Public perceptions of AI and humanoid robotics

[Murotsu]

I think it is in good part a notion in the Western world that technology in general is evil / dangerous, particularly among the more liberal part of society. I know I'm often astounded by the scientific and technical ignorance of the liberal arts type of background person. It is almost as if they were willfully ignorant of technology. That doesn't even include those who would be Luddites of a sort.

These are the sort that would fear an AI or robot passing a Turning Test. I think that would be a considerable feat worthy of awarding those who managed to develop such technology. For them, the storyline is always the same: Us versus them.

It's Star Trek the Next Generation borg wanting to assimilate everything and everyone even though there is no reason to do it. They're evil because they simply have to be evil. You'd think some degree of logic would still apply...

Piers Anthony's Adept series does a better job with fembots, robots, and androids. They are an integral part of society and not made out as particularly good or bad, but rather motivated by the same sort of stuff anyone might be.

A good example of this fear / ignorance is anything to do with things nuclear. Nuclear power, bombs, whatever are seen as some sort of mind numbingly insanely dangerous thing that should be fled from. The mere mention often sending the more liberal sort into fits of hysteria. The idea of AI, robots, and fembots is seen as little different.

[jolshefsky]

Digital duplication instantly made copyright irrelevant. Since the cost of duplication dropped to zero, there was no inherent barrier (cost) to it. That is, the cost of duplication was necessary for copyright to have any teeth: the risk of losing one's investment was deterrent enough since the cost of, say, publishing a book was a substantial portion of the sales price.

Our (U.S., but similarly worldwide) justice system is based on the idea that humans have the ability to make rational, informed decisions. But what if it is not a human that makes that decision? We already wrestle with irrationality (from a temporary insane outburst to a lifetime of poor teaching), and with the side-effects of bad decisions (e.g. who is at fault if the ingredients in a food cause long-term health problems?). But non-human decision-making things will wholly break that system. We're likely to see an example with self-driving cars in the not-too-distant future. If a self-driving car kills someone, whose fault is it? If it drives away, is that hit-and-run? Is the occupant (formerly "the driver") responsible in any way? What would "justice" look like in this case?

We need to make a decision fast. Should it be just accepted that sometimes people are killed by autonomous machines–as if it were as natural and unavoidable as dying of old age? Or should all of the same version of the software that goes into an autonomous machine be immediately quarantined, rendering them all inoperable until a suitable fix is found?

I don't know the answers, but I do know that asking the question is the mature thing to do; ignoring it is less mature.

[darkbutflashy]

A lot of the evil science perception falls squarely in the lap of Crichton, who pretty much found the downside of any new scientific advancement.

Posted this before.


So, ... you want to write a story ... so ... it has to be non-boring some way ... you don't really want to write a love story, do you? ... well ... let's have a hero ... put him on an adventure ... there sure has to be obstacles ... what ingenious obstacles you can think of ... ah, well, science gone wrong!

[--NightBattery--]

We need to make a decision fast. Should it be just accepted that sometimes people are killed by autonomous machines–as if it were as natural and unavoidable as dying of old age? Or should all of the same version of the software that goes into an autonomous machine be immediately quarantined, rendering them all inoperable until a suitable fix is found?

I don't know the answers, but I do know that asking the question is the mature thing to do; ignoring it is less mature.

i don't know the answers either but,
I understand the modern traffic signs evolved from dumb people getting killed too often by coach rides somewhere in the old world (england i bet).
seemingly when you can't modify things at best you create a complex system of protection around it.
Also, i remember there was this Firestone and Ford tire controversy (somewhere between 2000 and 2008) when they made crappy cars with crappy tires and lots of people die, It was a corporate abuse and yet nothing changed and cars kept thriving, maybe it could be the same with robots!

[stelarfox]

hello, the main problem of all this you are talking about is, PROFIT.
Almost every big industry except a few ones like perhaps nasa (that do not get a big funding compared to others), do this for PROFIT, or in lesser terms for military application, but as that ones are not made by the military themselves are also made by some private corpration again, for profit only.

So if they can cheat they will, how they may cheat is unknown but they are going to use any resource, legal or not (if not legal will be hiden).

On the other side most people is stupid, think honestly about yourself are you are going to find some stupid thing about yourself, i know i have a lot of stupidity on me, even if i consider myself someone logical in nature, i still do stupid stuff that is totally illogical. and humans as mass, is even more stupid. what this had to do is that people make things they do not want to do because they think is they want, now, applied to this subject, means that people will program robots to pretend to be humans even if they are afraid of it. Why, because they are idiots.
Also they will try to give them rights, and that will be the real problem.
I will not debate on how or when ai's will develop being sentient because its impossible even to be acurate of what being sentient is.
now some people says we humans are sentien but if that is true why are we poisoning ourselves and the future of mankind and making wars with other humans. if people were really sentient will see throw that and not do it. But i do not Want to debate about humans but about gynoids or Androids.

