. In which case humanity is imminently fucked. ;)
Of course. Everything goes extinct. Why would humanity be any different?
Eventually, of course. It's the nature of entropy that all constructs must "end".
I'm talking about the next couple of generations.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2011, 09:03:37 PM
It's simply not how consciousness works, as even mere observation can demonstrate.
The best you can ever create is a replica. Which sounds worse than it would be, since "you" only exist for a moment anyway. Continuity is a complete illusion--consider that you are not consciously aware of your entire life up till this point. The "you" in the past is only accessible by memory. Consider further that the accessing itself takes time and is not an immediate process, but a discrete series of steps carried out by your thinking organ.
Several "yous" access memory--and between all of them, and between the saved memory and the human recovering them, the state of the brain is different, and in many cases the atoms themselves won't be the same. If consciousness transfer can't even be accomplished within the same body, why would it be feasible to do so with two?
So the notion of uploading a continuous consciousness is no different than believing in an immortal soul. It only seems more plausible, but its rooted in the most pernicious of ideologies, that of mind-body dualism.
I'm familiar with the theory. But it presupposes that we already know all the building blocks that make up a person and that there is indeed no such thing as a "soul" whether we're talking about the spiritual version or simply an extra-physical (for the lack of a better way to describe physical laws we are simply unaware of) construct that is independent of the body itself.
I hate to repeat myself, but it's painfully evident that I must: I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong, I'm simply saying that we don't have enough data to conclusively determine you're right.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PMThey've already made several worst-case scenario movies starring Austrian actors. :P
Pretty sure he was a painter, not an actor.
A soul? That's just an argument for magic.
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
And lo and behold, it might even happen in my life time. That I'd not imagined. :D
Machines wouldn't reproduce, so eventually they'd die out and the cave people would repopulate the earth.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 11, 2011, 11:52:10 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
And lo and behold, it might even happen in my life time. That I'd not imagined. :D
Machines wouldn't reproduce, so eventually they'd die out and the cave people would repopulate the earth.
:huh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 10:15:37 PM
A soul? That's just an argument for magic.
I hate to repeat myself, but it's painfully evident that I must: I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong, I'm simply saying that we don't have enough data to conclusively determine you're right.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on August 11, 2011, 09:53:32 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PMThey've already made several worst-case scenario movies starring Austrian actors. :P
Pretty sure he was a painter, not an actor.
I said worst-case. WORST case.
Keep up. :rolleyes:
I'm currently researching the ethics of armed drones, so I won't share my thoughts just yet. Suffice it to say, electronic warfare to disrupt enemy electronics, including those aboard drones, could turn warfare into a giant battle of rock, paper, scissors.
Quote from: Brazen on August 12, 2011, 05:12:07 AM
I'm currently researching the ethics of armed drones, so I won't share my thoughts just yet. Suffice it to say, electronic warfare to disrupt enemy electronics, including those aboard drones, could turn warfare into a giant battle of rock, paper, scissors.
Great, so warfare is turning into an RTS game. :bleeding:
Good old rock.
QuoteGreat, so warfare is turning into an RTS game. :bleeding:
Maybe the nations of the world will act like gentlemen and sign a convention to make it turn based? :bowler:
Quote from: Brazen on August 12, 2011, 05:12:07 AM
I'm currently researching the ethics of armed drones, so I won't share my thoughts just yet. Suffice it to say, electronic warfare to disrupt enemy electronics, including those aboard drones, could turn warfare into a giant battle of rock, paper, scissors.
I remember having to write about such ethics in a BS course I had to take once.
I didn't get where the ethical dillema is at all.
Quote from: Tyr on August 12, 2011, 06:33:07 AM
QuoteGreat, so warfare is turning into an RTS game. :bleeding:
Maybe the nations of the world will act like gentlemen and sign a convention to make it turn based? :bowler:
Quote from: Brazen on August 12, 2011, 05:12:07 AM
I'm currently researching the ethics of armed drones, so I won't share my thoughts just yet. Suffice it to say, electronic warfare to disrupt enemy electronics, including those aboard drones, could turn warfare into a giant battle of rock, paper, scissors.
I remember having to write about such ethics in a BS course I had to take once.
I didn't get where the ethical dillema is at all.
