Quote:
Actually the only barrier to a functioning AI is the processor speed. Even our base integrated circuit 16 petaflop processor could be used to create a rather realistic AI. I don't even want to know how many If Then statements it would be made up of but that would more or less be all it takes to give the appearance of life
This is true, but now you aren't talking about true AI...just a mechanical mirror aping its creator. As you said, giving the appearance of life. Its not quite the same thing. It wouldn't be self aware, wouldn't worry about its own existence unless you programmed it to. Its just a fast computer.
Quote:
Cause and effect. We're not that complicated.
While I appreciate that sentiment, and wish it were true...I disagree. I don't believe all our actions are knee jerk on either a conscious or unconscious level. I agree that a lot of what we do is, (much more than we would like to admit), but to reduce the human experience to stimulus and response is a lazy way of going about it.
Quote:
Although a quantum processor would solve this problem neatly because a quantum would be able to process trinary code. Instead of 1 and 0 yes and no a quantum processor would utilize the unique ability of quantum particles to be in multiple states at once alal Schroedinger's Cat and it would process instead -1 0 and 1 where -1 is no 1 is yes and 0 is a maybe. That single simple advancement would open up a whole new world of flexible reactive systems.
yes, I'm sure it would...just as soon as we figure out how arrange all the little -1, 0 and 1's into the correct order. Although here I am confused...if you'r view of humanity is based on a "cause and effect" outlook...all you need 1's and -1's surly...what would precipitate the uncertainty that would necessitate a 0?
I fully agree with the concept that the main horsepower for any AI will probably be housed away from the functioning unit itself. bulk, cooling, power and so on would make it much easier to manage. Of course the fatal flaw in that is vulnerability...take out heart and you kill the beast. All of them.
Quote:
As for why a human looking robot the answer to that is simple. We've already built our entire world around ourselves. Our world is made for bipedal creatures with stereoscopic vision. It's more practical to build a robot that can walk and negotiate the obstacles in a home than to build some big clumsy thing with wheels that has to make a three point turn just to go down a hallway. Now I'll give you the idea of a robo-hooker is extreme and we will be far more likely to have them picking up our clothes, working in dangerous environments like nuclear power plants and mining operations before we have them in our beds but the technology is catching up to our science fiction.
This is true to a point...but a rather narrow definition. Dogs do just fine around the house, as do cats and cockroaches. I would argue that bi-pedalism is more difficult to emulate because of the inherently unstable nature of the design. Walking is often described as controlled falling and is a bastard to compute. 4 or even 6 legs is much more stable and maneuverable.
We gained no evolutionary advantage by walking on 2 legs, (I don't think we did at any rate)...there must be better ways of doing it.