Forum index >
News >
Pages: 1
Zero-K story: Behind the scenes
Post comment
Pages: 1
|
Thanks to an intrepid inside source, we have access to previously-secret footage of the Zero-K developer team discussing the game's story. Enjoy :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IP1mp3cgRo |
|
Psht, you guys are soft. My understanding of the back story was that humans not only no longer exist but they were so far in the distant past that they are reduced to the stuff of legend. And my proposed method of getting around the galaxy was to literally crush stars and exhaust them of power to move on to the next star system - leaving a trail of dead star systems in your wake. The sole purpose of the robots being to destroy the entire galaxy for no other reason than because they were told to. ... Yes, by my understanding / version of the back story, the chickens are the good guys. :P |
|
So is this video based on a true scene? |
|
Pretty epic what you did there :D However, how would you want a story full of humans if... there's no humans in the game? Like, at all? |
|
Cloning? |
|
No i mean in the actual game there's absolutely no human to be found. How would you want to tell a story with humans without actually showing humans? |
|
I'm with MauranKilom. The closest that makes sense to me is ex-humans uploaded into machines - which are just machines programmed to mimic a specific human if you think about it. |
|
Who said there are no humans! Humans are inside commanders |
|
But then... they... die?? |
|
this is probably why you cannot build more.
in a galaxy where the last organics are the chickens, who are fighting s desperate battle for survival against the robot swarms a rather improbable event happens, a race of space-faring warriors composed entirely of hermaphroditic (but female looking) lesbian space pirates arrives, with no leader, no means to go back, and no desire to be good… they immediately turn on each other and in the fighting the ships that brought them there are destroyed so they have no choice but to take control of the “local” forces and so…10.000 years later only 2 factions remain, the swarms of The One who believe the best… leadership… is an iron fist who holds the whip of command and the fractious but ever multiplying Meck Conglomerates who battle for the belief that all things are better done as a in as big a group as possible, leadership included. Now zero-k still has a post-apocalyptic world with no humanity, but it has (pirate) space-lesbians that people can relate to, allow for most forms of fanfiction, and a line of Japanese erotic visual novels. is it better now? |
|
So if you rez a com... you rez the human too? why can't you rez a dino army as free dirbag's? |
|
Commanders ofcourse have a semi indestructable cockpit! They are just lieibg arround hoping to be saved. Humans are far too scarce to die! |
|
No, the human doesn't die. He stays alive in a life support capsule inside the com wreck and only dies if you reclaim it. Edit: Ninjaed. |
|
"Church of Singularity".. lol so true. I just watch a documentary about Kurzweil, he wanted to upload his mind into computer. |
|
Aaaand... what happens when you reclaim them? We're headed towards reassembly of humans again... |
|
The addition of a final human as the protagonist was actually a concession to Licho. Originally it was just robots fighting robots until the heat death of the universe. And literally consuming stars with their exponential growth (you can make a Starlight in half an hour, imagine what you could do with a week!). Personally I like the 'last human' conceit, it makes the protagonist important and opens up more avenues for transhumanist exploration: Whether you resurrect humanity, go on a huge power trip and become empress of the universe, become a machine yourself, etc. It doesn't have the purity and pathos of robots fighting robots for no reason but it works as a storyline. |
|
how come rezzing enemy coms makes pilot friendly? |
|
It does not, you just repair the mechanical parts ant take control of them, the “human” is sill inside and is forced to watch helplessly as you use his suit against his own forces that he still commands from within using a secured channel, also when you reclaim the “suit” the (tiny by comparison) command pod is left behind hidden by a perfect cloaking device (that cannot be scaled up to be used for battle units) |
|
  kmar
Some of the lines in the video are actual quotes, or fairly accurate descriptions of their respective positions. Others are, well, caricatures of Licho's views (or Licho's views on Saktoth's views). :D |
|
Then straight up killing him would win the battle instantly. |
|
By the "safe pilot" logic double nukeing a com should grant victory regardless of what army he had left. Same with an active outlaw near comwreakage and other nasty hazards. |
|
"What's next? A love story starring a garbage collection robot?" |
|
if it has perfect cloak, perfect defence i not that incredible But in any case what’s with all the nitpicking? A world can either have space-lesbians fighting each other with huge robots for no good reason or it can have a 100% realistical story but NOT both (at least not at our current level of civilization, there is still hope for the future on this front). |
|
awsome beard, licho. |
|
"Everyone who likes a backstory of robots with feelings, get out of the room." |
|
robot+feelings has been done WAAAAAYYY to many times. |
|
somekid: That's because it's awesome. Also it hasn't been done as many times as humans with feelings now has it? |
|
Kinda hard to have humans without feelings. Unless they're SPHESS MAREENS. |
|
And WALL-E has too many robots with personality. Less love, more death. |
|
What do you mean they don’t have feelings? They may not have much variety, yes, but the feelings that do have are of such intensity that they can bend the rules of reality allowing for both human and mechanical limitations to be transcended, sometimes in quite spectacular ways.
