Robots More Intelligent Than People... - Is this possible? Unfortunately Yes...

Hi. Yesterday in a laboratory of my university the teacher shows up an robot than can puts the comercials in the local TV Station twice quickly than a man... This robot is from 1975 and its jobs is put commercial trought a videotape. This was in my mind everyday and I reflexionate than the robots and computers are not only faster than humans. Now they are more intelligent...A human brain is more valuable than an computer but a computer can do things than a human never will can do. One of the proofs of this reflexion is that Garry Kasparov The best chess player loses against a machine: The Deep Blue...But any human can defeat Kasparov before that... Maybe someday will de dominated by robots. Don´t you think?

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Chess is a logical game where man can only think ahead so many moves of so many options. Deep Blue took longer than Kasperov, because it thought through every possible move for something like 60-130 moves ahead.

I saw Click earlier, it had some pretty clever stuff. VERY little does anything more than one job, and then it's poorly. Toyota's robot is about the all-round best, if you marked all robots on 20+ things out of 100 it'd win.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Your right in the sense that computers will always compute the best and logical route, they also can view several scenarios within their own processor within seconds. So yes a computer has that ability but man did create them so I would never say a creation of man will surpass man themselves. Unless man gives these machines their own ability to learn, then we have a problem right there.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Its the humans who can try to think of best and logical step than computers. Toby explains that well with that example. Computers need to calculate/process all the combinations to get best step, whereas humans don't do like that. They have what is called intelligence which computers doesn't have in true sense.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I don't agree with what you say. Robots (computers) are the dumbest things that exist, the only thing they can do is do some calculations and that's it.
The best way example to proove that humans are still a lot more intelligent than robots can be found in the imaging sector. We as humans can recognize almost everything in a picture, humans, animals, tables, clothings ... whereas a robot can only vaguely recognize a face when it's pointed in a certain direction. Not only is it hard for a machine to detect objects in a picture, it also requires a lot of processing power to process images having the same quality as the HVS.

The Deep Blue is maybe a better example, it won because it's a million dollar machine, it consumes kilowatts of power and in the end it's logic is limited to what WE learn it.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I love a definition of computers I heard a couple of years ago : GIGO - Garbage In / Garbage Out.
Which means that the computer is exactly as clever as the program you wrote a couple of minutes ago. If you were clever, the program is clever. If you were stupid, your script is stupid.
The difference is, big projects imply several to many persons, so the collective work could lead to something smart.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Firstly, GIGO is a brilliant computing analogy.
Secondly, its somewhat misleading to claim that robots "are more intelligent" than humans. There are several ways of measuring intelligence - emotional, interpersonal, existential, spatial.

Maybe in terms of performing mundane, repetitive tasks or large scale data recall robots are better than humans - but critically I don't think this makes them more intelligent.

Emotional - robots have no true sensory inputs or strict consciousness and thus can not be emotional.
Interpersonal - a robot will never(maybe? certainly can't at the moment) be able to communicate with humans at anywhere near the level of humans.
Existential - a robot can not question its own existence, purpose or consciousness.
Spatial - robots can not conceptualize 3D objects or consider consequence.

Robotic technology is advancing very quickly, and maybe robots will be capable of these things in years to come but until that day I am adamant I am more intelligent than any 'robot' can recall facts quickly, or solve equations - that's not intelligence.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I dont think that robots can be more intelligent the us Humans ... Well maybe some humans are less smart then others

But if the Humans Created the robot programmed it and teach it to play chess thats the example So how can it be more intelligent than us if we created it...

A robot a CPU learning by its self? mmm I dont think so its hard to see lol

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Depends from your definition of Intelligence.
Pure industrial robots, like 30 years ago in the industry, are things following (usually very well) a rigidly fixed program, doing infinitely the same set of movements in order to perform exactly the same task. I would not qualify this being intelligence.
Another definition is the ability of learning, the ability of self-training.
This is a field of Artificial Intelligence, where the system have to perform tasks related to a list of facts and a list of rules. And the system ask a human senior to confirm that a new event is a fact, so the system learns how to behave in more and complex situations.
Last time I had to work with such a system, it performed very complicated things, taking decisions in less time than the human previously affected to this job. The human was the "boss" of this machine, and had to confirm the decision before the instructions were displayed on all the wall displays, but we could imagine that in a near future the human final control could become useless.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

It's always amusing to see how different people react to this subject. And while I honestly have completely conflicting feelings and thoughts about it myself, I finally decided to simply keep up with the latest discoveries and watch how this moves along. For example...

Midway through the previous centuries - and for some decades before that, really - there had been many speculations on the nature of the human brain and how the mind works its apparent magic. One of the better researched and scientifically-supported models was that of Edward de Bono, in his book: The Mechanism of the Mind. This is the model of neural net computing, whose main features are pattern recognition and creation, which implies rather directly the ability to "learn intuitively," the currently most notable difference between human beings and machines.

Current neural net computers do indeed exhibit incredible ability to use their "experience" to recognize patterns, form new ones, and modify current ones to reflect changes. In fact, in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil does a thorough, although quite controversial, examination of the future of neural net computing, parallel computing, the exponential rate of technological acceleration, and many other topics, and ends up with a vision where computers will undoubtedly surpass human beings in all intelligence, survival capacity, and self-reproduction.

This is not one of those post-apocalyptic or dystopic scenarios, however. It's actually quite a promising and cheerful vision, if you look at it through an appropriate lens. If you think of the human race as the center of the universe, or the "apple of God's eye" as most of us do, then I suspect you have to refuse any such scenario altogether. But if you look at our species as simply the evolution of inorganic life (chemistry), into organic life (biology), and then, as a perfectly natural next step, into technological, possibly informational life, then this scenario might strike your fancy in many more ways than one.

Of course, this is all conjecture and extrapolation so far. However, I suspect that the "facts" will unfold soon enough. My only wish is that I'll still be around to witness it and satisfy my own curiosity :-)

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)