NVIDIA AI Techniques Teach Robots Through Human Movement

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,810
NVIDIA is showing off how it is using its deep learning to teach robots how to complete tasks by simply "showing" the robot how it is done. This will certainly be a boon in industry where repetitive tasks need to be accomplished. Once you get done teaching the robot how to do the job, it is preprogrammed to show you how to pick up your pink slip, and make your way to the nearest homeless shelter.

Check out the video.

In the video above, the human operator shows a pair of stacks of cubes to the robot. The system then infers an appropriate program and correctly places the cubes in the correct order. Because it takes the current state of the world into account during execution, the system is able to recover from mistakes in real time.
 
Abolish labor unions, the minimum wage, employer FICA taxes, etc etc and you'll save more jobs for a few more years.
 
So first AI researchers gave up trying to "engineer" intelligent machines (because they don't understand what makes us intelligent), and turned to systems that learned, like we do. Now they have given up having the machines learn for themselves and have decide that they need to be taught skills, like us. So now it looks like even if you could build a machine with the same potential as a human brain, how long would it take to train it to be as smart and generalized as a human? Years maybe? And let's suppose you managed that; what if it then declared it's own independence? Could you deny it, or would you keep it enslaved? Seems like a lot of effort when we can already make our own children.
 
Last edited:
it's a machine .... waste it
OK, I'll take your comment seriously for a moment: Think about the possibility of the government declaring such an intelligence a sentient being, with all the rights of humans. In that case you could be convicted of murder.
 
Once one learned a particular skill, that skill can be immediately passed to other robots immediately via network. Even years afterward. So thousands of skills could be implanted into a new robot. No need to train for years. As long as the structural of the robots are the same or similar I would think. Not like humans.
 
OK, I'll take your comment seriously for a moment: Think about the possibility of the government declaring such an intelligence a sentient being, with all the rights of humans. In that case you could be convicted of murder.

it doesn't have a soul. Can't murder something that doesn't have a soul which is why it's ok to kill animals especially when we need food

No soul = no murder
 
it doesn't have a soul. Can't murder something that doesn't have a soul which is why it's ok to kill animals especially when we need food

No soul = no murder
I'll accept that for legal purposes as soon as you can demonstrate to me that you have a soul (or anybody else for that matter).
 
I'll accept that for legal purposes as soon as you can demonstrate to me that you have a soul (or anybody else for that matter).

animals don't worship, they don't pray or seek "enlightment" - only humans do that ... you have already seen it demonstrated that we have a soul.
 
animals don't worship, they don't pray or seek "enlightment" - only humans do that ... you have already seen it demonstrated that we have a soul.
This is behavior, which can be explained in many ways, but not proof of a soul. BTW, I'm not an atheist, I believe I have a soul; I just can't demonstrate or prove it in any way.
 
This is behavior, which can be explained in many ways, but not proof of a soul. BTW, I'm not an atheist, I believe I have a soul; I just can't demonstrate or prove it in any way.

try this one out: what does "sweet" taste like? You know there's a sensation we call "sweet" but can you explain to someone whose never tasted "sweet" what it tastes like? IMO Same thing regarding the soul.

What it all comes down to is one question (no doubt there are those who will argue that statement), namely, what does a person base their truth (facts, that which is true and honest and good) on?
 
try this one out: what does "sweet" taste like? You know there's a sensation we call "sweet" but can you explain to someone whose never tasted "sweet" what it tastes like? IMO Same thing regarding the soul.

What it all comes down to is one question (no doubt there are those who will argue that statement), namely, what does a person base their truth (facts, that which is true and honest and good) on?
I don't have to be able to describe what "sweet" tastes like to prove that it exists. I can give someone something sweet and they can then experience the sensation and know it exists. It doesn't even matter if we experience it in exactly the same way. If I want to, I can even characterize sweet tasting things chemically such that I can predict if an unknown substance is sweet or not.

The concept of a soul is metaphysical by its very definition. Its existence can't be proven one way or the other. Many people undoubtedly use their belief in the existence of their soul (and by extension eternal life and eventual judgement by a supreme being) to help define their morals and make decisions about what is good and evil. But when it comes to the law and the application of basic rights, we can't rely on such things. We must instead use what we can prove in the physical world in which we live, and not simply beliefs. Otherwise an atheist, using your rules, could just claim that you have no soul and blow you away.
 
Back
Top