I remember about 2 robots with actual personality in that movie (if I stretch the notion of personality quite a lot) and a death toll of several billion humans and trillions of other life forms… did you see some kind of pink Christmas edition or something? |
|
I HAVE FOUND IT!!! In this galaxy there are no more humans, there are only… TAX COLLECTORS , the last functioning piece of a once vast empire the fully automated field agents of the “ministry of wealth” are still enforcing taxation on worlds long dead, to fund an empire long gone Or if you want it to be less depressing, they are doing it in order to maintain the VR infrastructure where humanity has logged itself in and forgot to log out (because it seemed more real that actual reality),… until You awaken, and must decide… Will you let the last of humanity remain trapped in the dream while you become galactic emperor of the machines, or of a new humanity made in your image? Will you try to secure admin rights and log back in with unlimited power thus becoming the god of a virtual world? Will you try to awaken those who remain and push civilization forward? Will you try to find all server nodes just to watch them burn by your hand as the weaklings realize they cannot escape the darkness? Will you ever be certain this is not just another layer of the VR? Are you truly human? Or just an anomalous NPC? Regardless of who or what you are and what you decide to do, it seems the system wants you “reintegrated” and other dangers may await even beyond that…. |
|
That's what I meant. |
|
robots cant have feelings, they can only mimic feeling. if you say something like "what if we determine its feeling with a random number generator?" that also would not betrue feeling because it is impossable to compute a truelly random number. |
|
So, a carbon-based replicating nanotech robot can't be sentient either, right? :P |
|
There's hardware chips that measure "true" random processes, e.g. temperature fluctuation. Your argument is invalid. |
|
What makes your feelings more real than those of a robot (or an animal?) |
|
us self replicating silicon based nanotech robots usually call these things meatbags... |
|
My question is, why go with a "Last human left" story-line when you could easily create a much more interesting story-line based on PW? There are political issues, people to have emotions over, and actual drive to the story over just fighting robots and looking for human artifacts as far as I can tell. Was there more planned for the current story-line than I am aware of? |
|
The planned story is already based on PW: the robot factions you meet are the same as (or based upon) the ones in PW. As for "why isn't it specifically set during the PW period?", several reasons, but these two should be adequate for now: 1) PW is quasi-historical - it's already happened, outcomes and all. This places limitations on the events that can happen during our campaign, and gets in the way of the storytelling we want: a player free to shape the galaxy, to (re)build zir own galaxy-spanning empire in zir image. Of course, fan campaigns or even single missions set during the PW are always welcome. 2) Sak says "screw your boring human politics with its humans fighting humans for no reason." |
|
Regardless, I am exited to see how the campaign turns out. |
|
The closest to random is numbers determined by atmospheric noise. In truth it is not random; it is only random due to our lack of understanding of the universe. |
|
Similarly, the reason that human emotions seem special and unreproducible is just our lack of understanding of organic machinery. |
|
define inteligence, or creativity, or any "special" human trate and you will see that computers are able to fully mimic it... the only reason there are no strong AI's going around is really just procesing power if you tooc a computer sci studdent form 1980 and showed them what computers can do today they would tell you we already have AI, we just dont recognize it because we are so used to looking at it, and noone ever labled it as such. |
|
XIX-century world view detected. In XXI, we have probabilistic causality, too, and it seems to describe an important set of phenomena all too well. |
|
Computers are not "aware" of anything. They dont really "feel" pain or love. Its all just simulacrum. Even if they are able to externally behave same as humans do, there is this key difference. I would feel no grudge smashing their silicon chips, knowing its all just numbers and algorithms and that there is no real feelings. On the other hand, Im reasonably sure that other human beings and animals have similar internal feelings and would hurt if I hit them with silicon-smashing hammer. Why is there a difference we cannot say yet. But your own pain or joy is the most "real" thing there is for you, and we all know computers, unlike humans, do not experience that. |
|
In the end humans are just heaps of flesh that do certain things because of internal rewards in the form of hormones. We do that because those of us who do could reproduce, or in other words: We perform evolution. We are "programmed" to do what "nature" (empirically) found out was best for our existence. Frankly, i don't see much of a difference between humans behaving in a certain way because of how evolution "programmed" them, and computers acting in a certain way that we tell them to. For us humans, emotions are important and we think of technical objects as emotionless, but in my eyes emotions are just another technical aspect of human "mechanics", if you will. |
|
