• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Robots

Fuck yes!

This is now a LEGO thread.

I have way, way too much LEGO shit in my room, including an almost $200 pirate ship on my desk.

:V

I had about... 25KG of lego, with two closets filled with them and quarter of them were broken. Though, I was using lego tech and not the bricks. I loved it so much.. and the bionicle series that I liked, and the vehicles I built. Then cnex.

lol



Come on science, make me a robot dragon I can fuck (not Telnac)

Why not Telnac? I heard he is quality made.

Maybe things can works out 'eyebrows eyebrows'
 

Mentova

I live, I die, I live again
*lol* No one outgrows LEGOs. :) My LEGO collection has become my son's LEGO collection (which has expended significantly over the last few years). But new LEGOs still work just fine with 25 year old LEGOs, so we both play with them. ;)
Hellz yes. I still have all of mine from when I was a kid too. I pull them out every once in awhile and build something.

Also whenever I go to one of the malls near me we always stop at the lego store and 99% of the time I walk out with at least something.

I'm secretly 6...
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
Humans are afraid that robots will surpass the human intelligence.
That will never happen, because the brain is the smartest thing ever, and nothing can surpass it. Robots won't have feelings nor emotion unless programmed to, and it won't be accurate.

Also, about 95% - 98% of the brain is not used at all, we have much more to find out. Maybe it's because we need more blood to flow to the brain.
Uh, you have a whole lot to learn about cognitive science overall if you think we only use 2-5% of the human brain, or that it can't be surpassed.

The human brain is a REALLY POWERFUL computer, but it can be surpassed... and will be. I expect humans will lose the stigma associated with cybernetic enhancements and simply use implants to upgrade our own intelligence in response to the rise of AI intelligence.

Yes, its possible to create human-level AI w/o emotions. But emotions are already used in AI, particularly in some of the more advanced strategy games. It's little more than a state machine whose outputs are given as inputs to the logic processing algorithms. So a pissed off AI would be more likely to attack an opponent, even if doing so wouldn't be the optimal choice.

As for the human brain, the concept that we use less than 10% of it is a myth, and has been disproven decades ago. Functional MRIs clearly demonstrate that we use roughly 30-40% of it at any given time, and which 30-40% varies based on which task we're doing. Ultimately, all or nearly all of the brain is used at one point or another during our lives. We don't have a massive reserve of unused brain power that's just waiting to be unleashed.

But there's a lot of money to be made by charlatans who keep this myth alive. From pills that claim to tap the immense reserve to New Age gurus who claim to be able to do the same thing if you buy their CDs & listen to them at night... millions of people are led to believe this bogus claim and they turn around and spend an obscene amount of money on worthless products as a result.

I could go on & on, but this is likely already tl;dr for most people on FAF so I'll just stop here.
Why not Telnac? I heard he is quality made.

Maybe things can works out 'eyebrows eyebrows'
*lol* Unless you're going to build a female robot dragon, I somehow doubt Telnac would be interested.
 
Last edited:
Uh, you have a whole lot to learn about cognitive science overall if you think we only use 2-5% of the human brain, or that it can't be surpassed.

The human brain is a REALLY POWERFUL computer, but it can be surpassed... and will be. I expect humans will lose the stigma associated with cybernetic enhancements and simply use implants to upgrade our own intelligence in response to the rise of AI intelligence.

Yes, its possible to create human-level AI w/o emotions. But emotions are already used in AI, particularly in some of the more advanced strategy games. It's little more than a state machine whose outputs are given as inputs to the logic processing algorithms. So a pissed off AI would be more likely to attack an opponent, even if doing so wouldn't be the optimal choice.

As for the human brain, the concept that we use less than 10% of it is a myth, and has been disproven decades ago. Functional MRIs clearly demonstrate that we use roughly 30-40% of it at any given time, and which 30-40% varies based on which task we're doing. Ultimately, all or nearly all of the brain is used at one point or another during our lives. We don't have a massive reserve of unused brain power that's just waiting to be unleashed.

But there's a lot of money to be made by charlatans who keep this myth alive. From pills that claim to tap the immense reserve to New Age gurus who claim to be able to do the same thing if you buy their CDs & listen to them at night... millions of people are led to believe this bogus claim and they turn around and spend an obscene amount of money on worthless products as a result.