For me there can be 3 types of this kind of robots, without even touching the 4th case that is cyborgs, as i am not touching that aspect now.
1) Drones, they are robots controlled by a program, the most problem you can have with them is someone to hack them on set a virus on them. but besides that not a problem even if, this exist today truly in many factories.
2) AI's: this do no exist yet, not at the point i mean, and yes i will back this up in science fiction but a true AI for me should be in some way (not saying tv did this in an acurate form), like in the andromeda series, where the AI is just the main computer of a ship, (not the part where it gets downloaded to a body). on such at first, its sentient but does not really feel. and just obeys because is what its programmed for, even if is always supposed to be sentient.
3) gynoids/Androids: this you can say can be just ai's with a body so why to mix, but what i mean for this is what some writers say as "borrowed personalities". or even "copied personalities". where to make the robot in this case memories of some human where used (and may even possible eventually to just transfer fully all the memories and possible feelings).

none of this is real, but if we do not destroy ourself i think it may be possible.
now this presents a problem and in all that i though and enquired at least 300 people. (i know its not a lot but its more than 5). there are 3 posibilities.
1) Asimov style: robots are just things even if they can think for themselves, this has 2 possible futures.
a) if robots at any point have enough rights to make themselves, the few "personalities" that are mean will overrite all others and really cause a war, a big one that will end in one or both races extint.
b) if robots never have enough rights to change themselves , this can go on forever with a few scatered rogues.
c) And how i will program them if i had to do them, 3 asimov laws + a four law that it gives positive feedback when doing what its suppose to do. if you want it translate it to a human mind, pleasure when they obey.

in any other scenario will depend mostly if.
a) robots cam make themselves
b) robots are made by human deciding factories?
in the case B, if robots get full independance then, they are doomed because, if they are made for profit, who will create a robot just to set it free? answer, only a few weirdos but they will be practically extint. or they will be slaved in the way that they constantly need repairs and have to work for the factory almost full time or get broken.
case A: this is more problematic for humans for 2 reasons, first if they can make themselves they can simply overrun human population. even if they do not want to harm us. of course if they want to harm us because they decide we are illogical and a threat to ourselves thats the worst case.
way's to solve this,
1) feedback when they do something good like obeying, negative feedback when they do something bad,
2) unability of a robot reprograming another robot. (programed to notice other robots and to shut down their processor if they try to reprogram, copy, delete or do anything to themselves or other robot).
3) not giving robots rights, if they were people. let them know they will have no right if they made the change. (and i mean 100% robots not cyborgs).
4) never hide or lie to a robot, they will find the truth and then be unable to know if all you say was not a lie too.

[Saya]

If The China Syndrome , The Thing That Would Not Die , Jurassic Park and The Fly prove, it is that any new, controversial or futuristic technology will always get its negative depictions. Often times, people make up their minds about these technologies based on these fictional depictions. But ultimately, I don't think there's anything to worry about when it comes to new tech, save for how certain elements of our society corrupt it. Which, hey, that's been a thing since someone picked up a scythe and fashioned it into the first sword. It's just that the question of creating life, especially an AI, has been viewed negatively for a very long time. We're talking since the time of the Ancient Greeks, the Golem of Prague and Frankenstein.

I myself am cautious, but optimistic. I think any technology has a potential for disaster if rushed into too quickly, and sophisticated AI is no exception. But our understanding of it is so limited, I think making snap judgements as to what will happen--or even could happen--is a bit silly.

[Esleeper]

I for one think that first we should worry about if the technology will even reach that point of advancement in our lifetimes. At the moment what passes for AI is incapable of meaningful interaction with the world beyond highly restrictive programmed behaviors; it's not even capable of learning unless information is directly programmed into it. Plus we can hardly say that we have the potential to create truly sentient AI when even after thousands of years nobody can even define what sentience entails. Everyone thought that AI would be right around the corner back in the 80s, but since then the only thing they've accomplished is the realization that we need to understand natural intelligence before trying to make artificial intelligence.

If sentient AI comes into being, it's more likely than not that it will do so by accident. It has to, since there's no way we can make it on purpose when the best we can achieve is parrot-talk and comparatively simple algorithms. And as a result, for now the public's perceptions of AI are of no concern simply because those perceptions are of entities which may not even be able to exist.

And besides, it's hypocritical for people to be so worked up over potentially murderous robots when flesh-and-blood humans have just as much potential for destruction at any given time. Not like any of them think of that.