   MauranKilomYou should first figure out who are you arguing with: -   somekid arguing for iron determinism and "magical" free will endowing exclusively humans;- @[TROLOLO]ddabaeqepp claiming that current computational simulacra are capable of cognition and sentience; -     Licho arguing that ddabb is incorrect and current generation of computers are mere simulacra capable of nothing- me and waldo trolling some of those carbonofascists with the concept of "carbon nanotech robots" :P ... because your point actually doesn't affect any of those. |
|
Licho i have to admit i have a different perspective on the matter: Humans are not "aware" of anything. They dont really "feel" pain or love. Its all just simulacrum to the machine. Even if they are able to externally behave same as machines do, there is this key difference. I would feel no grudge smashing their fleshy bodies, knowing its all just goo and cytoplasm and that there is no real feelings. On the other hand, Im reasonably sure that other machines have similar internal feelings and would hurt if I hit them with meatbag-smashing hammer. Why is there a difference we cannot say yet. But your own pain or joy is the most "real" thing there is for you, and we all know humans, unlike machines, do not experience that. silly meatbag... |
|
Of course you can try to deny your own subjectivity, but it exists. If a computer stores its mood in a single variable, its changing value will not make it feel any different. Humans are different because of that internal awarness. How and why that arises is uknown but it would be arrogant to assume that we know all.. Few centuries ago brain was thought to work using levers and pullies, then with the telephone it was thought to be giant telephone switch, later electronic device and now information processing computer.. Just exactly how it does what it does and why would it give a rise to internal self-awarness is still unknown. Decades ago it was thought that we are years from general AI, now nobody knows even with exponentially more power. It was assumed that once you reach certain complexity, awarness and conscioussness just spontaneously appear. Its now known that this is not the case. |
|
It sounds kind of like you are arguing that consciousness is spiritual and not physical. |
|
Licho :P true computer conscience is something that is so abstract from how meatbags think, it is most likley would be incomprehencible to pitifull meatbags. meatbags take hours and days to prosess something a computer is capable of doing instantly, its signals travel at the speed of light(specific to the conductor) while a humans mind can only transmit at a measly 1000m/s. you dont need to reach singularity point to have sentient machines, the first traces of such systems will probably start filtering in by 2020-30, based on self evolving code, runing trillions of cycles per second. |
|
It may well be  luckywaldo7 in a sense that it's not a simple mechanical deterministic process which you can simulate with pen and paper. There is still plenty of uncharted space in "physical". It could employ quantum processes in some strange way, which itself could be misunderstood. It could be in some ways acting in non-local space like quantum entanglement. We have no idea what is 96% of matter and energy in universe, strange things might be lurking all around and inside us, in the folded dimensions, in infinite parallel universes branching with each event, in other m-branes smashing our brane .. who knows.. |
|
AI do not have the heuristic (which was added organically thru eon of evolution and experience) in human, but only have the general problem solving capability. Human already have these problem solving ability + ability to interpolate reality without much effort. Thus, AI is not efficient at solving real-world problem. Althought precise, it must take incredible CPU power to view a simple human's reality. Its more likely that AI is extension of human intelligence (cyborg/cybernetic) than a saperate entity. Where its existent rely on human operator & guidance. |
|
That is indeed the current state. But with enough power and data input, you could have code evolving from itself to solve arbitrarily complex problems. Let me render this more precisely: Humans are (evolutionarily) optimized for the problems they are supposed to deal with (while sucking at other things). We haven't even started computer evolution (in terms of them training themselves), so you can't say computers are unable to have abstraction/problem solving capabilities/reality "interpolation". I'm constantly observing myself thinking in models of stuff, which is just what computers do. We are not aware how much we abstract and classify the flood of information pouring down on us, but internally we use simple models into which we fit the stuff we see, hear or feel. We act led by our hormones, think in categories and assume us to be self-aware. Creativity is currently not easy for computers, but would you expect a jellyfish to be creative? Also (about "internal self-awareness"), would you say that dolphins or apes are less sentient than humans? I don't think so. They recognize themselves in mirrors, they have emotions and "know" how to interact with their environment. So what difference is there between them and us, aside from the fact that we are abusing our environment on a large scale? More to the point: How do you know that something is not self-aware? If it's something "spiritual", how can we know it doesn't happen in microprocessors? |
|
I'm not sure you can know for certain that something is self aware. You know you are and how it feels and I have no doubt that all animals posses similar quality to same or lesser degree. You also know that rock is probably not self-aware. And we also know that all computer does, can be simualted with pen and paper and simple step of instructions - adding two numbers and comparing numbers. Do you think that if you were executing computer program using pen and paper you would create some extra awarness which would really feel same way you do feel? I think we are missing something here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness |
