PDA

View Full Version : Speaking of Asimovian robots...



Ilya
2008-May-24, 02:55 AM
In the movie "I, Robot" thousands of robots are owned by individuals and they all look exactly alike! (All of the same model, anyway.) In reality they would be covered with bumper stickers, political slogans, fake beards and glasses, pornographic paint jobs, you name it. Was there ever a movie where people customized their own robots?

BTW, Asimov thought of it. One of the characters in "Robots of Dawn" makes a living customizing household robots.

Maksutov
2008-May-24, 08:05 AM
Mine will have tail fins.

Delvo
2008-May-24, 12:40 PM
In real life, the first use robots will be put to is for men and women to replace each other sexually.

ravens_cry
2008-May-24, 12:46 PM
In real life, the first use robots will be put to is for men and women to replace each other sexually.
Just don't try it with a Roomba. . .

peter eldergill
2008-May-24, 03:17 PM
Just don't try it with a Roomba. . .


HA!

KaiYeves
2008-May-24, 03:30 PM
It would be cool to get a black Roomba and paint a galaxy pattern on top.

Daffy
2008-May-24, 04:20 PM
I will have an Adrienne Barbeaubot!

jokergirl
2008-May-25, 06:50 PM
Anime is full of it. Try Chobits for one. Or GitS.

I have had plans of customizing my Roomba, but it would have trouble going under chairs with the custom models on top of it. And just a beetle paintjob sounds a bit boring.

;)

Krel
2008-May-26, 12:10 AM
I will have an Adrienne Barbeaubot!

With chainsaw hands? :eek: Pass.

David.

Lord Jubjub
2008-May-26, 01:19 AM
In the movie "I, Robot" thousands of robots are owned by individuals and they all look exactly alike! (All of the same model, anyway.) In reality they would be covered with bumper stickers, political slogans, fake beards and glasses, pornographic paint jobs, you name it. Was there ever a movie where people customized their own robots?

There did seem to be quite some customization of robots in the original Star Wars trilogy.

Daffy
2008-May-26, 08:33 PM
With chainsaw hands? :eek: Pass.

David.

And the strength of 5 gorillas!

Swift
2008-May-27, 03:05 PM
Was there ever a movie where people customized their own robots?

Star Wars (C3PO)
Silent Running (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067756/)

And of course the movies with androids; the androids tend to be as individual as humans.

redshifter
2008-May-27, 09:19 PM
In real life, the first use robots will be put to is for men and women to replace each other sexually.

Dang, and I was hoping to get a little help pulling the weeds out of my yard. Guess it's all about prioritization :)

KaiYeves
2008-May-27, 11:37 PM
And I wanted a robot to white-out swear words in books after I buy them!

Gemini
2008-May-28, 03:11 AM
Just don't try it with a Roomba. . .
Ouch!

SkepticJ
2008-May-28, 05:25 AM
And I wanted a robot to white-out swear words in books after I buy them!

It's a lot easier to just stop being bothered by them.

You're a student of history, are you not? Most English "swear words" used to be perfectly acceptable words to use in conversation, and meant exactly the same thing they do today, only then they weren't "vulgar".

ravens_cry
2008-May-28, 06:09 AM
Conversely, the ones that ARE vulgar today, are vulger, today. When in Rome, do as romans do.

WaxRubiks
2008-May-28, 08:52 AM
There is another forum that I go to where the software "*****"s out parts of words like, bits from the word 'analogy' and 'canal'. And the whole place sometimes seems like a forum for pirates.

Gas Giant
2008-May-28, 09:45 AM
I used to use a board with similar dim policy settings; it would refuse to accept any post containing what it deemed to be rude words. It was a football (soccer) discussion board. One of the teams in the UK is called S****horpe United. We had to call them Shorpe.

Jim
2008-May-28, 07:14 PM
... it would refuse to accept any post containing what it deemed to be rude words. It was a football (soccer) discussion board.

I give up. How can you have a decent discussion of soccer without rude words?

Gas Giant
2008-May-29, 01:45 PM
Euphamisms, mainly. And convincing the board admin that alienating the 75,000 people that live in S****horpe probably isn't a good idea when he's trying to sell the site as a place where rival fans can chat together.