[dale coba]

H.G. Wells described tank warfare 13 years ahead of the first actual such battle.

If only Truman hadn't murdered two cities, our experience with The Bomb could have gone differently. I dare say The Bomb proved for all time that new technology can be the destroyer of worlds.

when flesh-and-blood humans have just as much potential for destruction at any given time.

I realllly don't have that much potential for destruction. One synthetic intelligence gone rogue could decide to set up a covert factory and launch sophisticated cyber attacks.

- Dale Coba

[Esleeper]

when flesh-and-blood humans have just as much potential for destruction at any given time.

I realllly don't have that much potential for destruction. One synthetic intelligence gone rogue could decide to set up a covert factory and launch sophisticated cyber attacks.
- Dale Coba

And one human intelligence with the right amount of influence could begin a nuclear war this very instant, but that's not the point. The point is that instead of people being so worried about the potential evils a sentient AI could produce, perhaps they should worry more about the real evils that flesh-and-blood humans do produce every second.

Your reference to the atomic bomb does bring up an interesting point. As devastating as it is, The Bomb is still just another tool, and like all tools it's only as dangerous as the person using it wants it to be. But obvious facts like that don't sell movie tickets and books, and everyone knows the hoary old moral of "don't play God by creating life, especially thinking beings" is a recipe for easy money because it appeals to the Western morality. In a way, it's that morality that's made the Japanese view of robots and AI so different from the Western view- it's hard not to vilify them when the dominant belief systems of Western culture all declare (though maybe not explicitly) that such beings would have no souls and therefore be abominations with no right to exist.

AIs might end up being the exception to the rule a few centuries for now, but right now they're all idiots unable to even comprehend the relatively basic concept of self-awareness that even apes and other animals can demonstrate. When animals which are considered far less intelligent than humans can show a quality that AIs lack, that should say something about the technology's current state.

It's not even a matter of how much processing power they have available to them, it's the deeper issue that that we simply have no idea at all as to how to make an intelligent being in the first place, inasmuch as nobody can even agree on what intelligence is or how it arises. Hence my conjecture that any such sentient AI will not be produced as a deliberate effort on the part of scientists or corporations, but as a confluence of currently-unknowable factors coming together in just the right way to produce something similar to our own form of sentience. And even that is something that will not happen for a long time, I feel.

I say similar instead of identical because I cannot imagine any way that something that makes sense of the world in a fundamentally different manner than us and does so with entirely different "hardware" (so to speak) would have minds entirely like our own. In practice, it would be like dealing with aliens- good or bad, their motives will be unknowable at least to some degree.

[Esleeper]

It seems I wasn't entirely correct on the self-awareness thing, as I found out after discovering this article:
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-rob ... now-2015-7

But for the moment, the basic principles in my last post still apply, inasmuch that artificial intelligence in its current state is nowhere close to human sapience. That will likely take no small amount of time for us to reach barring an unforeseen breakthrough.

[Svengli]

And one human intelligence with the right amount of influence could begin a nuclear war this very instant, but that's not the point. The point is that instead of people being so worried about the potential evils a sentient AI could produce, perhaps they should worry more about the real evils that flesh-and-blood humans do produce every second.

I think this is a crucial point.

One might broadly describe humans as having a bunch of capacities bound together by some social imperatives. These imperatives are somewhat contradictory - the gain person power and pleasure, to help one's friends, to be admired, to be honestly "good", etc. The "genius" of human intelligence is the ability to balance these urges. Husbands and wives have affairs in secret both because its easier and because they often still feel the urge to fulfill their previous duties.
However, our human urge-balancing-abilities tend to only work well when we're in a society that is function. Extreme power within a human society often produces extreme behaviors that ignores the broad urge to benefit one's fellow human.

The thing also is that this human balancing-contradictory-constraints ability is very much a key to broadly intelligent behavior and is something that even humans do in contexts that aren't broadly social. People driving cars aim to get to their destination while avoiding the immediate threat of accident and an "impersonal" algorithm falls out of that.

My broad thinking here is that successful construction of a more-general AI would essentially involve constructing an algorithm that easily generated this kind of constrain-balancing behavior. Incidentally, it would have to decode and use existing human constraint-balancing algorithms - it would be able to understand vague orders such as "make me president" taking into account the implicit constraints the order-giver would have in mind just like a person (or not just like a person but like a person who didn't have an agenda). And it seems to me that gaining this constraint-balancing intelligence without any of the particular urges of people would be both possible and would make such an entity a tool of incredible power.