|
Btw awarness I'm talking about has nothing to do with recognizing itself. Its simply the capacity to *feel* the experience. If animal really internally *feels* pain in similar way humans do, it already does something no present computer can.. |
|
Working on the very plausible assumption that the processes in the universe can be described by (physical) models, do you think you could obtain some extra awareness which would feel this way by applying these models (which can as well be done with pen and paper)? Apparently yes. Computers could just as well apply those models. Note: "physical" just means it's us who is trying to explain the world and find those models. Just "models" is probably more accurate, since we might not find them all. PS: Just because i like your pen and paper analogy: http://xkcd.com/505/ |
|
On the "feel the experience": Pain is just something evolution implemented to make you avoid certain stuff. Extreme heat and cold are painful to us because it's bad for us, those of us who didn't feel pain from that simply died. Pain is your nerves firing into areas of your brain that trigger certain reactions, like undoing what you just did (pulling back your hand from that hot thing), as well as conditioning you not to repeat what you just did. Maybe even some adrenaline etc. I don't think humans feel pain in another way than ants do. The same applies to basically any other emotion. Singing, making or hearing music feels good because our brain is programmed to reward us for that. Back in the ancient days, those groups that employed music survived better because of more cooperation, which carved music as something good into our brains. I don't feel self-aware when feeling pain or listening to music. In fact i feel how instincts take over in these situations and i have less control over myself, i don't think that corresponds to self-awareness. I'd say it's more about noticing yourself thinking, observing yourself if you will. But what step is it from observing others to observing yourself? Are our lives different because we are self-aware? But I don't think we'll be able to hit the nail on what exactly self awareness is, generations of philosophists have tried before us. |
|
:P ive allways had trouble believing in consciousness as anything more then a comlex algorighim... when you look at it from its basics there is nothing special about human consciousness... self awarness: recognise self:self (really easy to do, hell single celled organisims can do this) concience: uterly pointless guilt complex creativity: itiration of an idea belief: more pointless built complexes problem-solving: more itiration till you get it right (simulated problem used for this) emotion: probably the most archaic bit, we havent managed to teach a computer to feel these, because we dont understand how we feel emotions ourseves... |
|
There is nothing surprising with pain and reaction to pain - its completely natural that organisms avoid damage and it is easy to "program". Question is - why does it "feel" as pain .. why do you feel anything instead of nothing? You could be programmed with internal states and thinking and not be aware of it - not really feel it even if your logic module could comprehend it.. Focus on yourself and you will notice that your awarnes is some sort of inner observer .. you can notice thoughts popping in and out, feelings coming along. We don't need it but we have it, why and how it works? As you say humans could function exactly same without this inner feeling/awarness.. so it is really hard to prove that something has it. We have to rely on intuition and personal experience. Personally I think we are missing something rather big here. |
|
this sounds like... umm... Task Manager... it comes free with almost any computer OS... OMG my copy of windows is self aware!!! btw humans feel pain, because just having a notification of "part# is damaged" popping up wouldnt be as dramatic, and not really discourage you from doing stupid crap with the damaged part (can be summed up as "humans feel pain cause they are idiots") also humans need to feel pain because knowlage and experiance can not be transfered from human to human with a flash drive(unlike computers) so our learning function must be given an incentive to avoid damage other then the danger of permenant damage(wich wont have been learned by that point) |
|
Of course, as I said you can take fully behavioral view and completely ignore what is your own subjective reality... When you feel great pain or great happiness you will realize that it has very distinct reality in its own, it's not just a "state" of non living object. Accepting that might be handy especially when you need to convince others not to hurt you, because people certainly have no inhibitions hurting computers :-) |
|
Either i'm so confused as to the sides of this discussion, or you didn't mean to say *that* :D |
|
COMPUTERS CAN FEEL PAIN TOOO!!! if you stab me do i not electrecute you through the blade? do i not bleed coolant? do i not die if you kill me? Lichobtw. humans are machines, they are made of verry small molecular level machines, but they are non the less made of machines... :D study proteomics and biology, you will understand that there really isn't that much differance between a computer and a human, its all a mater of scale. |
|
