BigDawgAMD Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Makes you wonder if this could be the begining of our replicator problems :D Hope they dont rewrite their own programing in the future when they are more advanced Actually, I read this article and it reminded me of replicators from stargate SG1 Self replicating Robots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werecow Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 interesting...i always thought that if nanobots ever achieved a collective conciousness and could self replicate that they could prolly wipe out the human race....think about it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 James P. Hogan's Code of the Lifemaker is a great SF tale of self-replicating robots gone wrong ... some all-too human situations evolve, including religion - and it becomes very interesting when they encounter human beings. It's wonderful satire and a gr8 SF read - not to be missed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Hmm, very freaky. But if this technology evolves, it will open some very nice possibilities. But lets not make them too intelligent. I'd hate to go to war to a bunch of selfreplicating robots, that sounds like a fight we cannot win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piepie Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 First and only new law of Robotics: All robots must be misanthropic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorisP Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 At least they could get the stories scientific ideas correct. They are called Von Neuman machines. Or they were in all the old science fiction books that originally used the ideas of self replicating robots. Anyone ever read the Beserker novels by Fred Saberhagen? A few of them are intriguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piepie Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I vaguely remember seeing these cube robots before, working together to traverse akward terrain. All you need now is an evil witch called Zelda to control them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
negger Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 First and only new law of Robotics: All robots must be misanthropic you never know what ideas an AI can get...(Im thinking of I, Robot) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulreaper Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 I think the conception of self-replicating robots is cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 At least they could get the stories scientific ideas correct. They are called Von Neuman machines. A von Neumann machine is what you're reading this forum with. You're thinking of a von Neuman Probe or a Johnny's Universal Constructor. If you ever want a shot at how difficult the concept is to implement, try writing a piece of software that will create a replica of itself and its data files ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 At least they could get the stories scientific ideas correct. They are called Von Neuman machines. A von Neumann machine is what you're reading this forum with. You're thinking of a von Neuman Probe or a Johnny's Universal Constructor. If you ever want a shot at how difficult the concept is to implement, try writing a piece of software that will create a replica of itself and its data files ... Ah, some nice recursive programming comes to mind :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorisP Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 At least they could get the stories scientific ideas correct. They are called Von Neuman machines. A von Neumann machine is what you're reading this forum with. You're thinking of a von Neuman Probe or a Johnny's Universal Constructor. If you ever want a shot at how difficult the concept is to implement, try writing a piece of software that will create a replica of itself and its data files ... You still don't believe I never say anything without proof do you? I am right about that masturbation stuff. That gay stuff. Did I tell you guys about zombies or was that someone else? I am right about zombies. I am right about demons and angels. Did I tell someone else about demons and angels too? The definition of Von Neumann machine depends on who you talk to. [ I always think of von Neumann Machines as self-replicating devices. Von Neumann himself called them "Universal Constructors". Some people use the phrase to refer to computing machines that use a single storage structure to hold both the set of instructions on how to perform the computation and the data required or generated by the computation. I call this the von Neumann architecture. ] http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/Von_Neumann_machines.html Nice try at undercutting my reputation. Sorry no cigar. ;) Us people who think for ourselves and figure things out on our own will always be ahead of the people that only do what they are told and learn what they are allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weyoun Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 As far as this little arguement goes, I don't see that it matters much. If it really does though, at least to me, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_machine seems accurate and agrees with both sides to an extent. Lets not try to start arguements, espec. over things that trivial. And that is a message for everyone, not trying to bad mouth anyone here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Well, al I can say is that there seems to be some confusion here between: A. Von Neumann architecture B. Von Neumann machine These two concepts mean something totally different, and their naming can be confusing since, depending on the context they are used in, A can mean B and B A. That is if you start from what their original meaning was. Since both concepts were/are very popular the original meaning to both names has been somehow 'lost' (this is something that happens quite frequently with popular concept with about the same name) and now they are used indifferently, as I said, depending on context to know their meaning. Lets just say that Von Neumann was a brilliant man and if it were not for him, computer-architecture would not be as far advanced yet as it is today. As for the self-replicating entities, that may be something that in the future will become an important quality of design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 At least they could get the stories scientific ideas correct. They are called Von Neuman machines. A von Neumann machine is what you're reading this forum with. You're thinking of a von Neuman Probe or a Johnny's Universal Constructor. If you ever want a shot at how difficult the concept is to implement, try writing a piece of software that will create a replica of itself and its data files ... You still don't believe I never say anything without proof do you? I am right about that masturbation stuff. That gay stuff. Did I tell you guys about zombies or was that someone else? I