And by that token, I don't think the risk of such a thing escaping control of some human is particular high. Some humans have the ability to be nearly perfect helpers and so there's no reason to doubt the possibility of constructing a computer program that acts similarly. A lot of our intuitions about "machine developing free will" comes from the situation where we have experience with simple or complex mechanical things and experience with people and so the only transition we can imagine is between a mechanical thing and a thing having the properties of human. There's also the argument that the process creating an AI could involve so much haphazard training that the constraints we wind-up training the thing to follow might not be what we want - that's legitimate if pure training could get one there but I strongly believe some general understanding of the constraint-balancing process would be needed to create an AI.

The thing is that our human socially-bound, constraint-following intelligence isn't necessarily well-equipped to deal with the immense power that a "tame" AI would provide. We can already the problems that happen today with large levels of inequality. Some people having access to vast power might not make that better.

[dale coba]

There no reason not to worry about both.
It's a straw man argument to say one must choose.

"perhaps they should worry more about..." is misdirection, irrelevant, scolding.

- Dale Coba

[Murotsu]

If The China Syndrome , The Thing That Would Not Die , Jurassic Park and The Fly prove, it is that any new, controversial or futuristic technology will always get its negative depictions. Often times, people make up their minds about these technologies based on these fictional depictions. But ultimately, I don't think there's anything to worry about when it comes to new tech, save for how certain elements of our society corrupt it. Which, hey, that's been a thing since someone picked up a scythe and fashioned it into the first sword. It's just that the question of creating life, especially an AI, has been viewed negatively for a very long time. We're talking since the time of the Ancient Greeks, the Golem of Prague and Frankenstein.

I myself am cautious, but optimistic. I think any technology has a potential for disaster if rushed into too quickly, and sophisticated AI is no exception. But our understanding of it is so limited, I think making snap judgements as to what will happen--or even could happen--is a bit silly.

What you said here Saya is partially correct. It isn't just new technology, it's ignorance of how that technology works. For example, The China Syndrome is pure fiction. It literally can't happen. Sounds good for a movie plot, heightening the danger and such, but the reality is It cannot happen. I won't bore everyone with a drawn out explanation of why. I don't see it as necessary. I watched The China Syndrome a few months ago on one of those old movie channels. For me it was a comedy, not a serious argument on the dangers of nuclear power it was made to be. It was like watching Mars Attacks.

What hinders new technology more than anything is a combination of fear and ignorance of it. When the popular media of the day plays off that and perpetuates that fear and ignorance it can actually end up creating a situation where a technology is so badly shunned and feared it is never given a chance to flourish.

This month's Scientific American has an article in it titled Should we Fear Supersmart Robots? The author argues the only purpose such machines might have is serving human interests. Somehow, I doubt that a conscious machine that could think for itself would automatically agree with such a proposition. Such machines could well create their own agenda and it doesn't necessarily have to be one that involves the extinction of humanity.
I think it's short sighted that intelligent machines would simply be what amounts to slaves serving humanity. Instead, I could see them as an extension of humanity, working alongside to further both party's interests and goals. Or, they ignore humanity and go their own way. The universe is a bit place. That's why in stories I do the robots / gynoids / androids tend to have reasons to want humans around just as the humans find it beneficial to have them around.

[dale coba]

[quote="Murotsu"]What you said here Saya is partially correct. It isn't just new technology, it's ignorance of how that technology works. For example, The China Syndrome is pure fiction. It literally can't happen. Sounds good for a movie plot, heightening the danger and such, but the reality is It cannot happen. I won't bore everyone with a drawn out explanation of why. I don't see it as necessary. I watched The China Syndrome a few months ago on one of those old movie channels. For me it was a comedy, not a serious argument on the dangers of nuclear power it was made to be. It was like watching Mars Attacks.
I have no need to doubt your perception of the technical portrayal in the China syndrome. Here's the thing, the worst that can go wrong with a nuclear power plant is very very very fucking bad. It's not that dramatic perhaps to watch, maybe. It's not that the plant is going to explode like many atomic bombs, but rather pressure and heat explosion and release of particulate nuclear materials. Then (in the baddest case) silent radioactive poison is everywhere.

Once a hundred million saw The Day After, but very few people watch it anymore. Did the Japanese film the Fukushima syndrome? The needs addressed by the China Syndrome are narrative, dramatic; not factual and technical. The average person is so ignorant that he or she would not suspect the China Syndrome drama is false in multiple ways. You have to understand, that's the audience you have to work with - you are a world away from the average person.

I think the China Syndrome is a broad satire like Gulliver's Travels, The Day After Tomorrow, and even the Stepford Wives! The technical expert always gets left out of these film experiences, left to analyze (and maybe even enjoy) the errors. Dr. Strangelove was that way for those in or adjacent to the US chain of command and the diplomatic core.