Yeah scale argument again, but show me a computer that would really be hurt by damaging it .. you can attach to it any sensors and it can run on the biggest supercomputers... Sorry it wont feel anything.. There is more to biological "machines" than you realize and its not a simple deterministic digital processor. It could easily employ effects we have no clue about, just like recent revelations that smell is probably quantum based, that retina uses quantum states, that photosynthesis protein uses quantum trick to channel energy with almost no losses. All of this would be unbelievable few years ago, because it was assumed that you cannot achieve that in messy wet warm biology. Just because we know how some processes work does not mean we understand it all.. Heck we cannot even figure out how to stop some silly cells from multiplying uncontrollably after decades of massive efforts and billions spent. Biology is massively complex, we only understand small details here and there. |
|
licho that is where you are wrong... a computer that is damaged will feel tha damage, just not in the same way as humans... human: [chops of arm] ghaaa agony!!!!!! [amends actions to function without arm] [continues as normal] android: [chops of arm] [runs through decision tree] [amends simulation to function without arm] [continues as normal] shure geting replacment parts for robotics is easier then it is for humans but that is just because our technology level in science and medicine is really basic and primative humans are just gigantic machines made of protiens and carbon chained molecules computers are just gigantic machines made of silicon chips and metal wire computer also use quantum mechanics to run, just look at silicon wafers and how they can be made into transistors (thats quantum mechanics), or the flow of electrons in the circuits (even more quantum mechanics), or how your display screen works(even more quantum mechanics). computers use plenty of quantum mechanics. its just in biology, we are discovering how its used in technology, we are already using it to solve problems and noone really cares how a computer works right up untill the point it breaks down... |
|
"Sentience is a phenomenon of unknown cause that we cannot reliably produce at current level of technology - except using bits of tech that is beyond ours, such as automatically developed carbon nanotech" "But we're working on that"
You seem to fail to understand the depth of your opponent's argument. Tsk tsk :P |
|
:P yea ana i dont really see any depth there, maybe its like one of those tidal pools that only looks shallow but is actualy miles deep. biology is just the process of reverse engeneering technology we really dont understand. thats why you see papers published about the quantum mechanics of rod and cone cells, how taste/smell receptors use QM, and 1000 other effects to recognize other molecules, and lots of other stuff. im sorry im not to confident on the QM of biology, i specialized in genetics and molecular level stuff when i studied it. |
|
I think we need to understand our biology/gene first before we can build a better version of ourselves. We knew that our gene work like a machine, but it is incredibly complex machine that we are ourself unable to understand (except doing hax and copy paste to fix stuff). Its more likely that the machine we build (an android) will be a a haxed version of ourselves because we don't know how to create stuff from scratch (just like how you first code widget: need to have template). AI for example is a reflection of our intelligence. We created a machine that think using our worldview of how problem should be solved. I think its not possible to create a machine better than us (in this lifetime) unless they became our 'god' D:! |
|
Does self-awareness mean experiencing pain hurts you more? I don't think so. The reactions in our brain are "hardcoded" the same as they are for ants or mice. Our actions following pain are derived from what evolution found out was best for us in these cases. It's not different from us programming a robot to react to a given situation in a certain way, just that for humans the programmer is nature or evolution. Self-awareness doesn't change anything about the way the brain treats the signals it receives. In fact, i think programs evolving AIs can mean extremely rapid growth of AI strength (especially if you let AI work on itself). This is all just speculation, but just look at the technological progress of the last 30 years (how small of a time is that!).  xponen: Ofcourse, currently robots (or AI) aren't able to cover as broad of a field as humans. But how does that matter? Humans are far from being able to react to everything, they can just handle the situations nature prepared them for. Radiation (and radiation poisoning) would be an example of something that nature did not build or "program" us for, just like current robots aren't (usually) built for dealing with physical damage. However, we are so much faster at "evolving" robots/AI than we evolve ourself that AI/robots "better" than humans aren't implausible at all for the future.Also, nobody said robots/AI will become that powerful during our current generation, but that's not exactly the time we are talking about for ZK, aren't we? |
|
I'm shocked that a guy, who considers conservation of momentum (needed by quantum mechanics and relativity) "just a theory", claims to know all the secrets of biology and brain! Not sure if its planned trolling or a massive self delusion, in either case, check wiring of your machine! And let me know when you create artificial sentience in a computer so that you can run there and I can help you disposing your outdated machine-body :) |
|
