Robots Cook Food Using Robohow.

Quote:

---

RoboEarth. No, it’s not a lame SNES game from 1994, it’s a cloud network that lets robots learn from the actions of other bots. It started over three years ago, and now, a new, related project has sprung from that initiative at the Institute for Artificial Intelligence at the University of Bremen in Germany. Called RoboHow, it seeks to translate info on the web meant for human consumption into something our electromechanical helpers can understand. Imagine a future in which you ask your house robot to whip you up something new for dinner; RoboHow would ingest your chosen recipes from Epicurious and turn them into instructions said bot can execute.

---

Read More : Robots Cook Food Using Robohow.

IA is dangerous because its the Human Evolution. They will start cooking, cleaning, helping until they start taking decisions . Beginning of SkyNET man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article?

Imagine a future in which you ask your house robot to...

---

imagine a future in which you/we become ever more incompetent (can't cook your own food), ignorant (don't know what food is actually good for you and why) and dependent (don't know how to grow your own food) on the industry & co.,... oh wait (we're already there) - now expand this scenario to other areas like: science, education, religion,... notice the extent of this dependence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragoon

IA is dangerous because its the Human Evolution.

---

lol
AI is not dangerous - its just binary code or machines, incapable of own awareness, capable only of mimicking that what humans do via complicated software/hardware, ie. doomed to inferiority by design, everything else is simply propaganda to sell the idea/product to the masses and scare them silly in the meantime (just like scaring little kids before they accept/adapt to that which was scary in the beginning)

there is no human evolution either, more like devolution & delusion (see the above for proof) - humans are already sufficiently 'evolved', they just have to realize that, take a break from chasing wild goose/dreams/robots and reflect on the core principles of life, also known as self-realization (see sig.)

Slikrapid,

I have to disagree. You think it just simple ahead of you. Check this article:

Stephen Hawking: AI could be a 'real danger' - CNET

sure, its easier (little effort involved) and safer (reinforces previous illusions) to accept popular mainstream expert opinion, as opposed to using own common sense to investigate the matter, not to mention that we are educated to accept whatever such authorities come up with

so lets play a little game, to see how hawking holds up to common sense (everyone has it, no PhD required :P)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawking

it's something to do with time that runs in a different direction to the time that gnaws at us every day.

---

1) time runs in a direction?
2) some other time?
3) this other time runs in a different direction?
4) our time gnaws at us?

common sense replies:
1) the 'direction' of time, aka from past towards future is just a way to describe an effect we perceive on daily basis
2,3) there is no other time, time on some other planet or universe may be defined differently, but its still the same effect and it still works in the same way and it still 'goes' from past towards future
4) so our bodies change through time, but time is not the reason for their change, time is a way to observe the change from a previous state to the next one

hawking vs. common sense:
1) 1:1
2) 1:2
3) 1:3
4) 1:4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawking

Artificial intelligence could be a real danger in the not too distant future
your average robot could simply "design improvements to itself and outsmart us all."
You would lose.

---

5) AI a real danger?
6) a real danger in the not too distant future?
7) your average robot could design improvements and outsmart us all?
8) you would lose fighting a robot?

common sense replies:
5) humans programming the AI might mess it up (bugs or worse)
6) anyone here knows a robot owner or plans to purchase one in a not too distant future?
7) your average robot can be seen in automated factories, doing simple programmed operations and costing a fortune
8) you would lose fighting common sense, does that mean your intelligence is lower than the human average?

hawking vs. common sense:
5) 2:5
6) 2:6
7) 2:7
8) 3:8


9)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawking

given that there may be many parallel universes, there might be one where he is smarter than Hawking.

"Yes," replied the physicist. "And also a universe where you're funny."

---

reply:
9) why would such universes hold copies/clones of already existing people in different situations? doesn't he realize that even identical twins have different personalities (basically from birth), different personalities result in different decisions and in a very (make that extremely) short time this new universe becomes totally different than its twin/clone universe

hawking vs. common sense, the final score:
9) 3:9

ouch!
looks like someone has been practicing 'wild imagination' or 'wishful thinking', as opposed to try common sense for a change - but not all is lost, judging by that last quote, he still has a sense of humor, so maybe we can all laugh together at his silly comments/predictions :P

In the past month, before world cup started, I read somewhere that Stephen Hawking was saying England should use red shirts, take advantage on low altitude and use 4-3-3 formation if the team was to win games in the cup. How can a physicist of his caliber believe in such nonsense superstitions? Also the 4-3-3 formation is way outdated for today's competitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpacino

I read somewhere that Stephen Hawking was saying England should use red shirts, take advantage on low altitude and use 4-3-3 formation if the team was to win games in the cup. How can a physicist of his caliber believe in such nonsense superstitions?

---

if true, the statement could be explained by hawking tinkering with probabilities/statistics (like: england had the most wins using red shirts,...), factoring in their current relevance, trying to find out the most mathematically or statistically sound combination that would have the highest 'probability of winning' - interestingly, a similar method would/could be used for programming AI which calculates probability equations in order to make a choice (likely picking the one with the highest calculated probability), trying to mimic human decision-making - furthermore, similar methods are currently used for predicting consumer behavior, etc.

it wouldn't therefore be surprising if his other predictions were often wishful thinking combined with the results of (erroneous) equations/models, results contrary to common sense or logic, yet still thought of as valid due to a lack of critical analysis and too much faith(!) in their abilities to translate well from a controlled lab or VR/computer environment to the reality outside of such controlled conditions, where the usual intelligence (of all beings, living & so-called non-living) feels like a 'fish in the water', whereas the post-human AI aspirations are not only superfluous but silly, illogical and blown way out of place and proportions

and so, the majority (the followers) just believes in hawking (the expert/technocrat/leader), hawking in turn believes in his AI (the machine) and AI lacks the means (mimicking!), not to mention intelligence, to either believe in anything, let alone give enlightened answers arriving from some higher level of understanding - basically, it could all be reduced to a simple cause like 'ignorance':
- the human is ignorant of his own being & purpose in life (all he has is various theories, little own common sense usage, little own direct/intuitive perception, little own understanding)
- the majority is ignorant of the current situation (same as above, expecting that the leaders will have less ignorance, ie. properly lead the way)
- the leaders are ignorant of the current situation (same as above, unaware of or hiding their own ignorance, ie. self-deluded or pretending to properly lead the way)
- the AI doesn't even understand the concept of ignorance, thus being even more ignorant than the others mentioned above - and this thing is supposedly the future, or the next evolutionary step? can someone say: well, that sure sounds ignorant, doesn't it?

reminds of that saying: 'the blind leading the blind', or more correctly: 'the ignorant leading the ignorant'... while unaware of or ignoring own ignorance (applies to everyone involved, even the machine)