I could go on & on, but this is likely already tl;dr for most people on FAF so I'll just stop here.*lol* Unless you're going to build a female robot dragon, I somehow doubt Telnac would be interested.

Actually about the brain blabber talk I heard from somebody else and just copypasta it.

AI with emotions in strategy and RPG games does not exist, they are computed to act according to your DIRECT actions, like killing a set number of enemies or picking an answer.

The time which the brain is at the peak of it's activeness is when you are 18 years old, then it slowly degrades. Though, 100% will never be used of the mind, as still youngsters with so many percents still are affected by the society and get killed in horrible car accidents so easily. Would you stay forever young, like that?
I am sure the peak is about 40% - 50%, and people with higher IQ are able to use more parts of it. Though, different parts are used for each person - that's why some people are outrageously smart and some are amazingly artistic or talented.

AI will never reach the complex of a human, the human brain is the only one that will ever be proven to have feelings. Robots are only an aid.
Maybe they can surpass the knowledge, but not the intelligence. Humans learn quicker, humans surpass emotion and love. The human brain is so advanced that nobody could understand how it works accurately.

The other mass of unused brain does exists, and it's called talents and skills. Maybe not skills, because they are aquired. Brain is a hard drive of windows, with many more actions and folders, though, some folders are compressed and you must undergo challenges to decompress them.

Fun stuff. I would never replace a human with a robot, but if a robot would look exactly like a human, work like a human and have minor emotions for an affordable price, I will research.

Cybernetics are only an addon. I fear that I will die the last person in the world with 100% humanity. No animals and no robots - all rejected. I like this era the most, why change it so fast? Why do I like it, it's peak.
 
Last edited:
Actually about the brain blabber talk I heard from somebody else and just copypasta it.

AI with emotions in strategy and RPG games does not exist, they are computed to act according to your DIRECT actions, like killing a set number of enemies or picking an answer.

The time which the brain is at the peak of it's activeness is when you are 18 years old, then it slowly degrades. Though, 100% will never be used of the mind, as still youngsters with so many percents still are affected by the society and get killed in horrible car accidents so easily. Would you stay forever young, like that?
I am sure the peak is about 40% - 50%, and people with higher IQ are able to use more parts of it. Though, different parts are used for each person - that's why some people are outrageously smart and some are amazingly artistic or talented.

AI will never reach the complex of a human, the human brain is the only one that will ever be proven to have feelings. Robots are only an aid.
Maybe they can surpass the knowledge, but not the intelligence. Humans learn quicker, humans surpass emotion and love. The human brain is so advanced that nobody could understand how it works accurately.

The other mass of unused brain does exists, and it's called talents and skills. Maybe not skills, because they are aquired. Brain is a hard drive of windows, with many more actions and folders, though, some folders are compressed and you must undergo challenges to decompress them.

Fun stuff. I would never replace a human with a robot, but if a robot would look exactly like a human, work like a human and have minor emotions for an affordable price, I will research.

Cybernetics are only an addon. I fear that I will die the last person in the world with 100% humanity. No animals and no robots - all rejected. I like this era the most, why change it so fast? Why do I like it, it's peak.


tl;bm

Too long ; Brain Malfunc-...uvbhf
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
AI with emotions in strategy and RPG games does not exist, they are computed to act according to your DIRECT actions, like killing a set number of enemies or picking an answer.

Um... you couldn't be more wrong. I'm an AI game programmer by trade, and I've personally put in an emotional response state machine in NFL Blitz 2000 back in 1999, which I know was carried on to other versions of NFL Blitz after I left Midway. I also know that similar state machines are used in quite a few places in the game industry. They work in the same way human emotions work: in response to one's situation, a set of variables are tweaked, which are similar to how the human brain adjusts the mounts of various neurotransmitters in response to external stimuli.

When one of more of these variables reaches various thresholds, it affects how the game makes various choices. This is typically done in strategy games rather than something like a 1st person shooter because the simulated emotional response for the AI has a much more direct affect on the overall gameplay experience.