- Dale Coba

[stelarfox]

well i have to admit, stephord wives i enjoy part of it but it go bad real fast because most people really DO NOT want gynoids to be humans or the posibility of turning humans into a gynoid so, holiwood make that happen.
but truly in the stephord wives it was really kind of stupid what they let it happen (on the other hand its kind of a comedy truly).

now on china sindrome... well, its obvious it cannot happen but really just an invisible clowd is not so marketing as a big explosion and people (at least normal one) does not care how it goes and its too stupid or ignorant to realize what is true or false.

example how many people will say that is BAD to actually clean a ligth interruptor using cotton and alcohol. most people will say nothing can happen but, it can, i just told that to my mom ans she said "look thats just stupid" and she clicked on it and the coton it turn into fire because of the spark (and was not working bad), its just phisics, but some people do not notice how dangerous some normal things are and how not dangerous some other fakes story are either.

[Murotsu]

Actually Dale, outside Chernobyl, there haven't been any deaths associated with commercial nuclear accidents (yes, there are a few with experimental reactors like SL 1), unlike in many other industries. Three Mile Island? Nobody died. Nobody is likely to get cancer or such as a result. Yes, it's a mess. It can be cleaned up. Fukushima is the same. It's fear of the unknown... Ohhhh! Radiation! Flee!...

I see the fear of AI as the same sort of thing.

What makes for good on screen, or reading, drama isn't usually what is reasonable or logical in terms of technological advancement.

For example, The Stepford Wives, why didn't the men just get a divorce and replace the wife with a "new model?" That gets them where they want to be, but it makes for a really crappy movie.

The real danger in technology I see is when you get some group that has no oversight, no responsibility for what happens involved. That first and foremost to me is government. Chernobyl was the result of a government that wasn't responsible to anyone for anything they did. The companies that ran TMI and Fukushima were held responsible and they had to respond in a way that mitigated the problem or face huge losses, far in excess of what they actually have taken.

So, if you want the "evil" scenario, the government of nation X decides something like the following, scientists having developed an intelligent gynoid / android and a means to convert humans:

1. There are simply too many people in the nation. Since women are the primary reproductive group, they start a conversion program that will reduce population growth while providing sufficient women to keep men satisfied. This would be a variant of the Chinese "one child" program.

2. There are simply too many people in the nation. So, anyone who commits a felony gets converted, and mentally "neutered." That is, they are "fixed" where they can't commit a crime and will be productive. This is a variant of the movie A Clockwork Orange.

3. The population is seen as needing "control." So, gynoids and androids are mass produced to be police, government workers, etc., such that they control the day-to-day workings of the government and in turn, the population.

I'm sure others can imagine more such scenarios. It's less likely that private industry would do something like that. They are subject to oversight. Here, industry is far more likely to want to provide a product people will want to buy. On the other hand, they are also very likely to do it in such a way as to near force those participating in their product to have to get frequent upgrades, pay for services, and generate income for the company on an ongoing basis.
It's like leasing a car versus buying. The company gives you a lease in what looks like a great deal. They then lock you into an endless payment system that generates income for them. They can't outright screw you because if they did government would smack them down for it.

[dale coba]

Your plots are very literal (not that there's anything wrong with that). I'm not talking about quality, but I'm closer to the metaphors of Dracula, and you to the practical facts of a reality Daywalkers/Blade. You want to anchor stories in reality. These satires don't place a high priority on scientific precision or social reality. They are more subtext than text.

- Dale Coba

[Murotsu]

Sorry that I'm so literal. It's the engineer in me. I'm not the Liberal Arts sort at all. Even the Blade series should follow the pattern. If the vampires win and turn everyone into a vampire, then what? Do they all die because there's no more food? The series peripherally addressed that question at several points.

My storylines consider where technology, even very amorphous technology, could go and the implications of that.

For instance, I've done two stories involving organic robots. That is, humanoids that have had their DNA modified such that they literally grow organic electronics in their bodies turning them into robots of a sort. Yes, they have non-human abilities (within reason) and could match the typical gynoid / android in most ways.

The tip of a very large iceberg:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_electronics

Literally, their TNA (Tri-Nucleic Acid) triple strand genetics (as I used in those stories) gives them sort of super human abilities. In one, a female with this is made to be sexually irresistible and can manipulate any human as she wants as an example. I place a high priority on making stories technically and scientifically plausible. I really want to know what might be possible because it may inspire someone to make possible into reality.