but conservation of momentum is a theory... science has not yet become a religion, we dont have laws i dont claim to know all the secrets of the brain, i dont belive its made of magic or that humans have a "soul" so thus it must ba a machine, a biological machine but still a machine... |
|
DNA replication and amino acid synthesis is just a set of machines working on building parts. If through this process they manage to construct something with access to some quantum mechanism (Which would behave entirely probabilistically and NOT save free will!), something beyond organic chemistry, then they do it via physical means. If they do it via physical means, then a machine can do this too: Even if the machine is required to have some carbon, DNA-replicating component to achieve it (I don't see why we would shy away from DNA based carbon computers). But I don't think it's accessing some realm of quantum fluctuation or dark matter gobbldeygook. These processes tend to build up, not down. They build up towards complexity, where systems layer on top of eachother and the complexity at the base level builds up to greater and greater levels. In the same way we can create complex simulations using nothing but zeroes and ones, or the same way that a few fundamental particles can build a complex universe. Conscious experience frankly does not come into it. You cannot even assess the conscious experience of another human being, or an animal. You cannot access it directly, you can only infer it from behaviour. An animal gives clear signs of pain, suffering, loneliness, anger, guilt- we have enough common body language that we can read these things. They don't have the same self-awareness of us, but they have some kind of variant. As you go down from apes to mammals and birds to reptiles to insects you see a gradient of self-awareness, until you get to some insects or even less complex forms of life which seem to operate like computers, in a pure input-response fashion. Moreso, this is how we evolved, this is the path we took, a slow gradation from single-cell upwards. So what was the stage, the leap, the jump, the point of ensoulment? Whether you draw the line between us and apes and maintain they have no consciousness (Which is a very difficult argument but does not change the fact that we evolved, slowly, in a gradient process, from these creatures) or whether you draw it at the central nervous system or prefrontal cortex doesn't matter, you have consciousness arising out of a slow gradient of complexity from purely physical systems. So how can you say a machine which is much more complex than you is not capable of consciousness? How can you KNOW when you have no access? Expand your definition of machines here: If we create molecular machines, or scratch-build DNA based machines, how could they -not- access that domain that is exclusive to humans or animals? What if we create a DNA based brain, something that is incredibly hardy, efficient and well designed that it barely even resembles the brains we have today, but which operates on the same basic principles of synapses and neurons, of electrical and chemical signals. You could argue that this is a highly engineered animal, encased in a technological and mechanical shell. That a scratch-built carbon based processor in a robotic body is a cyborg, and not a robot at all. I can only ask: What is the difference? It is merely a machine made from different materials. |
|
So just because I want to see what everyone thinks; isn't creativity something you can't really program into a machine? I get that one could program limited creativity, but on the scale that humans have demonstrated seems a little far fetched unless you essentially make the machine so complex it pretty much is an organism. I know ddab defined it as an iteration of an idea, but that doesn't seem to really cover creativity for me. I think the main issue is that once your machine can comprehend pain, emotion, creativity, etc. the machine really doesn't seem to fit its original definition. Most machines are made with a purpose of some sort; once a machine creates its own purpose it is considered sentient. I don't think you can reach that point without reaching a complexity that can only be seen in organisms. Basically a machine cannot reach sentience because it cannot be made with that much processing power unless it would show properties more akin to an organism. |
|
Organism and machine share the same definition - except for that quality of machine being artificial. Imagine a scratch-designed biotechnological spaceship, with organic-superconductor based tokamak (reactor? organ?) as its energy source; organic ion thrusters, and an organic brain wired with asimov laws - as its central computer and captain. Organism? Machine? Cyborg? Life? Technology? Like a smurf: you cannot tell. |
|
Saktoth, you are basically arguing my point. We cannot tell what is self aware and what isn't, we have no idea how does it "feel" to be someone else or something else. Only thing we know for sure that we are ourselves sentient. You are saying that more complex creatures have deeper self awareness, but how can we know that? How do you even measure complexity? And what makes brain more complex than supercomputer - is it really more complex? And of course we cannot measure self-awareness. Some small birds can recognize themselves in mirrors while socially much more intelligent bigger brained dogs don't, does it give you any hint of complexity or internal feelings of those creatures? You could say that dogs simply had no need to evolve this feature, but really? Social animals with apparently have pretty deep emotional life? Truth is we have absolutely no clue how does it feel to be a dog or a crow, even if we had exact map of their brains. How is it possible we cannot explain that and we cannot "feel" that in our "better machine"? My point is, that we are missing something. We don't really know how the subjective self-awarness works, it's intangible. |