[EDIT] Hadn't realised that this board was doing similar things!

Ilya
2008-Jun-03, 04:27 PM
I have had plans of customizing my Roomba, but it would have trouble going under chairs with the custom models on top of it. And just a beetle paintjob sounds a bit boring.


Here are some ideas for you:

http://hackingroomba.com/projects/build-a-cylon-roomba/

Matherly
2008-Jun-03, 06:36 PM
[EDIT] Hadn't realised that this board was doing similar things!

Yes, but what I'm wondering is can we discuss the literary works of Phillip K. Dick here?

Edit to Add: Yes, apparently we can :)

stutefish
2008-Jun-03, 10:22 PM
It's a lot easier to just stop being bothered by them.
Are you, then not bothered by any words? There is no speech you would deem offensive?


You're a student of history, are you not? Most English "swear words" used to be perfectly acceptable words to use in conversation, and meant exactly the same thing they do today, only then they weren't "vulgar".
And yet there were certainly other words and figures of speech that were offensive. This or that word may fall in or out of favor, but the idea of giving offense is as old as language itself, and methods for doing so are present in every place and time.

Daffy
2008-Jun-03, 11:39 PM
This or that word may fall in or out of favor, but the idea of giving offense is as old as language itself, and methods for doing so are present in every place and time.

And rarely have any logic to them. "Intercourse the penguin!"

tdvance
2008-Jun-04, 06:24 PM
Heinlein even made fun of that in, I think, The Door into Summer: "kink" became a horrible word that would get you slapped some time in the future. He never explained what it meant.

ravens_cry
2008-Jun-04, 06:38 PM
And don't forget Sir Douglas "42" Adams infamous, *ahem* 'Belgium'.

tdvance
2008-Jun-04, 06:52 PM
Surprised the board didn't bleep that one out!!! :)

Daffy
2008-Jun-04, 07:30 PM
Heinlein even made fun of that in, I think, The Door into Summer: "kink" became a horrible word that would get you slapped some time in the future. He never explained what it meant.

Larry Niven, too. "Tanj!"

KaiYeves
2008-Jun-04, 08:26 PM
In Star Wars, its very rude to say "May chaos take you.", because it means roughly the same thing as "Go to (Venus)!"

Alasdhair
2008-Jun-04, 08:33 PM
I thought "Tanj" was an acronym for There Ain't No Justice?

Ilya
2008-Jun-04, 08:45 PM
Yes it was -- and it was a swear word.

jokergirl
2008-Jun-05, 08:49 AM
Here are some ideas for you:

http://hackingroomba.com/projects/build-a-cylon-roomba/

Now I'm pondering a Millennium Falcon paintjob... maybe with a working antenna dish?

;)

3rdvogon
2008-Jun-05, 02:15 PM
Nah there will be no custom jobs - Reasons see below:

1) The Government will probably require you to obtain a licence to own a Humanoid Robot. The reason being that something with that power and autonomy cannot be entrusted with someone who has not passed some sort of government approved examination.

2) You will be required by law to have your robot insured to cover you for any accidental damage it may cause - an extension to your personal liability. The insurance companies will stipulate that your robot must be in non-modified factory spec condition or your insurance cover will be void.

3) The robot manufacturers will declare your warranty void if you make any non-approved modifications to their product.

Remember one of the major reasons that big impressive advaces in engineering seem to happen much more slowly nowadays than people expected a few generations ago is all because of the Lawyers, Insurance Bean Counters & other B Ark candidates getting in on the act (I often wonder how far many of the great engineering projects of the past would have got had they been required to comply with 21st Century "Health & Safety at Work Legislation") - it will be no different once walking talking robots become a possibility. You can be sure there will be some legislator waiting to start scare-mongering about the dangers of unregulated Robot ownership. When it comes to owning guns, you Americans do of course benefit over us Europeans by having that little issue covered in your constitution - However I don't think the right to keep Robots is covered in that particular document - so even your law makers will be able to do whatever they like.

jokergirl
2008-Jun-05, 02:22 PM
I don't see how modding a humanoid robot would be different from modding a car. Sure, it may still have to pass road safety standards, but there is quite a lot of modifications possible even so, and companies specializing in selling you accessories and tune-ups.

