silverfox

Never been there myself but my wife agrees he's rude and won't darken his doors again after she was told off for touching the buttons he sells as she was trying to match my son's buttons, torn off his school blazer in horse-play, for colour and size.

Yes, Huguenot, I deliberately changed it to embryo and have also looked into it a bit more and yes, you're correct, the research uses embryos not foetuses. Given that, your concern that I might have had an agenda was justified and the moral implications of my mistake are huge. I should have checked my facts. Interesting points you raise, especially the 'Zeroth' law. From a cold logical point of view, the loss of a couple of billion people could be argued to be in the interests of humanity on the whole - frightening thought though.

Bit behind the curve but glad to see today's Times agrees with me. Video replays now a must for World Cup after Ireland's hard luck story "...Had the fourth official at the Stade de France been doing something useful like watching television, instead of policing the technical areas or checking that his electronic boards were functioning, he could have whispered into the earpiece of Martin Hansson, the Swedish referee, that the agonised Ireland players were not acting and that William Gallas?s goal was illicit. Henry could have been shown a yellow card and play been restarted with a free kick to Ireland. No one, including Henry, would have complained. France might still have won, either in what was left of extra time or on penalties. Or Ireland won. But no one would have been stigmatised or left with a grievance. And there would have been no break in the flow. The time devoted to goal celebrations would simply have been reallocated to Henry?s punishment..." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/patrick_barclay/article6924057.ece

Did I mention instant TV replays?

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here?s a question to explore. If we do manage to > create intelligent robots, essentially creating an > individual life is there any reason why we > shouldn?t grant it the same rights as we do > ourselves? At first glance Brendan I suppose we should, although some absurdities could arise. If they met some test that confirms they have human-like intelligence, are sentient, have emotions/feelings then it would be hard to argue against granting them 'human rights'. They could vote, be protected against discrimination etc. Companies could sell them insurance and could insist they have quotas of robots on their staff, one could become prime minister and so on. They could also ask for flexi-time at work but presumably maternity leave would not apply and I'm not sure what age they would have to be to go into a pub on his/her/its own. But, as Hal mentioned, they could have an intelligence that is unlike human intelligence, but thinking and feeling nevertheless. They might still require some form of rights but not necessarily 'human rights'.

Huguenot said: "That's the kind of unnecessary casual aboslute w*nk that removes reasonable people from public debate. This is about robots, but you need to have an agenda. Gah ..." I'm not sure what I've done wrong to deserve your attack on me, Huguenot, except state a fact that you may find unpalatable. There is no agenda here. The example was one of two used in my reply to Jeremy concerning how advances in science can lead to society having to address ethical and legal problems that haven't previously been allowed for because scientific advances can lead to us playing catch-up - therefore if we can anticipate potential problems in the future concerning robots we should address these questions now, the issue is not redundant in the present. If I remember correctly, it was the present state of technology which required the use of embryos in that field that led to authorities around the world introducing regulatory frameworks to meet the newly arisen social and ethical challenge. No agenda, just fact. I could have used other examples but that one popped into my head while I was replying. Please expand on your point about Asimov's laws as safeguards for robots and the zeroth.

Me too, it must be good, picked up by a major publisher after few rejections, a very decent advance and a print-run in the tens of thousands. A signed copy from a local writer would make a good stocking present.

Jeremy said: "... Even if self-aware artificial intelligence ever does become possible, it will be so far in the future, that any current debate is redundant ..." Agree that the article was pseudo-scientific, science for the people if you like, but scientific and technological breakthroughs do have a habit of leaving us playing catch-up ie, the ethical and legal dilemmas caused by cloning and stem cell research using aborted foetuses etc. So I can't agree that current debate on future but foreseeable events is redundant. Better we start thinking about these matters now with the moral and legal issues they will throw up. Besides, criminals are already taking advantage of weaknesses in the rudimentary robots on the domestic market, ie if a child's pre-programmed teddy bear can take pictures and email them to you or text you then it can be hacked by criminals to take pictures of your house etc. Also, Hal's point above. Much technology that changes our way of life, eg, mobile phones and possibly the internet, are only released to the domestic market when the military has finished with the technology and anything potentially of use to the military is embargoed until they've assessed its usefulness. What we consider to be the latest must-have state of the art gizmo is probably old hat to those in the know.