|
Does not lead to
|
|
i have to agree, subjective usualy leads to "its all just an opinion", which leads to "faulty experimental design" which leads to "magic!!!" |
|
So currently the mind is a black box to us. But it basically comes down to the assumption that with enough time, science, and knowledge, there is no reason we won't eventually understand it. At some point in time, the force that made planets move was considered "intangible". The common belief was that it was angels that pushed the planets around. Needless to way, we eventually did find a very physical explanations. There is no reason to expect that our minds are special and unique in being something supernatural or metaphysical. |
|
Nobody said that luckywaldo. There is nothing "special", it evolved, it's pretty natural and probably common in this universe. I'm just saying that our attempts at AI with computers won't magically give a rise to subjective sentience and that we are likely missing something. Perhaps you need a quantum analog machine to create some inner coherences that give rise to that. Who knows. I just woudln't bet on turing machine suddenly becoming self-aware and sentient just because it is big (even if it didn't stuck on Godel incompleteness issue and other well know limits of turing machines). And yes I know there is assertion that you can simulate entire universe on a turing machine - I don't think you can! For example it's enough if there exists real real number in nature (as in variable with fully continuous values) to completely break this assertion! |
|
Perhaps I should make it clear what I'm saying: * you have your own subjective self-awareness/sentience * other humans and most animals have it too * nature of this subjective sentience is still a bit mysterious * current computers don't have it any more than rock does * computers - as in Turing machines - are probably not capable of sentience * artificial sentience is possible, but it probably won't be done using classical computers (and might be more similar to animals - not strict numerical simulation) |
|
Licho are you saying you are more powerful than a turing machine? |
|
Well, I can decide if other Turing machine would stop or not ;) Unlike a Turing machine. But I'm not sure if humans are algorithmically stronger than turing machines, I think we (and animals) have some (mostly subjective experience) qualities that turing machines we build so far don't have. What makes us different I don't know. |
|
What? Since when do humans create their own purposes? You think that you act on purpose, decide on your own behalf. But how can you be sure? How can you know that the part of you that thinks it is you and can decide what to do isn't controlled by something else while maintaining convinced it is autonomous?
Same point as above: What makes you so sure "subjective sentience" isn't just another neural process? |
|
'Computers are not "aware" of anything. They dont really "feel" pain or love.' '...already does something no present computer can...' Licho, you state this is a present-day issue, but continue to argue against computers and feelings. Are actually you putting your foot down on computers and sentience and saying 'never'? People thought Phlogiston, Spontaneous Generation, Earth as Center of the Universe, Alchemy, Humors of the Body ... were all true, and beyond reproach. You are effectively saying 'it is clear computers can never have what humans have'. Is that wise? |
|
Please re-read my statements. I'm saying that I think that current path of won't lead to artificial *sentience*. Though I believe that human or superhuman artificial intelligence is possible using current methods. Your app wont become self-aware and have internal feelings just because it runs 10000x faster on supercomputer. |
|
I think human can do stuff without being conscious, and conscious might not even required. For example: there are case where sleepwalker do complex stuff like driving car and kill other people (while they are unconscious), and you can even be lured to buy stuff that you didn't conciously understand (subliminal advertisement). If we build a very intelligent AI they might able to do human task, but more likely they won't be designed to be conscious. So robot aren't going to be conscious IMO. |
|
inb4 blindsight ... i must say combining reynolds' transhumanism with watts' views on sentience makes a very scary narrative potential |
|
From a funny film parody to explaining life and sentience in mere days! Imagine where this thread might be in some more weeks. |
|
To explain what I'm saying to people not into computer science: Turing machines are conceptual computers, all existing computing devices are just turing machines. It's proven, that it is impossible to make a program which would determine if other program for given input would finish or "freeze" and run forever. Humans can do that, I haven't heard of human who would got fozen forever while trying to determine if his code would cycle forever or about a program for which humans could not determine if it would stop or cycle forever. It is related to Gödel's incompleteness theorems (mathematically proven), that no formal theory which could define for example rules of arithmetics can be both consistent and complete. So any formal system (which includes any programming code) always hits unsolvable paradoxes like "This sentence is false". Again humans are able to handle those without much head exploding. |
|