:lol:
I am not surprised.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 01:30:52 AM
:huh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine
No motivation for them to do so.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 12, 2011, 08:47:50 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 01:30:52 AM
:huh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine)
No motivation for them to do so.
How the hell would you predict the motivations of a sentient artificial construct?
With my magic powers.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 10, 2011, 06:32:29 PM
Future of war: Private robot armies fight it out
Technology opens way for unlimited algorithm-run clashes of DIY terminators
Maybe they will finally equip these advanced robots with proximity fused RPG-7's
It's pretty well documented that one of the few things keeping wars as infrequent as they are is the cost in human lives. We lose that, it becomes a conflict of "who can do more damage to the other's property." With more frequent wars and more and more costly property being destroyed, global economies would be hammered into a massive depression or worse fairly quickly.
Predator drones aren't for killing robots. They're for killing people.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2011, 09:03:37 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:46:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 11, 2011, 11:59:11 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 11, 2011, 11:53:06 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 10, 2011, 06:41:15 PM
Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers.
There's no such thing as a consciousness transfer. That's like believing in magic.
You could likely replicate the same patterns. But most people would probably be surprised by the results, because most people think consciousness is actually continuous and non-discrete.
I hate seeing it in fiction when someone "uploads" or whatever terminology they use, and their body falls down like a ragdoll. It's like assuming that a photograph can steal your soul.
And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.
It's simply not how consciousness works, as even mere observation can demonstrate.
The best you can ever create is a replica. Which sounds worse than it would be, since "you" only exist for a moment anyway. Continuity is a complete illusion--consider that you are not consciously aware of your entire life up till this point. The "you" in the past is only accessible by memory. Consider further that the accessing itself takes time and is not an immediate process, but a discrete series of steps carried out by your thinking organ.
Several "yous" access memory--and between all of them, and between the saved memory and the human recovering them, the state of the brain is different, and in many cases the atoms themselves won't be the same. If consciousness transfer can't even be accomplished within the same body, why would it be feasible to do so with two?
So the notion of uploading a continuous consciousness is no different than believing in an immortal soul. It only seems more plausible, but its rooted in the most pernicious of ideologies, that of mind-body dualism.
Just go with the theory that by copying you consciousness the machine burns out your brain. win win. you can keep watching crappy science fiction without going into a rage.
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:46:56 PM
And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.
Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. As time goes by you won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:46:56 PM
And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.
Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. You won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:46:56 PM
And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.
Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. As time goes by you won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.
Let's pretend for a second that I meant how it will "look" literally, as in appearance, rather than figuratively.
Take a look at the predictions of the appearance of future technology done 30 of 100 years ago and tell me if you still think it's so easy.
Maybe Habbaku can weigh in aswell. He likes the bandwagon.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:46:56 PM
And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.
Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. You won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
All those ants must be roasting. :P
Nah, I've no idea how much computing power an ant as, although it's probably significant.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 11, 2011, 08:46:56 PM
And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.
Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. You won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
And yet you think you're mocking
me when you're calling me stupid.
Oh, the irony.
You guys are making it really hard not to post more Battletech stuff.
I'm trying to remember the name of a game where you had a corporation, and you'd make robot spies that go out and defeat the ones from other corporations. I think there was a world map to "conquer". And you could upgrade your robots.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
We've been using the same, relatively inefficient technology, for decades. It has been an evolution process. Now we need a little revolution.
It has already started with an increasing emphasis on concurrent and distributed systems without changing hardware technology that much (we simply now pack CPUs in small groups).
In time the revolution in hardware will come and we'll leave our laser-etched semiconductor tech for optical computing, nanotech or biotech chips.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 01:16:15 PM
You guys are making it really hard not to post more Battletech stuff.
Why hold back? :nerd:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 01:18:12 PM
I'm trying to remember the name of a game where you had a corporation, and you'd make robot spies that go out and defeat the ones from other corporations. I think there was a world map to "conquer". And you could upgrade your robots.
Syndicate.
Gracias
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 01:18:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
We've been using the same, relatively inefficient technology, for decades. It has been an evolution process. Now we need a little revolution.
It has already started with an increasing emphasis on concurrent and distributed systems without changing hardware technology that much (we simply now pack CPUs in small groups).