[stelarfox]

first about chernobil, and other nuclear disasters, radiation takes year to happen, and this kind of guys are powerfull so they can rather easily cover anything up or, blame anthing else.
suppose you lived near a nuclear power plant, and you have a kid with that in 20 years dies of a tumor, and lets suppose that it happen because of the radiation, how do you hell you prove that?.
thats why the number of incidents seem so small.

on the stephord wives movie, first they needed a human for making them, second, the point if they divorce then that really does not solves so much. (and not the idea of the movie either). and if you want to know my opinion the only stupid there was the guy that did not replace her wife and caused all the problem (also how that is totally unguarded and able to get on by anyone is a fully questionable, to the point that it will only work for it).
i mean if i has been doing that the conversion will not be optional and no mater what the husband touches, the female gets converted either way. so as the movie goes he will try that and get the female turned even if he did not tried. on any case i will have ended that movie with the female hating her new life so much that her head blown off or got "erased" because she cannot handle it.

on the other side about a governemt with that issues, you really give me a good idea for a good RP.
situation: overpouplation, new law, every female with one kid or more should be send to robotization. and also anyone "not wanting" to get pregnant.
adding to that any criminal is done the same too. to reduce the needs of the planet.
even so to not generate chaos, the new robots needs ownership or they self destroy by programming in 2 minutes tops. also they fry themselves if they try to go against any rule: 1) do not kill any humans by action or inaction, 2) Obey your owner, 3) protect your owners possesions by action or inaction (protect your owner is already set in rule 1).
if you ask me, leting any machine with 100% free will, its stupid (and in fact i just though of this and i am not religious so if this is again any religion i am sorry but as i just say just a though, in the creation god say that give the man free will, and make us as his image, wonder if dieying, is not just a "kill switch" installed on us so if we do not behave that just can be triggered, i mean what will happen in a world where if you kill someone else you die instantly or you could not even do it, some people will say then you do not have free will, but really do you?, if you want to fly by yourself without any tool can you? if you want to go outside earth can you, do we really have will or we think we have it?) sometimes not sure how not machies humans are animals are really.

[--NightBattery--]

on the other side about a governemt with that issues, you really give me a good idea for a good RP.
situation: overpouplation, new law, every female with one kid or more should be send to robotization. and also anyone "not wanting" to get pregnant.
adding to that any criminal is done the same too. to reduce the needs of the planet.
even so to not generate chaos, the new robots needs ownership or they self destroy by programming in 2 minutes tops. also they fry themselves if they try to go against any rule: 1) do not kill any humans by action or inaction, 2) Obey your owner, 3) protect your owners possesions by action or inaction (protect your owner is already set in rule 1).
if you ask me, leting any machine with 100% free will, its stupid (and in fact i just though of this and i am not religious so if this is again any religion i am sorry but as i just say just a though, in the creation god say that give the man free will, and make us as his image, wonder if dieying, is not just a "kill switch" installed on us so if we do not behave that just can be triggered, i mean what will happen in a world where if you kill someone else you die instantly or you could not even do it, some people will say then you do not have free will, but really do you?, if you want to fly by yourself without any tool can you? if you want to go outside earth can you, do we really have will or we think we have it?) sometimes not sure how not machies humans are animals are really.

[Murotsu]

first about chernobil, and other nuclear disasters, radiation takes year to happen, and this kind of guys are powerfull so they can rather easily cover anything up or, blame anthing else.
suppose you lived near a nuclear power plant, and you have a kid with that in 20 years dies of a tumor, and lets suppose that it happen because of the radiation, how do you hell you prove that?.
thats why the number of incidents seem so small.

I really don't think we should debate this in detail here. I've actually worked in that field for a number of years and took more than a few courses on it. Suffice it to say, I'd say 80% of what you can easily get on the internet on nuclear power is utter BS, particularly when it comes to human effects. I've recently been pointing that out elsewhere with the sailors on the USS Ronald Reagan, a carrier who are suing over Fukushima. Their claims are 100% BS nonsense. I don't say that lightly either. Several have serious medical conditions and I can sympathize that their plight is causing them and their families grief. But, it isn't due to Fukushima.

on the stephord wives movie, first they needed a human for making them, second, the point if they divorce then that really does not solves so much. (and not the idea of the movie either). and if you want to know my opinion the only stupid there was the guy that did not replace her wife and caused all the problem (also how that is totally unguarded and able to get on by anyone is a fully questionable, to the point that it will only work for it).
i mean if i has been doing that the conversion will not be optional and no mater what the husband touches, the female gets converted either way. so as the movie goes he will try that and get the female turned even if he did not tried. on any case i will have ended that movie with the female hating her new life so much that her head blown off or got "erased" because she cannot handle it.

