Why create A.I.?

Because they can?

So I can sit on my ass and have a robot bring me drinks and lick my feet and change the TV channels even though I have the remote but I can’t be bothered to use it and also to add in punctuation on my Fluther responses there is so much that robots should do for me that I shouldn’t have to do myself even though they are really easy tasks but it’s okay eventually I will end up as a fat blob with a floating chair like on WALL-E and it will be amazing

Because once we create AI we’ll have much easier lives. All mundane tasks will be taken over.

also ghost in the shell style, we’ll probably be able to create AI-human half breds, so humans can store memories etc.

To answer the question seriously though, Human-like intelligence, including feelings and self-aware AI would allow us to push towards completely different dimensions of super computing. It’s scary to think sometimes though.

@cage: Yes, I’ll remove your comment. :) And I am going to sleep, and really should too, seen as I’m leaving for London tomorrow. Stupid addictive Fluther.

it’s all geared to comfort really, and because it’s awesome, ever seen robots play soccer ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJQdSepTB-E

awesome….

Self aware “robots” will not make our lives easier…

“Awesome” I understand, “making life easier” I don’t.

For every tool we make to help with a task, two new tasks are created in dealing with that tool. We create more complex systems for no other reason than to be awesome.

@btko: I think when put it in the context of science applications it’s a little bit different. But in terms of AI in the home and workplace? I completely agree with you. “Two new tasks are created in dealing with that tool.” That’s a very intelligent comment, actually.

i am just jealous that rich is going to london tomm. i want to be in london :(

True, I can see scientific – computational – roles.. but people get into the idea of making A.I. to do our menial labour. I think it’s seriously dangerous to turn a form of intelligence in to a slave. Skynet is only the beginning… or is it the end?

@btko: It’s the beginning of the end.

Also, this question just inspired me to adopt Wall-E as my avatar.

@PnL: I love it there.

Because if we can build something that behaves the way we do, we’ll have a better understanding of what makes us tick.

And that will help us figure out how to fix ourselves when we break.

To watch over us when we cannot. To explore where we will not. To fight for us when we dare not. To free us when we are caught. To heal us when we are hurt. To remember what we forget.

Consider a mind unrestrained by time, weakness, worry or fear. Aside from being the best possible companions as we move out into the future, wouldn’t you just feel safer having them on your side?

Read the “I, Robot” series by Isaac Asimov.

I’m not really a supporter of building computers that can function along the lines of human thought; however I’m an advocate for science and the exploration of any and everything regardless of its irreversible effects. I suppose that some scientists would want to build an AI system partially because they just want to see if its possible. Not that I’m a fan of this quote, but: “To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Because wouldn’t it be nice to have something that might do a better job than we’ve been doing? We’ll make great pets.

@Paul; for the last three months, I have become a pet..It’s hard work.

To be honest, I find some of the answers here kind of scary.

A few have the idea of megalongcat, “I’m an advocate for science and the exploration of any and everything regardless of its irreversible effects.” This line of thinking reminds of the testing to the nuclear bomb. When scientists were about to complete the first ever test of nuclear weapons they didn’t know what would happen.

The scientists didn’t know if the reaction would stop or not. In effect, they were willing to destroy the world in the name of “science and exploration of any and everything regardless of it’s irreversible effects”.

I think you’re looking too deep into my answer. I don’t really believe in anything and the thought of what science could do in the wrong hands is indeed scary. The nuclear bomb had and still has irreversible affects, at the same time we found a new source for energy and we also have ways to dispose of the waste properly now however there is a lack of funding (like with all lovely forms of renewable energy).

The best example is the CERN machine in Europe right now. I probably got the abbreviation wrong; however what it does is slam two particles together at the speed of light causing a reaction. This reaction has a 1 in some odd billion chance of forming a miniature black hole which could inevitable envelop the planet. Of course that won’t happen, however it’s that small chance which makes it kind of scary, and all the more interesting. Incidentally, there were a team of scientists working on the nuclear weapon project and a good number of them were certain that the reaction would stop. Some had their reservations which is a GOOD thing. It’s that level of caution which probably kept the project from going haywire.

The best way to describe science is as something “That will either save us or kill us all”.

You can either not explore your ideas and stay put, or you can continue down the path of exploration to see what answers there are. If anything it’s merely a matter of ideology.

Thanks for that answer,

Do you think it’s worth it though? If the chance that the earth got sucked into a black hole?... I mean.. it would be kind of ironic and funny.. but worth it?

Also what way can nuclear waste be disposed of properly? I haven’t heard that.

If you give me a minute I’ll pull up the article. I used to be very Anti-nuclear power till I read about the technological strides we’ve made. Dumping it in the ground or in space isn’t my idea of science-gone-right. I think the article was by Glen Beck(as much as I hate him) but let me make sure.

I’m not sure if it’s worth it since ‘worth’ is different from person to person, but I wouldn’t hold any sort of grudge against the people who built the machine.

I can’t find the specific article; however the process is called Nuclear Reprocessing, which does exactly as it sounds like. It reprocesses nuclear waste into fuel. The main reason the research in this has lagged behind is because the costs don’t outweigh the energy output. In a nutshell, no one wants to put money into it to further the research into something that could potentially offer us a vast source of renewable energy. For a detailed explanation of how it works go here

Hmm that’s interesting… so say that it were reprocessed. You would still have waste would you not? You can’t have an output of only energy…

True, but I would assume you keep re-using and re-using until there is next to nothing left. Or at least, an amount that its plausible to destroy safely without harming our environment. I personally can’t say since I’m not a nuclear technician, I can only fathom.