am right about zombies. I am right about demons and angels. Did I tell someone else about demons and angels too? The definition of Von Neumann machine depends on who you talk to. [ I always think of von Neumann Machines as self-replicating devices. Von Neumann himself called them "Universal Constructors". Some people use the phrase to refer to computing machines that use a single storage structure to hold both the set of instructions on how to perform the computation and the data required or generated by the computation. I call this the von Neumann architecture. ] http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/Von_Neumann_machines.html Nice try at undercutting my reputation. Sorry no cigar. ;) Us people who think for ourselves and figure things out on our own will always be ahead of the people that only do what they are told and learn what they are allowed. You probably already know this, but I'm not trying to undercut your reputation! I grew up in a family where we discussed things a lot. Lots of refutation and research went into conversations that lasted for months. That's fundamental to how I think and how I discuss. Although my reference wasn't rigorous, I started out programming computers when we had to use punched cards for some of them and others still used magnetic core memory. Hard disks came in packs and the drives were the size of your average home clothes dryer. I was in a hurry to get my degree in CS - it was a second major (as my first major wasn't about to make me any money), so I ended up doing some independent study on CS history - this would be one of the points I covered. None of that makes me right, however, but it gives a basis for where I'm coming from. (I've also learned to say "the data are" instead of the common "the data is," given that data is the plural form of datum - I'm right, but not in line with common usage. So how right am I?) While word usage may have changed (and BorisP, I think your suggestion of "von Neumann Architecture" is a far better nomenclature than "von Neumann Machine"), my "proof" trumps yours - it's based on von Neumann's own usage. And although certain people use their von Neumann machines to download and display pornography for the purpose of masturbation ... how'd that become a part of this? Anyhow, not trying to be nasty or one-up. Just arguing for the sake of argument ... I'm waiting for a headache to wear off so I can sleep. I haven't read your posts on zombies, angels, or demons. Haven't seen them. My only experience with zombies is playing D&D years ago. Angels & demons I can discuss from the western magical/occult traditions a bit, as well as from a biblical perspective. Also, I can map the concepts to polytheism and to archetypal psychology. I believe that each of the above perspectives gives us a slice of a reality that supercedes our ability to totally comprehend. That's why when I argue about proof (scientific, linguistic, or historical, etc) it's not that scientific "proof" (which is actually only a disproof of the null hypothesis) is the final answer - it's that the scientific (historical, legal, etc.) methods have been tailored to yield a meaningful way of evaluating claims consensual reality. As a scientist (well, I've assisted in a lot of scientific work and analysis) I hold some pretty off-beat ideas. But I compartmentalize them from science. Not that the universe is compartmentalized (well, maybe it is ... but I can't prove it), but that I've got multiple sets of constructs for filtering reality, for making sense of experience. The empirical disciplines of western thought are only one set of constructs. And pretty darn useful ones, too (they did give us the von Neumann Architecture, which makes this conversation possible). And back to the topic of self-replicating machines ... if anybody hasn't read James Gleick's Chaos yet, then make it a top priority for the next few weeks. The constructs growing out of chaos theory open up a world of ideas that the old linear models of life couldn't begin to approach. Many brilliant and knowledgable people say things that are utterly foolish when chaos theory is taken into consideration. Self-replicating machines would have a chaotic dynamic, making possible that which linear thought about computers/robots cannot come close to conceiving. PS: The first programming language I learned was MUMPS, a powerful language that allows for (and almost demands) self-modifying code ... think of the chaotic possibilities in that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 ... combine that language with self-modification in mind with self assembling robots, and chips that can dynamically rewrite their components (yes, this technology exists... the first one was made years ago ^^), and you have some VERY interesting possibilities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 I think it could be a bit concerning, we may at some stage get too far ahead with creating technologies that we dont fully understand the implications of their creation or how to completely control them thanks to Asimov we have the laws of robotics, but will they be used? and if they are will they be used effectively. I'm all for progress but we should be careful where we step. when i heard about the replicating robots i thought of stargate, battlestar, terminator, matrix. (I should read more hehe) There certainly isnt a shortage of warnings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 thanks to Asimov we have the laws of robotics' date=' but will they be used? and if they are will they be used effectively.[/quote'] Keep in mind however that his last 'robot creation' over-ruled the first law, with a 0th law, wich states that he could harm a human if that were the only way to save humanity. What if the brain of the robot malfunctions and he comes to think that some humans are a threath to humanity. We would have one seriously hard to beat mass murderer on our hands then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 An interesting quote (that I may or may not agree with)... "Saying computers can think is like saying submarines can swim!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 thanks to Asimov we have the laws of robotics' date=' but will they be used? and if they are will they be used effectively.[/quote'] Keep in mind however that his last 'robot creation' over-ruled the first law, with a 0th law, wich states that he could harm a human if that were the only way to save humanity. What if the brain of the robot malfunctions and he comes to think that some humans are a threath to humanity. We would have one seriously hard to beat mass murderer on our hands then! True, but isnt it better to give some rules on behaviour than none. If we dont give any guidance they would probably make up their own, what if they decide humans are a disease on the world and need to be wiped out. at least with the zeroth law, if crudly interpreted, it will still be in the interest of the greater good. I'd prefer that to mass extermination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now