vger

Why would it have to do this at all? Given how far cloud computing has come, with vast networks having no 'center,' it would probably just remotely control whatever unit it needed to, in the same way one of us might put on a VR suit to remote-operate a robotic avatar. A lot people thought that we might wear 'robotic exo suits' ala Iron Man in wars of the future, but communication technology has already brought us to the point where if we ever DID decide to go that route, we could just operate them from a bunker.

Just a little something I noticed. I set out to make an asteroid 'collector' of sorts, that would keep all of my captured NEO's in one orbit, and quickly noticed a nasty framerate drop. It seems that all of that 'accordioning' geometry that the claw has, must be a LOT of polys. A lot more than any other part in the game. Just an optimization nitpick, nothing more. Claws on a ship seem to consume a disproportionate amount of GPU power. Anyone else noticed this?

If this is a game question, why is it in Science Labs?

That's what happens when you build the biggest lifter ever, and accidentally point it in the wrong direction.

We barely even scratched the surface of nanotech in all of this. But if we ever discovered a way of getting nanobots to function as 'cells' in a human-sized robot, that machine could reconfigure itself to take on any shape or function it needed in order to accomplish a task in an optimal way. That would definitely surpass ALL human efficiency. Millions of years of "adaptation" in a matter of minutes.

http://www.dumblaws.com Have fun...

I would hope that if it happens, it would be run somewhat like the ISS, and anyone who is interested, can expand on it if they wish. It would be good for all parties involved, and help keep space a HUMAN venture not defined by borders or governments.

That will just bring us right back to one of our biggest problems we have now. Politicians giving special favors to their buddies in 'whatever corporation' so that they can get the most money. Favoritism would quickly become a problem if any human or group of humans gets special treatment from the robots. TBH, after watching "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (the original one, not the crappy remake), I always felt like I would create the robotic peacekeepers, if I had the capacity.

And because this just showed up in my feed... automation's first big kick in the face for the future of intellectual careers. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/ibm-unveils-a-computer-than-can-argue-181228620.html I wonder how long before they teach it how to shoot down Luddite arguments before they've even had a chance to finish a sentence? I actually feel ill, thinking about where this will probably lead.

Always wondered what it would be like if a business gave EVERYONE, CEO included, shares in the company, instead of a paycheck. I wonder what impact that would have on work ethic? Usually only high-rank employees stand much to gain from company profits. What if everyone were paid that way?

Heh, we can produce plenty of our own carbon on the way to the moon just by breathing. As for the Nitrogen, I have no clue. Nobody seems particularly concerned about it though. NASA offered a prize to the first lab that efficiently extract oxygen from synthesized moon rocks. Maybe they're not as concerned about shipping the Nitrogen because it's lighter? We also don't really use Nitrogen for anything. Mostly it just helps keep us from getting too much O2, so there's not much concern about needing to constantly replenish it. In the absence of sufficient plant life, we will need a renewable supply of oxygen. The N and CO2 can just get recycled.

We already have that now with school research papers being 95% Wikipedia links. Remember when you couldn't even cut & paste, and actually had to play scholar and type out what you were reading in a book? How about remembering phone numbers? Memorizing how to drive from point A to point B? We're already on the verge of having our portable devices 'take care of us.' Because as soon as we "trust" them, then they'll start sneaking the commercials in, and we won't even know when we're being advertised to. IS our intention to create machines with true free will? I've never known how to look at this one really. It's possible that an AI will actually start asking the deep questions, but we won't know it until we see it happen. It's also possible that all of this advanced capability is possible without it. A LOT of factors would probably have to fall into place correctly in order for a robot to develop such a conscience. We can easily teach an AI to avoid threats, but that is radically different from giving it an emotional sense of fear (which is what enables us to sense danger without having to analyze the situation logically). Fear combined with curiosity is the type of thing that would encourage one to ponder something like, "Where do we go when we die?" And if we actually intend to create sentient machines, what would be the ultimate purpose of that? Do we really want a labor class to have feelings? Wouldn't that be detrimental to both us and them? It would make them feel exploited and it would make us worry about an uprising. One of the reasons robots are developed is to get away from dealing with angry workers.

Huh, well that certainly struck a cord with me. Politicization of Science... yep. Almost EVERY debate I see, somehow feels like religion vs. science these days, even in places where it makes no sense to be there, and the global warming issue is a prime example. People keep accusing scientists of making it all up, because some political party has a solution looking for a problem. But then you have the "recent studies," that are causing all of this doubt, when businesses use science to market products. You can do a 'study' to prove something is good for you, and just as easily do one to prove the opposite, depending on what it is you're peddling. All it takes is a little application of Mental Manipulation 101. So sad Four out of five doctors who are all employed by us recommend Pill'o'death to their clients.

