Will robots have emotions?

Will anger in robots be limited?

Will robots be emotionally intelligent?

Will Robots be aware of emotions and be able to control them?

Will robots experience multiple emotions at the same time?

What emotions be limited in robots?

How many emotions will robots have?

Humanity still cannot agree on how many emotions we all have, what impact does that have on creating Laws for robots Artificial Intelligence etc

Ask a hundred psychologists how many emotions we have, will they all give the same answer?

Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Arts said:

Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Quite so.

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Quite so.

Those laws were modified in later books, so a robot could kill a human/humans to protect much larger number of humans

Boston Dynamics have done some research in this area.

Would anyone here buy a humanoid robot?

would you have a taking one or a silent one?

talking one

Tau.Neutrino said:

Would anyone here buy a humanoid robot?

would you have a taking one or a silent one?

1. Not me.

2. Not applicable.

I answered this one.

Date: 15/03/2017 19:49:28
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1038856
Subject: re: Number of emotions each day

Scifi usually has Androids as slaves (often abused) and when they develop sentience and/or emotions they kind of resent us.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/02/robot-kills-worker-at-volkswagen-plant-in-germany

Contractor was setting up the stationary robot when it grabbed and crushed him against a metal plate at the plant in Baunatal

dv said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/02/robot-kills-worker-at-volkswagen-plant-in-germany

Contractor was setting up the stationary robot when it grabbed and crushed him against a metal plate at the plant in Baunatal

I find it interesting that in any discussion of robots, people trot out Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”, apparently ascribing them some sort of legitimacy; they’re also invoked in other science fiction stories (eg Aliens). They’ve even been quoted in this thread.

In real life, though, they are simply not being applied, as stories like this illustrate.

btm said:

dv said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/02/robot-kills-worker-at-volkswagen-plant-in-germany

Contractor was setting up the stationary robot when it grabbed and crushed him against a metal plate at the plant in Baunatal

I find it interesting that in any discussion of robots, people trot out Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”, apparently ascribing them some sort of legitimacy; they’re also invoked in other science fiction stories (eg Aliens). They’ve even been quoted in this thread.

In real life, though, they are simply not being applied, as stories like this illustrate.

I’m pretty sure people realise it is just a fictional list.

btm said:

dv said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/02/robot-kills-worker-at-volkswagen-plant-in-germany

Contractor was setting up the stationary robot when it grabbed and crushed him against a metal plate at the plant in Baunatal

I find it interesting that in any discussion of robots, people trot out Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics”, apparently ascribing them some sort of legitimacy; they’re also invoked in other science fiction stories (eg Aliens). They’ve even been quoted in this thread.

In real life, though, they are simply not being applied, as stories like this illustrate.

There’s a good reason that they’re not being applied. They’re abysmally stupid.

Almost as stupid as giving a robot a positronic brain. Which is also trotted out at frequent intervals.

There is also the blur between machine and robot.

I see emotions as a configuring force for mental resources.

Related to _ internal mental states_ (non-pathologizing sense).

Mental states are more the home in your head. You know it has a feel about it.

Of self-awareness or consciousness, it’s like eyeballs that see out and inward. The latter’s like a _feel-see_(sensing of internal, the workings also)

Generally of all of the above, I try to understand them in the context of homeostasis, or homeostatic mechanisms.

fried eggs on toast shortly

dv said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/02/robot-kills-worker-at-volkswagen-plant-in-germany

Contractor was setting up the stationary robot when it grabbed and crushed him against a metal plate at the plant in Baunatal

the story is incorrect.. the robot didn’t kill the worker.. the worker was killed by the robot. there was no intent to kill.

¿active voice implies intent now?

Arts said:

dv said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/02/robot-kills-worker-at-volkswagen-plant-in-germany

Contractor was setting up the stationary robot when it grabbed and crushed him against a metal plate at the plant in Baunatal

the story is incorrect.. the robot didn’t kill the worker.. the worker was killed by the robot. there was no intent to kill.

the media like that word, though one can assume the person died from injuries.

Falling branch kills camper.

transition said:

Arts said:

dv said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/02/robot-kills-worker-at-volkswagen-plant-in-germany

Contractor was setting up the stationary robot when it grabbed and crushed him against a metal plate at the plant in Baunatal

the story is incorrect.. the robot didn’t kill the worker.. the worker was killed by the robot. there was no intent to kill.

the media like that word, though one can assume the person died from injuries.

there may have been intent…

no one spoke about the flatulance jokes the worker kept making after volkswagen’s emissions lawsuit..

Michael V said:

Falling branch kills camper.

the murder of media headlines

SCIENCE said:

¿active voice implies intent now?

sure, why the hell not?

Michael V said:

Falling branch kills camper.

falling, yes… but – branch kills camper.. no…

I’m with SCIENCE.

stumpy_seahorse said:

transition said:

Arts said:

the story is incorrect.. the robot didn’t kill the worker.. the worker was killed by the robot. there was no intent to kill.

the media like that word, though one can assume the person died from injuries.

there may have been intent…

no one spoke about the flatulance jokes the worker kept making after volkswagen’s emissions lawsuit..

no, they aren’t allowed to kill.. has no-one read the laws?

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Falling branch kills camper.

falling, yes… but – branch kills camper.. no…

Avalanche kills skiers.

Earthquake kills thousands.

Tsunami kills 240,000.

I’m with DV

Michael V said:

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Falling branch kills camper.

falling, yes… but – branch kills camper.. no…

Avalanche kills skiers.

Earthquake kills thousands.

Tsunami kills 240,000.

there are no laws binding natural disasters

Michael V said:

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Falling branch kills camper.

falling, yes… but – branch kills camper.. no…

Avalanche kills skiers.

Earthquake kills thousands.

Tsunami kills 240,000.

Cancer kills millions.

https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0199831785
“Radium killed other Americans who worked with it, including both the chemist (Edwin Lemen) and the founder (Sabin von Sochocky) of U.S. Radium Corporation.”

party_pants said:

I’m with DV

And DV is with me

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Arts said:

falling, yes… but – branch kills camper.. no…

Avalanche kills skiers.

Earthquake kills thousands.

Tsunami kills 240,000.

there are no laws binding natural disasters

Ah, I see now. An Asimov Law prohibits intent. I content that that law is a fiction.

;)

It’s not just media that go around the injury aspect (in the case of death). There’s an aversion to the intermediate. There are a couple of reasons.

Firstly while the audience is indulging their casual intrigue (for entertainment) the real horror escapes them. To be entertainment this is necessary, and you’ll not question much your interest in the matter.

The other thing it does is stop you considering the question of how would this be seen different if the person had variously survived.

Michael V said:

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Avalanche kills skiers.

Earthquake kills thousands.

Tsunami kills 240,000.

there are no laws binding natural disasters

Ah, I see now. An Asimov Law prohibits intent. I content that that law is a fiction.

;)

still, all news articles should follow them

They shot it dead on the runway, because they lacked the imagination and wherewithal to capture the little fella.

Meant for chat.

Arts said:

Michael V said:

Arts said:

there are no laws binding natural disasters

Ah, I see now. An Asimov Law prohibits intent. I content that that law is a fiction.

;)

still, all news articles should follow them

I concede that most news articles contain some fictional (or enhanced) content, but alternative facts demand alternative fictions.

Peak Warming Man said:

Meant for chat.

Or as we say in English, cat

The Fourth Law is ok but.. “When turning evil, display a red indicator light.”