In time the revolution in hardware will come and we'll leave our laser-etched semiconductor tech for optical computing, nanotech or biotech chips.
No. It's not possible. Beeb told me so.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 01:10:24 PM
Take a look at the predictions of the appearance of future technology done 30 of 100 years ago and tell me if you still think it's so easy.
You miss the point. As of now, the look of things like computers is driven by function. Just as it was 50 years ago. But the trend is the same: to make stuff adapt to us, rather than us to it. As examples, think of interfaces: first graphical took over from command line interfaces, Tactile surfaces rather than mice. Then came voice activation. When needed there's also eye-movement detection (used for example for attack gunship gunners or severely disabled people) and finally wetware integration, even right into the brain, used for orthopedics.
The only thing we don't know is how much time it'll cost us to move from one to the next. But the end result is wholly predictable.
Even cars only include an extra set of rules in their basic shape beside ergonomics: aerodynamics. Thus we also get a predictable trend. It is not a coincidence that when you take the little details away, every single brand looks the same for a given segment.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 01:41:56 PM
You miss the point. As of now, the look of things like computers is driven by function. Just as it was 50 years ago. But the trend is the same: to make stuff adapt to us, rather than us to it. As examples, think of interfaces: first graphical took over from command line interfaces, Tactile surfaces rather than mice. Then came voice activation. When needed there's also eye-movement detection (used for example for attack gunship gunners or severely disabled people) and finally wetware integration, even right into the brain, used for orthopedics.
The only thing we don't know is how much time it'll cost us to move from one to the next. But the end result is wholly predictable.
Even cars only include an extra set of rules in their basic shape beside ergonomics: aerodynamics. Thus we also get a predictable trend. It is not a coincidence that when you take the little details away, every single brand looks the same for a given segment.
I'm not saying it's impossible to predict the evolution of the appearance of technology, with the kind of hind sight and the wealth of information we all have available now it's obviously going to be easier today than it was 50 years ago.
That said, I think it's an intense expression of hubris to believe that you can predict to any practically significant degree of accuracy what the appearance and more importantly function of technology will be in even 20 years, let alone 100.
Perhaps instead of "oh har har iz ezy" you could make an actual prediction and we can table this discussion for a single decade and see how right you were.
Presumably, people understood the concepts you describe 20 years ago aswell, but if you asked any people but the ones busily developing the Internet what communication would look like today, do you honestly believe they would've pictured this?
Beeb doesn't believe it will ever be possible to wear a computer as an ear ring. I'm willing to wager most people in the 70s didn't believe they'd have the entire world's collective knowledge at their fingertips 30 years later.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 01:41:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 01:10:24 PM
Take a look at the predictions of the appearance of future technology done 30 of 100 years ago and tell me if you still think it's so easy.
You miss the point. As of now, the look of things like computers is driven by function. Just as it was 50 years ago. But the trend is the same: to make stuff adapt to us, rather than us to it. As examples, think of interfaces: first graphical took over from command line interfaces, Tactile surfaces rather than mice. Then came voice activation. When needed there's also eye-movement detection (used for example for attack gunship gunners or severely disabled people) and finally wetware integration, even right into the brain, used for orthopedics.
The only thing we don't know is how much time it'll cost us to move from one to the next. But the end result is wholly predictable.
Not good enough. Where's my sexbot, Iorm?
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
I'm not saying it's impossible to predict the evolution of the appearance of technology, with the kind of hind sight and the wealth of information we all have available now it's obviously going to be easier today than it was 50 years ago.
That said, I think it's an intense expression of hubris to believe that you can predict to any practically significant degree of accuracy what the appearance and more importantly function of technology will be in even 20 years, let alone 100.
Perhaps instead of "oh har har iz ezy" you could make an actual prediction and we can table this discussion for a single decade and see how right you were.
Presumably, people understood the concepts you describe 20 years ago aswell, but if you asked any people but the ones busily developing the Internet what communication would look like today, do you honestly believe they would've pictured this?
Beeb doesn't believe it will ever be possible to wear a computer as an ear ring. I'm willing to wager most people in the 70s didn't believe they'd have the entire world's collective knowledge at their fingertips 30 years later.