In my case, it was restricted to the play selection logic, simulating the emotional response an opposing coach may have. A coach who's angry may call for a blitz when a zone defense would make more sense. A coach who's afraid may call for zone when he should blitz. A coach who's overconfident may call for a Hail Mary pass on 1st down on his team's own 20 yard line with plenty of time left on the clock.

The effect it had on the overall game was that the AI was less predictable and it made the game a bit more challenging to play.

I haven't used that type of state machine since then because the games I've worked on since being at Midway were platformers, adventure RPGs or 1st person shooters: games where enemy AI is pretty much limited to following a path, finding cover and attacking the hero(s).

Now, if you want to debate whether or not simulated emotions are genuine, then I'd be happy to have that discussion. But please don't try to tell me that something I personally implemented 11 years ago doesn't exist.
 
Um... you couldn't be more wrong. I'm an AI game programmer by trade, and I've personally put in an emotional response state machine in NFL Blitz 2000 back in 1999, which I know was carried on to other versions of NFL Blitz after I left Midway. I also know that similar state machines are used in quite a few places in the game industry. They work in the same way human emotions work: in response to one's situation, a set of variables are tweaked, which are similar to how the human brain adjusts the mounts of various neurotransmitters in response to external stimuli.

When one of more of these variables reaches various thresholds, it affects how the game makes various choices. This is typically done in strategy games rather than something like a 1st person shooter because the simulated emotional response for the AI has a much more direct affect on the overall gameplay experience.

In my case, it was restricted to the play selection logic, simulating the emotional response an opposing coach may have. A coach who's angry may call for a blitz when a zone defense would make more sense. A coach who's afraid may call for zone when he should blitz. A coach who's overconfident may call for a Hail Mary pass on 1st down on his team's own 20 yard line with plenty of time left on the clock.

The effect it had on the overall game was that the AI was less predictable and it made the game a bit more challenging to play.

I haven't used that type of state machine since then because the games I've worked on since being at Midway were platformers, adventure RPGs or 1st person shooters: games where enemy AI is pretty much limited to following a path, finding cover and attacking the hero(s).

Now, if you want to debate whether or not simulated emotions are genuine, then I'd be happy to have that discussion. But please don't try to tell me that something I personally implemented 11 years ago doesn't exist.

Nope nope nope... you didn't understand what I was trying to say.
I'm saying that AI has less emotion options than human beings because they are computed to act like that. Though, humans will never have the exact same emotion for a scene - it will change according to many things.. like age, personallity, actions, behavior, social position. AI will never do the same, unless there will be another techno bumb.

And I must say, 11 years? Pffft! I obviously have no experience in this and I just blabber shit I am well likely to say but realy, 11 studying AI? You should have invented one of your own. Then marry it.

tl;bm

Too long ; Brain Malfunc-...uvbhf

fgsfds robots telnac trolololo
 
Last edited:

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
Nope nope nope... you didn't understand what I was trying to say.
I'm saying that AI has less emotion options than human beings because they are computed to act like that. Though, humans will never have the exact same emotion for a scene - it will change according to many things.. like age, personallity, actions, behavior, social position. AI will never do the same, unless there will be another techno bumb.

Ah. Apologies for misreading what your wrote, then. I still believe AI will have emotions, but I have to agree that artificial intelligence and natural intelligence will still be different. That said, I don't see why AI can't be as intelligent, or more so, than a human being. I just believe there will be things that artificial intelligence will be better at than we will (raw memorization, math skills, processing complex logic algorithms) and there will always be things that natural intelligence will be better at (like abstract thought and creativity.) But I doubt we could ever say that "AI can never do X" because given enough time and resources, we can always build a computer that will simulate the cell-by-cell workings of key areas of the human brain. Anything a computer can simulate can also be used to imitate the real thing.

And I must say, 11 years? Pffft! I obviously have no experience in this and I just blabber shit I am well likely to say but realy, 11 studying AI? You should have invented one of your own. Then marry it.
Actually, I've been studying AI since 1985, so that's 25 years. It's only been 11 since I added the emotional state machine to the NFL Blitz 2000 play selection logic.
 
Quite an interesting thread.