;)

Daffy
2008-Jun-05, 03:27 PM
I don't see how modding a humanoid robot would be different from modding a car. Sure, it may still have to pass road safety standards, but there is quite a lot of modifications possible even so, and companies specializing in selling you accessories and tune-ups.

;)

I now have a new dirty word: "modding." :)

jokergirl
2008-Jun-05, 03:28 PM
I now have a new dirty word: "modding." :)

Careful of that exhaust pipe, it's hot.

3rdvogon
2008-Jun-05, 03:32 PM
I don't see how modding a humanoid robot would be different from modding a car.

Might be a different story if Robots had to conform to inspection standards similar to those used in aviation.

Ilya
2008-Jun-05, 03:47 PM
Might be a different story if Robots had to conform to inspection standards similar to those used in aviation.

If that were the case then hardly anyone could afford them, and the point would be moot.

Jim
2008-Jun-05, 04:58 PM
... (I often wonder how far many of the great engineering projects of the past would have got had they been required to comply with 21st Century "Health & Safety at Work Legislation") ...

It could be worse.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_40_15/ai_57534930/print

Swift
2008-Jun-05, 04:59 PM
I now have a new dirty word: "modding." :)
I wonder if our Moderators consider it a dirty word? :think:

SkepticJ
2008-Jun-06, 12:34 AM
Are you, then not bothered by any words? There is no speech you would deem offensive?

And yet there were certainly other words and figures of speech that were offensive. This or that word may fall in or out of favor, but the idea of giving offense is as old as language itself, and methods for doing so are present in every place and time.

Correct.

To be offended and hurt is to be exactly what the would-be offensive word user wants.

Daffy
2008-Jun-06, 03:59 AM
Specific words are just sounds in the air. Taken by themselves, how can they be bad in any way? What matters is intent, and that surely can be good or bad.

tdvance
2008-Jun-06, 06:12 PM
I don't know, the sound of the word "fire" yelled loudly and repeatedly in a crowded movie theater can actually get people killed, regardless of intent!

Daffy
2008-Jun-07, 04:43 PM
I don't know, the sound of the word "fire" yelled loudly and repeatedly in a crowded movie theater can actually get people killed, regardless of intent!

In which case the intent is to harm. Yelling "fire" in an empty room means nothing, since the word itself is just a sound in the air. Exactly my point: there are no "bad" words.

ravens_cry
2008-Jun-07, 09:26 PM
In which case the intent is to harm. Yelling "fire" in an empty room means nothing, since the word itself is just a sound in the air. Exactly my point: there are no "bad" words.

By that logic, there are no words, PERIOD. Language is both an instinctive and socially constructed entity.The sounds we make are given meaning by our social milieu, our community, and all communities have taboos. Now the severity of the taboo for many common swear words has decreased considerably to put it mildly, but others have arisen to take their place. For example, calling someone a fascist, a Nazi, or a terrorist would be considered a very nasty thing to do. For the former two, they wouldn't have had the same effect before world war two, the latter before 9/11 would have being almost ridiculous. Now they are almost 'swear' words in their own right. The swear word that is a synonym for the act of procreation doesn't bother me much, forty years ago it likely would have. Words are part of how we communicate one mind to another, seeking in the lonely dark to connect one soul to another, even if by only a tenuous threads. We should be careful then how we use them.

Tobin Dax
2008-Jun-07, 11:02 PM
Now I'm pondering a Millennium Falcon paintjob... maybe with a working antenna dish?

;)
I'd love to make a Roomba into a DRD (http://farscape.wikia.com/wiki/Diagnostic_Repair_Drone). The antennae might be an issue, though. That and not having a Roomba. :)

Daffy
2008-Jun-10, 02:56 AM
By that logic, there are no words, PERIOD. Language is both an instinctive and socially constructed entity.The sounds we make are given meaning by our social milieu, our community, and all communities have taboos. Now the severity of the taboo for many common swear words has decreased considerably to put it mildly, but others have arisen to take their place. For example, calling someone a fascist, a Nazi, or a terrorist would be considered a very nasty thing to do. For the former two, they wouldn't have had the same effect before world war two, the latter before 9/11 would have being almost ridiculous. Now they are almost 'swear' words in their own right. The swear word that is a synonym for the act of procreation doesn't bother me much, forty years ago it likely would have. Words are part of how we communicate one mind to another, seeking in the lonely dark to connect one soul to another, even if by only a tenuous threads. We should be careful then how we use them.