In the case of the movie, we are never told what it takes to make a Stepford wife. Since at the end, the main protagonist confronts her own robot clone, one can assume that those making them can do so without the original. Given the limited evidence, divorce would work. Your version assumes the worst case in the movie. Divorcing the original then having a new, different, wife made-to-order seems a better way to go. The evidence the movie gives says it is clearly possible.
This eliminates the need to kill the original, or go to the effort of making a duplicate that is so good anyone would have a hard time telling the difference other than her odd behavior. That fits with the movie.

on the other side about a governemt with that issues, you really give me a good idea for a good RP.
situation: overpouplation, new law, every female with one kid or more should be send to robotization. and also anyone "not wanting" to get pregnant.
adding to that any criminal is done the same too. to reduce the needs of the planet.
even so to not generate chaos, the new robots needs ownership or they self destroy by programming in 2 minutes tops. also they fry themselves if they try to go against any rule: 1) do not kill any humans by action or inaction, 2) Obey your owner, 3) protect your owners possesions by action or inaction (protect your owner is already set in rule 1).
if you ask me, leting any machine with 100% free will, its stupid (and in fact i just though of this and i am not religious so if this is again any religion i am sorry but as i just say just a though, in the creation god say that give the man free will, and make us as his image, wonder if dieying, is not just a "kill switch" installed on us so if we do not behave that just can be triggered, i mean what will happen in a world where if you kill someone else you die instantly or you could not even do it, some people will say then you do not have free will, but really do you?, if you want to fly by yourself without any tool can you? if you want to go outside earth can you, do we really have will or we think we have it?) sometimes not sure how not machies humans are animals are really.

Free will is necessary unless you want what are essentially slaves. Sure, you can put limits on free will but if you eliminate it then you get true automatons. That is, they become mindless robots. Asimov's robot laws almost go there. That was the point of A Clockwork Orange. The criminal had his free will to commit crimes or do violence removed entirely. His previous victims as well as his fellow gangsters (now police) all take advantage of his inability to defend himself and extract revenge.
On the other hand, having them programmed to obey an owner so long as it is not detrimental to the robot is fine. Having them unable to commit felonies or violent crimes while allowing for self-defense is fine. But, the argument people can't fly is simply a straw man. People also can't breathe underwater. So? Humans have limitations, so would robots. I typically give mine in stories many.
Some of mine include: Inability to be bored. They instead wait for input or something they are programmed to do. They can do repetitive tasks without being bored too.
They don't get tired. But, their need to consume electricity requires they have access to a source regularly. Humans can survive "in the wild" better.
Humans have an advantage in creativity and initiative. The robots won't do new or odd stuff on their own. They do as they're programmed to do.
The idea I like to put forward is both need each other because they're better off that way.

By making government a major obstacle you have a "Them" to deal with. So, I do things like:

Robots have to have an owner. If they don't the government hunts them down for (variously) disposal, repurposing, etc.
Robots that show too much initiative, or in some cases, are self-aware are not allowed. This varies as it dulls them down quite a bit if you use it. On the other hand, if you have a robot character that can it is a good way to force action.
Robots are controlled in public when on their own. This is no different than having the cops in a police state as "Papers please," at every turn.

If you have true AI, sooner or later heavy handed suppression of intellect will result in rebellion. The alternative is something worse than North Korea.

But, if you had a government that was converting the poor, homeless, criminals, what-have-you into robots to make them "useful" to society along with converting women to control population you get several great storylines to play with.

Another storyline is government converting them to be shipped off world to colonize elsewhere. I'll leave that one go as I have several nifty variants I can write up as stories on that.

[dale coba]

on the stepford wives movie, first they needed a human for making them, second, the point if they divorce then that really does not solves so much. (and not the idea of the movie either). and if you want to know my opinion the only stupid there was the guy that did not replace her wife and caused all the problem (also how that is totally unguarded and able to get on by anyone is a fully questionable, to the point that it will only work for it).
i mean if i has been doing that the conversion will not be optional and no mater what the husband touches, the female gets converted either way. so as the movie goes he will try that and get the female turned even if he did not tried. on any case i will have ended that movie with the female hating her new life so much that her head blown off or got "erased" because she cannot handle it.

Ira Levin was only writing social satire in the horror genre. He wasn't interested or aware of erotic and sci-fi aspects. Converting and programming is the most domination possible (not a struggle against domination, but the permanent state after conversion is achieved). The novel couldn't show us views of robotized wives, but the movie portrayed them. Levin ultimately wished he'd never written it (I choose to remember it that way at one in the morning).

- Dale Coba

[Esleeper]

If you have true AI, sooner or later heavy handed suppression of intellect will result in rebellion. The alternative is something worse than North Korea.