Being a Sci-Fi nerd, I am inclined on that alone to lean towards the belief that self-aware Arificial Intelligence is only a matter of time. I do ponder the ethics of such a thing. As telnac said, would an aware robot feel like a slave? Would it not want to have it's own experiences on it's own terms?

And then to endow a robot with emotion. I don't know what to feel about that. If we as a species create something capable of love, is it not our responsibility to love it back? :?

But I don't know. I'm not educated in such things. Maybe this will be only a problem for the near future? As the gap between Artificial and 'Natural' blurs?
 
Ah. Apologies for misreading what your wrote, then. I still believe AI will have emotions, but I have to agree that artificial intelligence and natural intelligence will still be different. That said, I don't see why AI can't be as intelligent, or more so, than a human being. I just believe there will be things that artificial intelligence will be better at than we will (raw memorization, math skills, processing complex logic algorithms) and there will always be things that natural intelligence will be better at (like abstract thought and creativity.) But I doubt we could ever say that "AI can never do X" because given enough time and resources, we can always build a computer that will simulate the cell-by-cell workings of key areas of the human brain. Anything a computer can simulate can also be used to imitate the real thing.

Actually, I've been studying AI since 1985, so that's 25 years. It's only been 11 since I added the emotional state machine to the NFL Blitz 2000 play selection logic.

AI will simulate mermory and math better than humans, because they win in numbers - but I'm talking beyond numbers. Emotion is not 0 and 1, it's much more than that. You can put an AI into a certain state when X, Y, Z happens, but it won't change it personallity by itself. Humans, instead, can change that. AI won't get human attributes like insanity or depression, but will get malfunctions and viruses. It may have emotion, but a computed and not as good as human's one.

Also, to prove things on the internet, you need pictures.
 
L

LizardKing

Guest
AI won't get human attributes like insanity or depression, but will get malfunctions and viruses. It may have emotion, but a computed and not as good as human's one.

This came pretty close. I remember reading a preview of it. They possibly turned down some of the learning aspects for the finished game, but part of it - originally at least - involved giving the little Mendel positive and negative feedback.

During testing, some people would give lots of positive and very little negative feedback, and the Mendel would get brave and happily run around the place. Others would give lots of negative feedback, and the Mendel would become very cautious, moving slowly and always checking ahead of it. One person essentially tortured the Mendel by constantly giving it negative feedback regardless of the situation. The poor thing ended up so neurotic it couldn't even function properly, and just sat still most of the time.

I never got to play it, but it sounded pretty interesting.
 

Wreth

GERTY
AI will simulate mermory and math better than humans, because they win in numbers - but I'm talking beyond numbers. Emotion is not 0 and 1, it's much more than that. You can put an AI into a certain state when X, Y, Z happens, but it won't change it personallity by itself. Humans, instead, can change that. AI won't get human attributes like insanity or depression, but will get malfunctions and viruses. It may have emotion, but a computed and not as good as human's one.

Also, to prove things on the internet, you need pictures.


Emotion is not 1 or 0 you're right, but it could quite easily be milliosns of different 1's and 0's in different combinations with different functions.
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
You can put an AI into a certain state when X, Y, Z happens, but it won't change it personallity by itself. Humans, instead, can change that.
That is a limitation of the state machine I implemented, but despite how crude it is compared to the rich diversity of human emotion, it's still quite affective.

As for changing those states & conditions, that's where the sub-field of AI called fuzzy logic comes in to play. Neural nets, genetic algorithms... there are many ways to create an AI system that's far more than "if state (x) do { y }"

It all boils down to 0's and 1's in the end, but really, is the brain architecture all that different? In humans, it all boils down to how synapses behave and how they're organized, something we can simulate with our 0's and 1's. (We just don't have nearly enough computational power yet to simulate all of the human brain.)

Also, to prove things on the internet, you need pictures.
Huh???
 
Last edited:
The day they mass produce artificially intelligent machines and robots is the day will be a historical one.

Within five years, however, the entire economy will be in a down spin do in part to this new kind of ******** and no job where physical labor is key will survive. Even my shitty little job will be in jeparody. Either the entire education system will need to be restructured or there will be a rather unpleasant restructuring of the economy.
 