Considering that the entire financial system is more or less 'virtual,' any nation could back out of it anytime it chooses to, which is practically what its being inferred that China would do. Any other country could do the exact same thing. Frankly, given the U.S. debt, it's hard to say whether or not China would be hurting us or doing us a favor. Would it cause total chaos? Sure. But would it destroy the US? Probably not. We'd practically be unplugged from the Matrix. It would force us to think differently. And at this point in America's history, that's exactly what is needed. And, is kiwi freaking anyone else out? These posts are reading like a street corner evangelist preaching about some cult's vision about the end of the world, not to mention more than just a hint of nationalism. Pretty much what I was thinking in response to you, NERVA You'd WANT to have your base in a crater, and just put your solar collectors higher up. Furthermore, we just need to find out HOW much water the moon has on it. H2O can be converted to air, just like CO2 on Mars. That also gives you hydrogen for your fuel needs, a counterpart to methane from Mars.

Well to be fair, it's a lot easier to perceive "unlimited energy" than "unlimited resources" (even though when you start burning stuff for fuel, there really isn't much of a difference between the two). And yeah, this example isn't REALLY unlimited, but for the sake of any practical applications it is. When thinking about resources, the complex process of separating the useless materials from the useful ones come to mind, lots of digging, surveying, trial and error, looking for veins. But if we want to see unlimited energy, we just need to go outside at noon and look up.

Ultimately, the only way I can forsee us keeping up with such a production, is if we arrive at the conclusion that we need to replicate faster than we do. And I don't just mean getting pregnant every 9 months, but cloning to compensate, or hacking the reproductive cycle so we can do it every month instead. Yeah, we 'could' build something that actually does consume infinite resources, effectively constructing a galaxy eater, but would there really be any point? I guess you're suggesting that in a world without want, the only place we'll still be able to show off our macho-ness, is by having the biggest resource hog in the neighborhood?

Based on what? Our current limited scientific knowledge? We're talking future concepts here, possibly even to the point of machines researching science for us. We could be sucking dark matter out of space and turning it into something tangible.

What kind of enormous thing are you trying to land in water?

Heh, once upon a time, being 'overweight' was a good thing. Food was scarce, and it was a sign of your status in society. Now we have snacks that have more calories than a whole cow, and hardly anyone in 'first world' countries has to worry about food, so it's desirable for adults to have the same weight as toddlers. Not sure how similar thinking would apply to the robot scenario. Maybe people would start saying, "I did that MYSELF" as a way of distancing themselves from the status quo? When you have a whole galaxy to work with, the question of finding enough resources to build a dyson would be trivial.

This scene is so famous, it's practically a meme.

On their own they can't. Through taxes, the wealthy are now giving them money to buy things. But that will only last so long as the unemployment % increases. I don't think that we'd be in such a situation where people's desires would exceed infinite power. If someone has all his TV channels for free, but is unhappy because his brain lacks the multitasking capability for him to watch all of them at once, that is not scarcity. It's also rather moot. That kind of dissatisfaction would not be sufficient to keep an economy alive.

Aren't we already experiencing this in some fashion? Outsourcing isn't too different from the robot scenario. All the jobs go one place, while all the consumers are in another. The result is consumers who can't afford anything. The Megacorps don't seem to care. Uhh, where are you getting this exactly? I think you're confusing "we can't" with "we don't know how." Our civilization is far too young to treat such assumptions as facts.

Heh, I really can't understand why Mars One is a thing. Go to the moon first. There's still plenty to study there, and as far as I can guess, the ONLY thing Mars might provide for self-sufficiency that the moon can't, is wind. You also have the advantage of being able to get people home relatively quickly if something goes wrong. And in the meantime, you can learn from your mistakes with minimal risk.

I'm simplifying this for the sake of tldr; Likely this would happen with much more complexity, and competitive businesses trying to one-up each other, but it at least seems like it might arrive at the question I'm posing here. Consider the following. There are currently whispers of replacing fast food workers with robots, IF the workers ever manage to unionize. Cheaper and more efficient 3D printing has ushered in a small revolution in production. AI is capable of doing things that people believed just a decade ago, that would NEVER be possible. Suppose a super-genius inventor were to create a "Skynet" of sorts. The most advanced form of AI imaginable, with access to factories that it could retool on its own, for the purposes of producing robots designed to replace every form of labor on the planet. Only a handful of jobs would be replaced initially, but eventually you would reach a point where the only people who still have jobs, are those who work in a tiny handful of elite tech industries. It seems to me that this would wipe out the financial system, because nobody can afford to pay for the services provided by these robots. Nevertheless, there are no alternatives, because robots are doing ALL of the work. The people who have provided these services still want to be paid for it, but they can't get paid. Even debt or slavery is not an option. It's impossible to undersell the robots. Assuming a robot revolt didn't happen, would we have no choice but to abandon capitalism and accept a 'utopia?' Or is there some element to this I'm overlooking. Given the imbalance that automation has already placed in the labor world, it seems that we are indeed heading in this direction, if at a VERY slow pace.