Respectfully, I disagree. Let's take your "Nazi" point: if a person who is thoroughly educated on the history of fascism and Nazis in particular calls me that, does it have the same meaning as it would if a semi-literate 10 year old calls me a Nazi? I suggest it does not. The word itself is just a sound...it is the speaker's intent and the listener's interpretation that give it power. The word itself is nothing but a neutral sound.

Let's say an alien landed and I called him (she, it, gork) a Nazi. Would the alien care? Of course not...it's just a meaningless sound.

ravens_cry
2008-Jun-10, 07:00 AM
Respectfully, I disagree. Let's take your "Nazi" point: if a person who is thoroughly educated on the history of fascism and Nazis in particular calls me that, does it have the same meaning as it would if a semi-literate 10 year old calls me a Nazi? I suggest it does not. The word itself is just a sound...it is the speaker's intent and the listener's interpretation that give it power. The word itself is nothing but a neutral sound.

Let's say an alien landed and I called him (she, it, gork) a Nazi. Would the alien care? Of course not...it's just a meaningless sound.

I am not saying words have any INTRINSIC value, but then what does? A painting by Picasso is hardly different from a extremely good forgery, yet we value the Picasso infinitely more. It isn't for the cost of the resources that we value it. It isn't the effort involved, for a convincing fake is likely a more difficult task then creating the original was. We value the Picasso because we value it.
Even commodities, the basic stuff of civilization, are inflated by perceptions. Gold is very useful in the chemical and electrical industry, yet we value it also because it is gold. We have made it a symbol of wealth and prosperity in our culture. And that is the point. Symbols, daggers of the mind, but they can still make you bleed.
Wars have been fought over symbols. What is a cross, but two sticks of wood? What is gold but a dense, ductile, electrically conductive element. Men have killed and died for both.
Yes, swear words have no meaning in one sense, a flap of the lips, a clash of the teeth, a gasp of the breath, and it is done."Meat sounds." No more meaning then a breeze on bones. And yet, they do. Men have drawn clubs, daggers, swords and pistols over insults, and died over a warm wind.
Speech is the interface between the mind and the world. Along with our actions, it makes thoughts real. There is no greater magic then that. I agree with you, it is the intentions and interpretation that make the words bite. It is all in the head. But then what isn't? If robotics has proven anything, it is that you can't attach a camera to tin can and expect it to work. It needs software, a primitive mind. It has to identify things in its world, label them, categorize them, and navigate the obstacles that it identifies.
So to the human mind. My words here are but collections of bright and dark patches on a glowing cathode ray tube pixel, activated by an electron beam, magnetically confined, sweeping across the screen, activating the dots, refreshing as they fade, at least on my computer. And yet, you felt something as you read them, the very fact you cared enough to reply proves that. Each one activated chains of reactions within your brain, physical reactions to what is no different physically then an equal amount of me slamming my head against this keyboard. And yet, they are real, you would of felt rather different, a brain scan would have shown rather different results if I had post such.
Societies create things with little physical value, yet arose feelings and emotions as much or greater then what is real.
One of the most important, is taboos. The include foods, manner of dress, and yes words. Swear words hurt because they have being given that value. If you want to reject that fine, but you are not the only normal.

SkepticJ
2008-Jun-10, 01:35 PM
I am not saying words have any INTRINSIC value, but then what does? A painting by Picasso is hardly different from a extremely good forgery, yet we value the Picasso infinitely more. It isn't for the cost of the resources that we value it. It isn't the effort involved, for a convincing fake is likely a more difficult task then creating the original was. We value the Picasso because we value it.

We value the Picasso because it was done first. Because it was the work of an artist who was doing something new - therefore it is a piece of history. A non-forgery artwork done in the style of Picasso wouldn't be worth nearly so much, because it's not innovative.

We don't value things simply for the heck of it.


