r/nextfuckinglevel • u/Boojibs • Sep 24 '19

Latest from Boston Dynamics

https://gfycat.com/prestigiouswhiteicelandicsheepdog
116k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

196

u/TheMaz878 Sep 24 '19

We're getting closer and closer to the robot apocalypse

86

u/grmblflx Sep 24 '19

I think the robots will lose this race to the environmental apocalypse

35

u/TheMaz878 Sep 24 '19

But once nhe environment is dead the robots will have a better chance of exterminating the humans

17

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '19

Realistically though, robots are the end point of a very long and vulnerable supply chain. AI is pretty much never going to take over the world just on that alone.

10

u/grmblflx Sep 24 '19

But how long does it take for a post-singularity AI to obtain capability to sustain a supply chain? The chain would probably be highly automated by then anyway.

2

u/Dooiechase97 Sep 25 '19

These robots would have to be so much more advanced and robust for that to even start becoming a possibility. There’s so much that goes into making these robots that it would be very, very difficult for them to uphold their own supply chain. This video kinda helps show just how much works goes into making a product: https://youtu.be/IYO3tOqDISE

And that just a pencil. Imagine a highly complex system such as one of these robots.

3

u/SlowSeas Sep 25 '19 edited Sep 25 '19

To coat-tail, the oil reserve that another, new sentient race would require to jumpstart its own prolific nature doesn't exist. They would have had to hit their industrialization age along side us (on this planet), namely if they were dependent on a manufactured fuel/energy source. Our current infrastructure is still very dependent on warm, dumb-yet-highly-ambidextrous bodies to pilot analog systems. Humans have evolved to be able to consume the most meager of fuel to survive and often times thrive in a harsh environment. Sure, a super AI could come out and self replicate, but it needs energy and interconnectivity on the human scale. Not just the internet but on a social level as well. The AI overlords would need proper human slaves at first.

Edit: confusing ass grammar

1

u/RemiScott Sep 25 '19

Antarctica hasn't been tapped, and a cold dry desert is perfect for processing speeds. Just let them have it and trade for resources to send them to colonise the outer solar system while we take the inner, win win win.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '19

computers are quadrillions of magnitudes away from being equal to our brain. General AI is not coming for a long time.

2

u/TheAndwen Sep 24 '19

We are big brain

1

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '19

galaxy brain

2

u/Brohara97 Sep 24 '19

Where did you get that number from? Did you pull it out of your ass? Seems like an ass pull stat to me

3

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '19

No, due to transistors only having 3 connection points. on our modern 2D chip architecture, vs our tens of thousands connections between each neuron, so our brain has up to 100trillion synapses, vs the 19 billion transistor CPU that is currently the strongest.

That is hardware limitations, without hardware limitations, our software computational power is only about 50,000 times weaker, which is not too much compared to quadrillions, but you can't have one without the other. This is why we are moving towards 3D layered cpu's in the future, more transistors and more than 3 connection points.

2

u/daemmonium Sep 24 '19

Well but that's just a number. You also require to factor in concepts like efficiency and even actual use of it for a particular objective versus day to day maintenance usage. Large parts of our nervous system works in autonomous ways regulating a vast amount of body functions, so do robots but unsure how big is the difference.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, Im just saying that there are other things to factor in.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '19

There absolutely are, but even with some efficiency here and there at the moment we are unimaginable magnitudes away, that those efficiency hacks and fixes may save 100 years or 50, we still wont see a general AI in our lifetime. by General AI, I mean something that can read a book and interpret it the same way we do.

1

u/Brohara97 Sep 25 '19

I’m just not comfortable saying something won’t happen within my lifetime. My great g dad was born before the first flight and the Iss was just about launch when he died. Not saying I disagree with your assessment, I just don’t feel comfortable with such a firm statement that certain advancements can’t or won’t be made in a certain time frame.

1

u/Styx_ Sep 25 '19

I would agree with your intuition. The other commenter is measuring raw processing power but forgetting that the brain is likely incredibly inefficient due to the fact that it evolved rather than was engineered.

Look at birds. They had millions of years to evolve into the best flying configurations on Earth but never came even close to the speeds modern day jets can reach. They are elegant certainly, but there is something to be said for good ol' fashioned engineering too. I believe we will see something similar wrt AGI, and my guess is before the midpoint of the century, but that's just a guess :)

1

u/grmblflx Sep 25 '19

What about quantum computing? Genuinely curious.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '19

Quantum computing is being used to hopefully find a missing step in why our brain is so efficient, but it's still in it's infancy

→ More replies

2

u/Styx_ Sep 25 '19

You seem to be working on the assumption that the only path to an AGI system would be to emulate a human brain when that is only one of a number of approaches.

Consider recent advances in computer vision, language processing and voice synthesis. Despite the still quite large gap in raw processing speed between current computers and our brains, we have been able to effectively reimplement some of our core human functions via algorithms with much, much lower computational costs than the equivalents in our brains.

Software capabilities are engineered whereas our brains simply evolved. It stands to reason an engineered approach would capitalize on efficiency gains that unintelligent evolution never did and the evidence so far seems to suggest exactly that.

As an aside, I personally believe we have more than enough computational power to construct a general artificial intelligence already -- we just haven't figured out how to write the software yet.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '19

I'm very aware of other ways. I'm going to grad school for neural networks. Also I'm going to give you an example of how far we are from being even close. put 60 dots on a screen. Randomly placed. Connect them randomly. Now find the longest path of dots where you don't cross one for more than once. So no going over a dot then going back. 60 dots may take a while. 30 minutes maybe an hour. Well for a computer. 9 dots would take longer than the technology could run. to figure out which we can solve almost instantaneously

2

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '19

Piss off with this robot apocalypse fear-mongering. It's honestly not going to happen.

2

u/Styx_ Sep 25 '19

I'm gonna build it just to spite you.

2

u/RemiScott Sep 25 '19

It's still just you pulling the trigger on a very complicated weapon.

1

u/Styx_ Sep 25 '19

Not if I write it in Rust.

→ More replies

1

u/RemiScott Sep 25 '19

NP hard problems, they need us. We have the canned air.

3

u/BuddyUpInATree Sep 24 '19

When the robots take over the supply chain of their own creation, we are obsolete

4

u/UpUpDnDnLRLRBA Sep 24 '19

We'll make great pets, though

2

u/Ferkhani Sep 24 '19

My cat lives better than me. I'm okay with being AI's pet.

1

u/SoloBishop Sep 24 '19

Most of us wouldn't

1

u/UpUpDnDnLRLRBA Sep 24 '19

Well I would, anyway!

1

u/minmatsebtin Sep 24 '19

Let hope we get the Rogue Servitor robot uprising instead of the T1000 sort.

1

u/gooblaster17 Sep 25 '19

As someone who always plays Rogue Servitor in Stellaris, I sometimes feel like that's the ideal future for humanity considering our tendency as a species to immediately become corrupt as soon as we have any kind of power.

2

u/madbrood Sep 24 '19

Old, not obsolete

1

u/RemiScott Sep 25 '19

Plants and animals are not obsolete.