Btw the possibility that there are ways to exceed Turing machines (and hence possibility that brain is not just a Turing machine computer) keep popping out all the time. Check for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation If brain could do any of that, it would be qualitatively well beyond any existing or future computer (based on current computing systems of course). |
|
So my attack is two fold: * subjectivity and inner feelings * capabilities beyond the limits of turing machines and godel incompleteness |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catatonia The human BSOD |
|
Ddab, that is absolutely not related to my point. And humans can think in this state and nobody got stuck there forever, it's just a motor problem! And nobody gets into this state while looking at logical paradox or cycling program! |
|
no licho catatonia is literaly the shutting down of the brain, it can be fatal because people in that state dont eat, dont sleep, dont feel pain, dont react, ect most of the time it comes form just that a cycling problem, when someone experiances something they cant handle or rationalize, they can become catatonic. its not at any level a motor problem, its a purely psychlogical condition |
|
Causes of catatonia:
"Purerely psychological"? Now tell me what does that tells us about Godel incompleteness and our skills apparently above those of turing machines? |
|
now then licho... go back and count how many times the word "brain" was mentioned in that list you just put up... almost all of those causes are neurological or psychological... ...realy do people even read the crap they copy paste from wikipedia? |
|
WHAT?? Exactly! Most of the conditions have something to do with BRAIN and it's NEUROLOGICAL STATE - neurotransmiters, hardware, methabolical state.. NOT with the PSYCHOLOGICAL state as you claimed - as in the "thoughts you cannot handle" that you mentioned. Get your arguments straight man! And read your own wiki links! |
|
Acute stress disorder Anorexia Hysteria Mood disorders Catatonic schizophrenia Emotional trauma Delirium Depression - in severe cases Mental illness Conversion disorder |
|
To be honest I presume that our brain is a Turing Machine, Licho. The way they handle such things as paradoxes is by approximation and the way it handles deadlocks is by extreme multitasking. Another part of your brain just starts up Task Manager, terminates the process and makes an approximation of the output instead. Or something like that. Evolution has done a lot of bugfixing which prevents any such severe failures. |
|
Thank you for clarifying. "Please re-read my statements." I read all of your statements multiple times. I do not believe you were clearly stating 'on the current path we are on.' It sounded much like you were saying something akin to 'no sentience is possible unless you are human.' I agree that our current meddlings with computers will not directly result in sentience -- "Your app wont become self-aware and have internal feelings just because it runs 10000x faster on supercomputer" -- but we cannot predict advances in materials or methods. |
|
@[TROLOLO]ddabaeqepp
You need to move those goalposts in a less obvious manner, you're leaving tracks all over the pitch. |
|
Somewhat relevant; somewhat funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0xgjUhEG3U |
|
Although I don't think there is much in the loop argument anyway. I think it already is obvious that the mind is not done in conventional coding loops but something more akin to fuzzy logic. So would it require an entirely new CPU architecture? Maybe, I'm hardly an expert in any of the required fields. But I don't particularly see what why it would. |
|
While this is academically interesting it does not really have anything to do with the strong A.I.'s in the Zero-K story. We never specified that the Zero-K commanders are just turing machines. If Licho is right and we need some new architecture to get strong A.I's, or to upload humans, then by this far future stage that is obviously what they are doing. They didn't just scale up their turing machines, they intentionally set out to make fully autonomous war machines that could scratch-build armies in the field and operate with no command oversight. Yes they built in safe-guards: Commanders cannot build more commanders, and the armies they make are not fully autonomous (avoiding unlimited exponential growth). But it was such an effective weapon that everyone ended up using them. If this architecture is a quantum computer, or carbon-based, or even some highly engineered biological brain that barely resembles what we have today, then that is what they would use. These would still be 'Machines', robots, at least cyborgs. The only way you could really argue that 'machines/robots cannot think/feel/create' would be if you were a vitalist: You believed that the mystery of conciousness is INHERENTLY insoluble, or that some 'soul' inhabits the human brain to the point that anything that thinks would have to include so many human parts that it could not be called a machine or robot. I think what you are saying is really interesting, and you might be right. I don't really think set theory stands in the way here, because humans do not actually run a full program in their minds when they debug. A program which executes another program to check whether it loops infinitely may be impossible, but that is not how humans do it and I would not expect a turing machine to do it that way either. This is science fiction, we have not invented post-turing machines yet, but it is not actually unreasonable or implausible that we will, hell, it will be surprising if we don't (Unlike FTL, which seems quite impossible). |