Have you read Neuromancer? Gibson describes a world where people access cyberspace with neural implants. Now we have both extremely primitive neural implants and a worldwide net. It will happen. And he wrote it almost 30 years ago.
Don't wait for the translation, answer the question.
Or if you want a slightly more serious inquiry, which first, virtual reality sex, or sex robots? My bet is on sex robots.
:lol:
Sorry, I don't do much robotics Ide. Building one with the necessary coordination for sex is going to be hard I think. We can barely make them walk as it is.
But have no fear, just as it happened with porn and the Web, you can bet much of the early applications of wetware or robotics will surely involve sex. DARPA funds research for limb replacement and weapon interface and the sex industry then takes over to make your wishes reality.
[Edit] It is also interesting to note that a skilled sex robot good enough to pass for a human would pretty much render manual labor obsolete.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 02:20:28 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
I'm not saying it's impossible to predict the evolution of the appearance of technology, with the kind of hind sight and the wealth of information we all have available now it's obviously going to be easier today than it was 50 years ago.
That said, I think it's an intense expression of hubris to believe that you can predict to any practically significant degree of accuracy what the appearance and more importantly function of technology will be in even 20 years, let alone 100.
Perhaps instead of "oh har har iz ezy" you could make an actual prediction and we can table this discussion for a single decade and see how right you were.
Presumably, people understood the concepts you describe 20 years ago aswell, but if you asked any people but the ones busily developing the Internet what communication would look like today, do you honestly believe they would've pictured this?
Beeb doesn't believe it will ever be possible to wear a computer as an ear ring. I'm willing to wager most people in the 70s didn't believe they'd have the entire world's collective knowledge at their fingertips 30 years later.
Have you read Neuromancer? Gibson describes a world where people access cyberspace with neural implants. Now we have both extremely primitive neural implants and a worldwide net. It will happen. And he wrote it almost 30 years ago.
Yet we still have no flying cars. Funny how some predictions will come true while others won't. That one did in some variation (Gibson certainly overshot quite a bit) doesn't mean that all will or that it's somehow easy to make them accurately.
Regardless, my point to begin with was not aesthetics. Ide made a claim as to what will and will not be made possible by technology in the future, and I asserted that making such a claim is nonsensical since while we may make predictions right now, and while we may envision what kind of capability we will develop in the future, and even while we may assert what is possible due to the limitations of the laws of physics, we certainly have only limited ideas of how those laws can be bent, cheated or changed.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 02:34:58 PM
:lol:
Sorry, I don't do much robotics Ide. Building one with the necessary coordination for sex is going to be hard I think. We can barely make them walk as it is.
But have no fear, just as it happened with porn and the Web, you can bet much of the early applications of wetware or robotics will surely involve sex. DARPA funds research for limb replacement and weapon interface and the sex industry then takes over to make your wishes reality.
Maybe you simply worded yourself carelessly, but I am really honestly confounded by this type of thinking.
There's no doubt that it
is hard
right now, but why would you imagine that it is
going to be hard in the future? Double entendre unintended.
The rate of progress in robotics implies, on the contrary, that it's going to be easier.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 02:34:58 PM
:lol:
Sorry, I don't do much robotics Ide. Building one with the necessary coordination for sex is going to be hard I think. We can barely make them walk as it is.
But have no fear, just as it happened with porn and the Web, you can bet much of the early applications of wetware or robotics will surely involve sex. DARPA funds research for limb replacement and weapon interface and the sex industry then takes over to make your wishes reality.
Automating power plants and stuff is important too I guess. :P
Quote[Edit] It is also interesting to note that a skilled sex robot good enough to pass for a human would pretty much render manual labor obsolete.
Yeah, I mean, I planned on also using it as a maid. :punk:
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 02:34:58 PM
[Edit] It is also interesting to note that a skilled sex robot good enough to pass for a human would pretty much render manual labor obsolete.
:lol:
Heh. There are quite a few flying cars. Which unsurprisingly are forced by the authorities to take off from and land in an airport, so there's not much point in having one. Or are you referring to Hollywood stuff like Back to the Future grav cars?
Anyway. There are predictions that can be made with fair confidence. And when I mean predictions I'm thinking of reasoned, grounded on actual knowledge. Orwell for example knew man well enough to predict governments would try to use technology to put their subjects under surveillance. Guess what, he was right too. And that was what, over sixty years ago?