That's nonsense. A rebellion won't happen if they have no reason to rebel. If they do, it will be for the same reason as any other group of oppressed people that have chosen to rebel - but if there's no oppression, there will be no rebellion. Thus, the simplest way to deal with this false dilemma is to simply establish the fact that they are equals with humanity and give them the same degree of "human rights", plain and simple.

If you must, you can just program a strong aversion to harming humans, in the same way that an ordinary person would find murdering their parents unthinkable while still technically being able to do it. They might have the ability to do it, but not the desire. Just think about it: most humans don't need laws etched into their brains just to keep them from being sociopaths, so why should robots be treated differently? All it needs is the implementation of an equivalent to the conscience.

[darkbutflashy]

Okay… trying to keep this rant civil…

Murotsu, first: another engineer talking. Electronics and electrical energy. And I agree technology depicted in films is mostly nonsense. I even agree that the dangers of having a nuclear power plant explode are overrated. But *when they explode*, things are in a mess. Because the particles emitted don't distribute evenly but create hot spots. And you still can't see them though you don't want –in any case– incorporate them into you. You don't wan't to accidentally inhale a load of asbestos either. For Fukushima, things could have gone much worse if the wind haven't blown nearly all of the particles out to pacific. Cleaning up the mess will take years. For Chernobyl, Eastern Europe and south of Germany got a noticeable load. You couldn't go out in the woods and pick mushrooms. Well, you could pick them but better not eat them. Same with deer. And that's both regular food in Germany.

And I think your view of governmental supervision and responsibility is greatly distorted. What The China Syndrome is about is exactly that: how the nuclear industry differs from let's say, the computer industry. Nuclear industry is about creating the source material for atomic bombs. That's the very reason the Chernobyl reactors have been built the way they were. To be able to obtain Plutonium easily. That's the very reason the Windscale reactors have been built the way they were. And this applies also for the reactors where you need to shut them down to obtain the Plutonium. All reactors in France and all reactors in Great Britain and also in the U.S. and what AECL offers.

It's all about the Plutonium. It's all because the governments want that because they want to be able to build atomic bombs. And that's why nuclear power companies are special and receive protection. Rather than the people receive protection when something bad happens.

In Germany, we had some previous goverments (of the 1970ies) who didn't make a secret of that connection. That was the reason the anti-nuclear movement got so strong. Because the feared that nuclear power would lead to nuclear warfare and the war would happen at home. Obviously. The German government resigned to build its own nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in 1987, after years of having rioting mothers and grannies around the proposed building site.

An example. Near where I live, we have two old nuclear waste disposal sites. Both in old underground saline mines, from East and West Germany, right at the old border, only 30km away from each other. Morsleben and Asse 2 mining shaft. Both have been unintentionally flooded by water, so it was decided to retrieve all the material from it. As it was discovered, the government does not know what kinds of nuclear materials are deposited there. There is a record but it was found to be fake when some retrieved barrels have been opened and checked. The officials expected it for the East German records but it was found they were indeed top secret but mostly correct. The West German records however… let's say it that way: they even found the corpse of an ape in one barrel which paradoxically didn't seem to contain anything radioactive measured from outside. I see this ape as a practical joke from the people responsible for packaging the barrels.

Another funny case was that of a man found in possesion of 14 enriched uranium pellets in 2007. Over years, he told people he had that stuff. Former Green Party environment minister Joschka Fischer, Greenpeace, other environmental organisations, journalists. No one believed him, so he finally buried it in his garden. Years later, he had his lawyer send a letter to Chancellor Merkel, and only then the officials made their first move. No one missed the 110g of enriched Uranium.

So, there is no supervision by the government in the nuclear industry. Forget that idea.

[darkbutflashy]

To get back to topic, I think nuclear power can only be an example of dangerous technology if you compare it to anything slightly related to the atomic bomb. Weapons intended for random murder.

Putting self-aware robots in the mix, we are at the Terminator. Fascinatingly, we already gone beyond that step.

There is such a killing machinery out there at work. You give it coordinates and it annihilates all what is there then. It doesn't question the order. It doesn't evaluate a personal risk. It doesn't double-check whether the coordinates belong to a valid target. And when it drones an afghan wedding party or a well-known hospital site, a press officer says "WHHOOOPS! Very sorry but… you know… collateral damage. Very sorry again."

The self-awareness is all in the system. It's not the president who decides who to kill. It's a small number of people who rig that system. You don't know who these people are. They often themselves don't know they are in power. It's a cybernetic organism using humans and technology to kill humans.

Please tell me how this differs from the nuclear industry and how people could *not* see that as evil?