Those who argue along this line of reasoning will definitely arrive at a misinterpretation upon those to whom such differentiation will spell impossible. here both ideas will become reversible, therefore a spawned ignorant from arrogant will spell same as arrogant from ignorant. fewer excuses will be allowed, and a theatre of torture will consume both.
The theatre of torture refers to Artaud. And the next ref. Barthe. How far can You carry literature by association? How much farther by poetry? Much more so, but nit within the mode of traditional poetry. Free form has been along very long, and the proof is in the pudding, analysis may be variously supported by a network,much as robots have been instilled within, choosing open systems over closed.
This is not an example of systemic arrogance born of ignorance. It is based on newly arrived encyclopedic associations. Most arguments are still done in closed systems, patently waiting for structural renewal.
So you need off buttons, &/or system format. For working robots [they would all be ~ because you do this on prototypes until you got their functionality right [cant fire guns etc] you make it so they cant be re-programmed while active. Yes there would have to be authorities which govern/performs the system restore, but that’s not the same as having one that can program them to kill, given that to not fire guns in hardcoded ~ physically. See no-one needs control except to reboot or switch off, and any owner could switch their robot off.
if robots aren’t benign in design, i do think there will be trouble, human beings will use them for crime etc.
Some when soon ‘they’ will need to be controlling what schematics can be used in 3D printing and other additative technology [don’t know why they cant call them replicators?].
The future is going to happen, we need to be dealing with it very soon imho.
_
I disagree.
I disagree.
You are misinterpreting something.
For example, yes, and human beings have been doing it since they are able to do it. That is also a reason for the mechanical beings to replace the human beings.
Yes. But - unfortunately - according to those human beings who are i.e. ignorant and arrogant there is nothing what we need to be dealing with, because according to them nothing is going to happen …
Ok You disagree. People do that often. Disagreement doe not change anything, the facts speak for themselves. And then, disagreement is oft just the way of looking and interpreting things, opposite interpretations may both be true or even false. Truth and falsity is on another level, and that’s the grand synthesis we have been discussing, right? Synthesis is not pre forma it doesn’t have to happen,but when it does, regardless of the form it takes, it’s a matter for that to become acceptable, having some semblance of utility.
So it’s not that I disagree with Your disagreement, as much as seeing it as a synthetic regression. Rather than as progression. Next we can argue about what these words entail, and surprisingly see them as somewhat,somehow related. Agreements are derived from disagreements? Right? Even when no agreement is reached, a peace agreement may settle things after open hostilities cease.
So the cosmic dance goes on.
Change always happens. Disagreement (compare: antithesiss) is even one of the motors for change. And if you want to compare disagreement with ignorance or arrogance, then you can only say: “ignorance and arrogance do not change anything”.
Yes, they do.
And we can extrapolate what probably will happen.
Incidentally Arminius but I wrote on my daily journal blog re flight my original entry into usa from Frankfurt when our turbo prop almost crashed into the Atlantic ocean. I erased it got bogged down with it. Now I open today’s paper and find the unfortunate news of the tragic loss of flight 9525 , from Barcelona to Düsseldorf a place I spent some timr eons ago.
Condolences for the loss of your fellow countrymen
Thank you very much, Orb.
That was no accident!
Arminius
Or, that is a reason for intelligent AI to make itself benign in design!
I expect humans to always find a means to break the rules due to their random/chaos aspect of mind. They will e.g. Try to use older [e.g. Current] tech to run the robots. AI will need to protect itself from that, the question if a benign AI can protect both itself and humans for other robots. Surely it would see such robots as criminal, and easily recognise the difference between that and non-criminal activities [activities; as opposed to criminals ~ persons [it also wouldn’t use ad hominem where not appropriate]].
This isn’t a reason to replace humans, because logically you have to first ascribe criminality to the person [ad hom], in order to execute such a decision. …which it logically wouldn’t do.
It will happen and is happening imho. i got a few ideas of my own, if no-one gets there first. More importantly, the latest materials and tech to create and build with them, will alone change everything. A robot made like a wire mesh computer model, with all its animation rods made in form e.g. From black diamond, with a graphine coating, would be your ultra-light weight, ultra flexible body. Put weights [or perhaps the segway type tech and processors, if heavy enough] in the feet, joints and pelvis, then calibrate the anims to walk like humans and the tech to counter balance the weights. It would need to be able to see and spatially measure for this to be effective inmo, the tech will soon get there too.
_
The following video is about the “wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn”:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyRyKyOpo[/youtube]
He could have said much more, but that was an excellent sample of the problem we have been talking about for the past year or so (intelligence design) - the birth of a man-made species far superior to Man = the replacement and extinction of human beings.
[size=150]Once it has created something superior to it, then it can say it is equal to us.[/size] 
“It” is already doing that. Computers have been designing greater computers for decades. Now they can design things that humans don’t even understand, yet they work.
Computers haven’t designed something superior to or even equal to humans. When they do, then the philosophical point stands: For AI to consider itself superior to humans, and where it is so, it would have to create a superior AI/computer, and for that better AI it would have the same problem ad infinitum. We aren’t at AI yet, so those ‘better computers’ aren’t in the equation until they reach a minimum human level of intellect, creation, invention etc.
Once you get to human/AI level, there is no ‘better than’. It is not the same comparative as that of humans and animals, and even then i think animals are conscious and should be treated respectfully. I don’t think humans would remove all lower life forms, but would rather nurture nature.
Ridicules.
sorry I meant thinking AI, as being discussed.
Using the internet as a brain for robots would be a great idea if you need robots that masturbate and argue all day.
Sounds like more interesting robots than ones who didn’t do that.