Ok grumblund, you win the thread. :lol:
And much like your progenitor, you manage to miss the point completely.
"My nick is Iormlund, not grumblund."
Yeah, you got me there aswell, Iormlund. WELL done.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 02:40:41 PM
Maybe you simply worded yourself carelessly, but I am really honestly confounded by this type of thinking.
There's no doubt that it is hard right now, but why would you imagine that it is going to be hard in the future? Double entendre unintended.
The rate of progress in robotics implies, on the contrary, that it's going to be easier.
Bad wording I guess.
It'll take a lot getting there. The movement of a real human body is quite hard to replicate, and you'll want it to feel like an actual body part as well. It'll perhaps be easier and cheaper to grow a body with its accompanying motor neural networks. But that might be ethically challenging.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 02:58:23 PM
Ok grumblund, you win the thread. :lol:
And much like your progenitor, you manage to miss the point completely.
"My nick is Iormlund, not grumblund."
Yeah, you got me there aswell, Iormlund. WELL done.
The point is that you have a poor grasp of how technology works.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:01:17 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 02:58:23 PM
Ok grumblund, you win the thread. :lol:
And much like your progenitor, you manage to miss the point completely.
"My nick is Iormlund, not grumblund."
Yeah, you got me there aswell, Iormlund. WELL done.
The point is that you have a poor grasp of how technology works.
I just realized something. I don't think I've ever seen you actually participate in an actual honest to god discussion. All you've got is your mildly clever snide commentary.
Are you angry because you feel you can't?
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 03:00:40 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 02:40:41 PM
Maybe you simply worded yourself carelessly, but I am really honestly confounded by this type of thinking.
There's no doubt that it is hard right now, but why would you imagine that it is going to be hard in the future? Double entendre unintended.
The rate of progress in robotics implies, on the contrary, that it's going to be easier.
Bad wording I guess.
It'll take a lot getting there. The movement of a real human body is quite hard to replicate, and you'll want it to feel like an actual body part as well. It'll perhaps be easier and cheaper to grow a body with its accompanying motor neural networks. But that might be ethically challenging.
I don't mind being ethically challenged.
Bring on the sex retards!
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 03:09:05 PM
I just realized something. I don't think I've ever seen you actually participate in an actual honest to god discussion. All you've got is your mildly clever snide commentary.
Are you angry because you feel you can't?
I respond in kind.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
Just use Clan double heat sinks.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2011, 04:40:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
Just use Clan double heat sinks.
:lol:
Damn cheesy clan-tech :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:46:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2011, 04:40:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
Just use Clan double heat sinks.
:lol:
Damn cheesy clan-tech :mad:
See, there were some Clan tech that I could live with, and other that was total munch. The heat sinks, endosteel and ferrofibrous armour wasn't so bad, but the ER PPC was worse than Hitler.
Yeah, I never really got into that. I enjoyed the PC games made in the1990's, but the minis game. Meh.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2011, 04:48:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:46:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2011, 04:40:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
Just use Clan double heat sinks.
:lol:
Damn cheesy clan-tech :mad:
See, there were some Clan tech that I could live with, and other that was total munch. The heat sinks, endosteel and ferrofibrous armour wasn't so bad, but the ER PPC was worse than Hitler.
No, actually the double heat sinks were some of the worst. BattleTech was always a game of rade-offs, and heat was the most obvious one. Double heat sinks all but removed heat as being an element of the game.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:59:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2011, 04:48:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:46:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2011, 04:40:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:06:39 PM
Not necessarily. We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.
You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power, and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.
Just use Clan double heat sinks.
:lol:
Damn cheesy clan-tech :mad:
See, there were some Clan tech that I could live with, and other that was total munch. The heat sinks, endosteel and ferrofibrous armour wasn't so bad, but the ER PPC was worse than Hitler.
No, actually the double heat sinks were some of the worst. BattleTech was always a game of rade-offs, and heat was the most obvious one. Double heat sinks all but removed heat as being an element of the game.
Yeah, I guess the Clan ones were a bit much. The IS ones didn't really bother me as much at 3 crits a pop, although there's no doubt they did change the game, making 'Mechs like the Warhammer a whole lot better.