Even commodities, the basic stuff of civilization, are inflated by perceptions. Gold is very useful in the chemical and electrical industry, yet we value it also because it is gold.

Not really. Gold is valuable because it's useful and rare. If we could make gold, it would lose its monetary value. Same with diamonds. Within this century diamonds will probably be worth less than iron. If someday we can make gold in bulk via a more convenient process than supernovae, it will lose its m-value.


Wars have been fought over symbols. What is a cross, but two sticks of wood? What is gold but a dense, ductile, electrically conductive element. Men have killed and died for both.

That's what I like to call insanity.

Taboos aren't sane either.

Krel
2008-Jun-11, 12:25 AM
Not really. Gold is valuable because it's useful and rare. If we could make gold, it would lose its monetary value. Same with diamonds. Within this century diamonds will probably be worth less than iron.

Diamonds are more common than most people realize. What keeps them valuable is that the amounts released are strictly controlled to keep them rare.




Taboos aren't sane either.

Actually there are reasons for most taboos. It is just like many things, it gets out of hand.

David.

SkepticJ
2008-Jun-11, 04:23 AM
Diamonds are more common than most people realize. What keeps them valuable is that the amounts released are strictly controlled to keep them rare.

They're still quite rare, comparatively.

A little cutter-wheel for my Dremel tool the diameter of a Quarter (and with holes drilled in it, so less area covered in diamond dust) and coated in industrial quality diamond dust set me back $15. There's no scam going on to artificially drive up the cost on industrial diamonds.

We'll be making buildings from diamond and diamond-like compounds this century, probably.


Actually there are reasons for most taboos. It is just like many things, it gets out of hand.

David.

Really? What are some taboos that make sense?

Ethical behavior doesn't count. Killing another human being is generally considered bad form in most cultures, but shaking and eating with the left hand is not.

jokergirl
2008-Jun-11, 08:40 AM
They're still quite rare, comparatively.

A little cutter-wheel for my Dremel tool the diameter of a Quarter (and with holes drilled in it, so less area covered in diamond dust) and coated in industrial quality diamond dust set me back $15. There's no scam going on to artificially drive up the cost on industrial diamonds.

We'll be making buildings from diamond and diamond-like compounds this century, probably.

Industrial diamonds can be manufactured these days. Really nice ones are still hard to make due to the pressures involved.

But I don't think buildings made from diamonds is a very good idea. Diamond burns...

;)

Ilya
2008-Jun-11, 12:27 PM
Really? What are some taboos that make sense?

Ethical behavior doesn't count. Killing another human being is generally considered bad form in most cultures, but shaking and eating with the left hand is not.

If you are talking about Arab culture, you are supposed to eat with your right hand, and wipe your butt with left hand. In a land with little water and no soap, this makes sense.

I wonder if historically food taboos helped reinforce tribal identities. I read about some neighboring warring tribes in Amazon, one would refuse to eat something completely arbitrary like deer, the other would not eat something equally arbitrary, like snails. Each would regard consumption of, respectively, deer or snails disgusting. In each tribe's eyes the practice made "the enemy" so much more repulsive. When anthropologist asked either tribe why they do not eat their particular taboo item, the answer was no more coherent than "that's just the way it is!"

I wonder if ancient Hebrews' prohibition on seafood stemmed simply from the fact that their enemies, seafaring Philistines, ate it. Can't be friends with such gross people, can we?

Jim
2008-Jun-11, 07:21 PM
The prohibition is not on seafood in general. Fish with fins and scales are considered kosher with some exceptions. This prohibition may be related to where such "fishy types" are found; fish with fins and scales are generally found in waters near the surface, which are generally cleaner than deeper waters (catfish - bottom feeders - are not kosher). So, this may be a logical extension of safe food sources.

SkepticJ
2008-Jun-11, 08:13 PM
If you are talking about Arab culture, you are supposed to eat with your right hand, and wipe your butt with left hand. In a land with little water and no soap, this makes sense.

They don't touch anything with their left hand? Cross contamination.

It's not just Arab culture - various places in Asia and Africa have this taboo too. Sometimes due to the bum-wiping aspect, but IIRC, not always.

Krel
2008-Jun-11, 10:41 PM
They wouldn't like me in those countries...I'm left-handed.

David.