Telnac

Fundamentalist Heretic
The day they mass produce artificially intelligent machines and robots is the day will be a historical one.

Within five years, however, the entire economy will be in a down spin do in part to this new kind of ******** and no job where physical labor is key will survive. Even my shitty little job will be in jeparody. Either the entire education system will need to be restructured or there will be a rather unpleasant restructuring of the economy.
You're assuming AI machines will be so cheap that human labor will be obsolete. I don't see that happening. AI machines will be built to fill holes in the labor market where humans are unable or unwilling to full: nursing case, especially for older patients, being chief among them.
 
You're assuming AI machines will be so cheap that human labor will be obsolete. I don't see that happening. AI machines will be built to fill holes in the labor market where humans are unable or unwilling to full: nursing case, especially for older patients, being chief among them.

Initially, yes. AI will be used to fill the holes in the labor market, but as the cycle of theory, research, innovation, application and marketing continues the technology will only become cheaper. Couple that with China, India or wherever they decide human labor is cheap and disposable, the labor market in the West will be virtually null.

Either that or the suits could foresee such an outcome and purposefully shoot humanity in the foot just to keep this elaborate game of Monopoly going.
 
Not really. Especially when you have a working LEGO transmission. That's pretty awesome.

I see I'm not the only person to build one.
I have the bi plane, indi car, large towtruck, the large UFO ship, the insect alien ships, the mars robots, mindstorms ( the Lego computer) and several trains (the trains are on a shelf around my room and I turn them on)

As for robots I want more of the fighting shows (robot wars, battlebots, robotica)

Also *points at avitar*
 

Kaffting

The Kaff
Plastic parts and glue, doing everything I can do, to build the robots...

Was just listening to that when I saw this thread.

Robots are awesome. Also any Japanese scientists intending to build AI robots should keep the three laws of robotics in mind. In fact they should just read I, Robot. In fact everyone should read I, Robot.

Why are you still reading this post and not reading I, Robot?
 

Shark_the_raptor

I'm in love with a pizza.
I see I'm not the only person to build one.
I have the bi plane, indi car, large towtruck, the large UFO ship, the insect alien ships, the mars robots, mindstorms ( the Lego computer) and several trains (the trains are on a shelf around my room and I turn them on)

As for robots I want more of the fighting shows (robot wars, battlebots, robotica)

Also *points at avitar*

Noice. Always wanted one of those trains, but could never afford one.

Also yeah BATTLEBOTS! I miss that show.
 
That is a limitation of the state machine I implemented, but despite how crude it is compared to the rich diversity of human emotion, it's still quite affective.

As for changing those states & conditions, that's where the sub-field of AI called fuzzy logic comes in to play. Neural nets, genetic algorithms... there are many ways to create an AI system that's far more than "if state (x) do { y }"

It all boils down to 0's and 1's in the end, but really, is the brain architecture all that different? In humans, it all boils down to how synapses behave and how they're organized, something we can simulate with our 0's and 1's. (We just don't have nearly enough computational power yet to simulate all of the human brain.)


Huh???
Still after all this machine blabbertalk I never cared to study about, I can say that the question to 'How much angry are you when you see pancakes?" is not '1', '0', 'yes' or 'no'.

It's just.. fatcakes.

And yes you need images to prove your statements. Go look in the rules of the internet.

Emotion is not 1 or 0 you're right, but it could quite easily be milliosns of different 1's and 0's in different combinations with different functions.

It can be, but we have yet to reach such a thing completly. Why not try simulate the human brain we don't know or care about?

This came pretty close. I remember reading a preview of it. They possibly turned down some of the learning aspects for the finished game, but part of it - originally at least - involved giving the little Mendel positive and negative feedback.

During testing, some people would give lots of positive and very little negative feedback, and the Mendel would get brave and happily run around the place. Others would give lots of negative feedback, and the Mendel would become very cautious, moving slowly and always checking ahead of it. One person essentially tortured the Mendel by constantly giving it negative feedback regardless of the situation. The poor thing ended up so neurotic it couldn't even function properly, and just sat still most of the time.

I never got to play it, but it sounded pretty interesting.

tl;dr

Also that game got a big fat 6.0

fair
average
mediocre
 
Last edited:
Top