Thanks Chair, now back on topic. 'Scientists fear a revolt by killer robots' '...scientists are privately so worried they may be creating machines which end up outsmarting ? and perhaps even endangering ? humans that they held a secret meeting to discuss limiting their research. At the conference, held behind closed doors in Monterey Bay, California, leading researchers warned that mankind might lose control over computer-based systems ... and have already reached a level of indestructibility comparable with a cockroach. ...We?re rapidly approaching the time when new robots should undergo tests, similar to ethical and clinical trials for new drugs, before they can be introduced ... Scientists are particularly worried about the way the latest, highly sophisticated artificially intelligent products perform human-like functions ...that ?learn? their owner?s behaviour, can open the front door and even find electrical outlets and recharge themselves so they never stop working ... http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6736130.ece

As my post above, you need instant live replays for the ref to see. So what if it holds the game up a bit.

As anticipated by Sean on the other thread: IRELAND DEMANDS WORLD CUP REPLAY http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/article6922828.ece

Point of information Deleks aren't robots. They're horrible nasty mutations inside a machine-like body. (And note to self - stop hiding behind sofa, they're not real, it's only a programme.)

The answer is simple and I'm sure it's been raised somewhere on the forum before - refs need to look at TV replays in such circumstances. This result should be the basis of the introduction of that system. An independent official, watching in a studio somewhere should whisper into the ear-piece of the ref he needs to review the footage. Then the ref makes the ruling. I'm not taking about every contested decision, throw-ins, corners etc, but for big decisions like goals and penalties where there is an element of doubt. Here, the response of Ireland's keeper and defence was immediate and forceful and put enough doubt into the ref's mind that he checked with his linesman. We expect too much from referee's in a fast-paced game. A pause for a review of TV footage on the screens around the stadium for all fans to see is the way forward, even though it will not solve every single dispute (eg, '66 World Cup goal and Liverpool's 'Ghost goal against Chelsea). Despite aiding the fairness of decisions, there's too much money at stake to allow incorrect decisions, TV rights, sponsorship etc when teams fail to qualify for Word Cup/Champions League promotion/demotion etc. It won't be too long before teams' lawyers start suing for negligence and loss of income for bad decisions.

So the logic of your argument then woofmarkthedog is cut its horns off, wipe its arse and throw it on the plate?

You might both have good points Hal9000 and Brendan as the article in yesterday's Daily Mail postulates. "Insects with minuscule brains may be as intelligent as much bigger animals and may even have consciousness. Having a brain the size of a pinhead does not necessarily make you less bright, say researchers. Computer simulations show that consciousness could be generated in neural circuits tiny enough to fit into an insect's brain, according to the scientists at Queen Mary, University of London and Cambridge University." Okay, we're looking at biological brains here, neural synapses etc, not computer circuits, but the point would be that 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' may arise quite easily and given the promises of nanotecnology we need to beware we don't create a monster. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1228661/Insects-consciousness-able-count-claim-experts.html

I agree annaj that the article was a bit wooly but I seem to remember professor Michio Kaku referring to an international conference in Japan that was trying to pre-empt some of the moral dilemmas that are already arising with the speed of development in robotics, cybernetics and artificial intelligence. These issues are relevant now, not in some future society. A nightmare scenario envisaged by some scientists is that the robots become more intelligent than ourselves and start to regard us as an inferior species. It will not be a matter of switching off a plug on the wall to disable them. Back to the Telegraph article though, if the pornography industry decides to use a bunch of intelligent robots as sex slaves do we allow that on the basis that they are only robots or, if they pass the Alan Turing test of intelligence, do we give them rights to protect them from exploitation?

Perhaps it is Canj, but I'm thinking more of the revulsion or disapproval we feel due to what we consider to be more enlightened values that aren't shared by other cultures and systems. (Ps not sure why the Chair moved it to the lounge unless he/she thinks it's a You Tube prank) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6595481/Chinese-diners-eat-live-fish-in-YouTube-video.html

"As the machines become more sophisticated, they will increasingly seem more like humans and could demand ?human rights?, Anna Russel, from the University of San Diego warns." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6589916/Society-must-decide-if-it-will-accept-relationships-between-humans-and-robots.html Stop the world, I want to get off!

Yes I disapprove and no I haven't watched the video (nor will I). However, a bit like the Saudi death sentence and birching, our liberal views as to what is and isn't acceptable are not universally accepted and should we try to impose our views on others?

Dead fossil language, or is that living non-fossil language?

Have to admit though, English does have a funny way with words. Eg, "Scientists capture world's first images of baby coelacanth fish - dubbed a 'living fossil'

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quite right, although I imagine someone will come > on and say "what about the victim's right to > life?" or something equally irrelevant. Hardly irrelevant Keef, rather one of the primary reasons he's been sentenced to death

On the other hand ... should skinny people pay less? They occupy only half to three quarters of a seat allowing people with more ample buttocks to spread out.

Perhaps there is a need for a forum breathalyser and a way to filter out weed-inspired posts

Tell me about it! I've got a good few gift vouchers that they're no longer accepting. Been talking about redeeming them all year but thought I'd save them for the Christmas booze run.