Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
We have a low common denominator: 2

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                               

Robot Diplomacy

 Give me your clothes, your boots, and your full attention please.
  (+2)
(+2) 		  [vote for,
against]

Fledgling attempts at artificial intelligence seem to be tested and showcased through competitive spectacles such as robot football and robot-war type shows.

Although we're some way from a doomsday scenario, it strikes me that when many of us are paranoid about where AI could lead, it's a particularly bad idea to put the idea of battle and conquest into the 'minds' that we are invented.

So I propose that inventors pit their wits by creating robots capable of winning a debate rather than a game of soccer.

Cue the cameras, the mock house of parliament, the lights and the weird looking robots debating their points until the eventual winner convinces all of the robot delegates that their argument is superior to theirs.

Broadcast live on BBC 3 or 4.

—Fishrat, Apr 06 2004

They Are Here to Protect Us http://www.jonathon....0/web/webtsos.html
Meet your mechanical ambassadors. [Guncrazy, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]

[link]






       OK, 8pm on mondays, BBC1! Insist on Robot Rule 375.2(b) : All AI robots must generate cockney accents.
—Fishrat, Apr 06 2004
   

       Dave's Question Time! sorry Dave!
—po, Apr 06 2004
   

       I hope they'd be more interesting than today's red-blooded robot politicians.
—FarmerJohn, Apr 06 2004
   

       Surely this goal will be met by the researchers trying to get their creations to pass the Turing test.
—DrCurry, Apr 06 2004
   

       C3PO: I will be presenting the case for bio-diversity. Dalek: EXTERMINATE! C3PO: Please kindly await yor turn. Dalek: EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE!!!!! C3PO: aaiaaieeeeeaaaieeeeeeee.... R2D2: wheee-oo-eee-oo-whee-whee! Dalek: EXTERMINATE... Etc.
—Harry Mudd, Apr 06 2004
   

       myopinion == true
if opinionx =/= myopinion
then
opinionx == false.		   

       BBC3 Version:
Flash cut, animationspattered DV, presented by the spoils of a London comedy club compere barrelscrape and without any nutritional value whatsoever		   

       BBC4 Version:
Ponderous single take DV, insterspersed with stock B&W footage of robots, taken from BBC archives, presented by socially inept University Challenge contestant.		   

       Stick it on ITV and get Cilla to present it.
—calum, Apr 06 2004
   

       Choose channel 4 and then get Craig Charles or Suggs to present.
—engineer1, Apr 06 2004
   

       Ever watch the show "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" Back in the late 70's early 80's? In the show the entire New World government was a Counsel comprised entirely of AI Robots. You should rent/buy the DVD.   

       But I belive here in the US we already have something simular to robots in our government. I belive the 'Yankee' term for them is "private interest supported payed off goverment officals" put enough greenbacks in their INPUT pocket and the OUTPUT is whatever opinon your PROGRAM desires. <end of line>
—MySoulWanders, Apr 06 2004
   

       If we are //paranoid about where AI could lead// why would we have them participate in a (mock) government?
   

       I say let them play soccer.
—xrayTed, Apr 06 2004
   

       Robots who are good at debating can be dangerous too.   

       I had this idea for a story where a robot becomes federal prosecutor and is so good at presenting its case that the president of the United States gets the death penalty for jaywalking.   

       You can also turn this around. As part of cost savings Public Defenders are replaced by AI systems. The AI systems get so good at defending that all criminals go free.
—kbecker, Apr 06 2004
   

       As long as they're highly competent, we'll be safe - they'll never become judges.
—Detly, Apr 06 2004
   

       If the robots debate with each other what will the humans destroy for their own amusement?
—whatastrangeperson, Apr 06 2004
   

       ...And so after hours came to pass, it was decided that 0 was indeed superior to 1.   

       (or it could even be...) Eventually the two sides found middle ground with 42.   

       Yes, if you are to leave a legacy to the artificial life so they can remember you, perhaps war isn't the best one. +
—sartep, Apr 07 2004
   

       This is an entirely separate idea, perhaps, but it's clearly unrealistic, and advocacy, so here goes: I've always liked the thought of the supreme court (possibly all lawyers) being replaced by robots. Think about it. If the laws are written properly, no interpretation is necessary, as should be the case for federal laws, which are to be applied and enforced in the same manner in all areas and jurisdictions. It's all simple logic that is (ideally) only complicated by the pathos of the defendant, ideology, and the rather arbitrary "public opinion" generated by media coverage. The robot is not swayed by any of these things, which have no place in determining a human being's fate in the first place.   

       I know this is really unrealistic, though; in reality, these factors still affect the human beings that input evidence into this robot and, inescapably, the human beings that write the laws in the first place. It would, however, force lawmakers into a reasonable level of pedantry for new laws, and force them to completely rescind certain fascist laws that cannot be written in clear language at all.
—sqykly, Mar 07 2007
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle