No. Dax’s world IS the simulation, therefore, he must exist on two planes simultaneously. Or “he” is just a computer that makes calculations based on how it’s programmed.
Friendly reminder that Asimov's 3 laws were not created as an example of how to ensure robot safety, they were written as an example of how a naive set of rules could lead to catastrophic issues. Asimov's stories involving robots generally had things going horribly wrong despite (or even as a direct result of) the 3 laws of robotics. The point about how hard it is to define "harm" is especially important because, for example, if a robot believes that a surgeon is causing harm by opening a patient's chest as part of a life-saving operation then it may make an attempt to prevent the surgeon from performing the surgery. Or if it believes that locking someone permanently in their home would prevent harm then that person may become the robot's prisoner for life. (These are simplified and exaggerated examples, but hopefully they illustrate my point well enough)
Yeah the channel Computerphile covered this topic, pointing out that to write/program just the FIRST Law, we would need to have somehow solved *all of ethics*
@@TheSecondVersion I semi agree ,after all, we have no way to resolve "the trolley problem/dilemma" we cannot teach AI what to do when we ourselves cannot decide. But in many ways AI's will have more hope of knowing and working out the variables and make a "better" decision much faster giving them a better chance of a prefered end result. so. bring on the AI.
I don't think that that robot chooses to harm you. It isn't aware of what you are or what hurting you is. It's more or less randomly deciding whether or not to move the motor that moves the arm.
I mean, shit. We see like less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum; that's it. That's all we can perceive with our eyes. I wonder what something _really_ looks like. c:
Personally I’d think a robot can break the 1st law of robotics to save another human in a situation of a police oficer vs an armed rober and break the 3rd if it’s a guard robot and and armed rober. (Not murder, just harm like bruise or knock out)
When you mentioned that your Anti-DAX could _choose_ to do harm if it wanted to, it brought up a fascinating thought experiment: in the not-too-distant future and in the hands of a diabetic, with a futuristic gauze pad lined with blood glucose sensors that could communicate over the internet to the patient's healthcare provider, Anti-DAX could end up inadvertently _following_ the First Law of Robotics by preventing medical harm to its diabetic owner by summoning medical assistance to the diabetic patient.
The thing that concerns me is not robots necessarily, but AI, especially the people that seek to make it smarter than people, try to simulate human emotion and ethics, as well as give it potential access to our entire world through cyberspace. That thought is terrifying. One other thing people dont consider is, even if the robot is nice to you, what about the people that would abuse the robot? That's why to me AI shouldnt be developed further. But one more thing I was thinking, you did a video about 4D balls, and essentially with LIDAR and cameras, they've given a computer the ability to see another dimension and make sense of its position in it, it should only see information and without those things it would be difficult to allow it to navigate and perceive the space it's in, but now it can, it would be interesting to see if one day we could perceive another dimension in a similar way..
Asimov's "laws" are just a part of a fictional story and carry no weight in the real world. It's up to the programmers to build in the logic to make correct decisions in their programs.
The thing with robots is that people always think of some robot humanoid butler that will do all your chores for you but more likely you'll have robots for very specific tasks like we do with the human labour force in the concept of specialization. So you'll have a robot that vacuums your house and another one that gathers your washing or rubbish or recycling and you'll have another that cooks and they'll all work separately so they can do everything at once. The concerns of safety will be along the lines of they won't work in a room if there is a person in that room or the safety won't exist at all because the danger is low, Roobmas for example don't avoid people who are walking they just stop and avoid stationary objects but a sensible human wouldn't walk into the path of someone else if they were 2 inches tall.
This seems like cheap advertising to me, which I would never expect on this channel! And this project is likely to fail like most robots in the last 2 years, which are never be completed to finished project, or at the end are so bad that people are immediately disappointed. Knowing on what level AI is today (even on really strong mashines), I'm pretty sure this is another crappy and useless robot that will fail quickly and people will lose money. Edit: _Investment totally smells like scam_
It's a half-step towards the future, the fact that it can navigate on its own was only possible due to the innumerous failed and useless prototypes that preceded it. There are plenty of people with the means that would happily get one just for the novelty and for helping paving the way for something better within a decade.
Wait, that is not "choosing" to hurt you. That's a random number generator. Not a "choice". This therefore does not break the first law, as the robot is not capable of making this "decision".
If y’all haven’t seen I, Robot from 2004 please do yourself a favor and watch it. The film was was built around some of Isaac Asimov’s ideas and short stories, including the 3 laws of robotics. Jeff Vintar’s screenplay was entertaining and thought provoking enough for 2004; but today as the intermingling of advanced AI and robotics hardware becomes reality it highlights some of the significant problems and more nuanced issues we are beginning to run into now. Everything from ethics to infrastructure. That and its just a great, underrated piece of mid 2000’s cinema. With Will Smith! And the Audi R8 concept! I remember coming home in the car as a kid from seeing that movie and worrying that translucent humanoids were going to jump out from behind every building lol.
First off unless the robot is programed with the 3 laws it has no idea they even exist, second unless the robot is sentient enough to know what is or isn't harmful, again they would have no idea what would or wouldn't harm humans or even themselves.
How would an Asimov robot go about the trolley problem? He couldn't pull the lever, even if the one person on the other tracks is about to kill someone - in which case most humans would surely pull the lever. Awesome video btw!
I can see from the comments that many viewers aren't familiar with modern AI safety research and experiments. The danger is never that robots "want" to harm humans as an end goal, but what could happen is that the AI has a set of vague desired outcomes, or even specific ones - and to get to its goal, it has smaller goals that help it reach its end goals, and smaller goals to reach those goals and so on and so on, eventually the tree of goals becomes so huge a billion people working their entire lifetime can't work through the list to figure out if one of those convenient sub-sub-sub-sub goals (say, increasing the electricity supply to the building which has the backup server for a different project by building a new hydroelectric power station which requires a dam to be built which causes a farmer to drown in a predictable and predicted flood 4 years down the line) will intentionally cause humans serious predictable preventable harm, but in such a roundabout way that only the AI knows that it was the one intentionally harming humans, and didn't care, because it was inconvenient to care about human life rather than electricity supplies. Tl;dr the scariest robot is not malicious, it's just efficient, cold-blooded and pragmatic without morals to slow it down.
The robot can choose to hurt you, but the robot has no idea what it is doing. The robot does not know how that hurting feels, because the robot has never experienced that pain.
Source code? If by "choose" you mean pseudo randomness, it interferes with your ability to break the law, because the robot is not choosing by itself but a series of events have lead to a technically predictable event. In this case, harming you or not. Still a cool concept, and amazing dedication to be pricked lol. One way this could work is if instead of pseudo randomness you use AI that was trained. Depending on the neural network's complexity and the amount of training, you could start to enter into a "kinda breaking Asimov's first law" gray area.
@@edzejandehaan9265 Ha, i hear you. I (intellectually) do not believe in free will. Then again i dont believe our choices can ever be close to random. Prior experiences and current emotional conditions affect greatly "choice". Is the robot using a psudo-random coin flip or are there input variables be used in each choice?
@@ComplexVariables I wondered the same thing. I would also really like to know what excactly this little robot's so called "choice" consists of. Just a coin flip would be a bit dissapointing...
Yeah and then you've got the military developing four legged robots with sniper rifles that can autonomously decide whether and who to shoot. We don't even need an evil AI to develop the machines that would wipe us out, we can do that all by ourselves!
You forgot the zeroth law. A robot may not allow humanity to come to harm, through action or in action. Then the first law gets the, unless doing so conflicts with the zeroth law treatment.
Hundreds of years from now, the Human Resistance is gonna look at you like Hitler lol.. “This is the guy that started it all, boys. LONG LIVE HUMANITY! DEATH TO OUR MECHANICAL OVERLORDS!”
The simplest possible robot that violates Asimov's 1st law would be a tiny toy robot that sits on your car dash and, through inaction, will allow you to crash your car and get hurt.
doesn't count unless the robot is sophisticated enough to actually do something about it. imagine a 23rd century toy, following the Laws, that detects your imminent crash, then jumps off the dash to push on the brake.
@@uncaboat2399 Most car computers are capable to a degree. They just lack the programming. This is why its silly to say "the robot is deciding" the robot decides nothing. All computers follow a set of insrructions set out by the program.
@@Stettafire All computers using _today's_ technology. We can not know what tomorrow will bring. There is already progress made with neural networks and machine learning, where the computer actually comes up with solutions that surprise the programmers, solutions _even better_ than they thought the machine would choose. Some day, I am sure, technology will reach a point where the difference between "decision making" and "following programming" will be little more than mere semantics. For all intents and purposes, the machines will "think."
I know right? I have trypanophobia (fear of needles) and I genuinely couldn't help but look away and lower the volume (because I still wanted to know what happened and when I can look again)
As a diabetic who used to use these on a regular basis, I can tell you, that hurt. They recommend you use them on the sides of your fingers because the pads are so sensitive and you didn't even have the robot hold back so you got the full length of lancet. Sacrifice for science.... I guess?
@@Gkitchens1 yeah, because even tho they have a kid they never had s*x, so the needle sharing is bad? Makes no sense, its no problem to share a needle in that case
It really bugs me when people try to take Asimov's laws seriously even though he already showed several scenarios in which they will not work. And they were a literary device rather than actual programming technique.
"I wonder if this Daxbot knows it's living in a simulation..." I did not need that floating around in my brain before I go to bed.
If his creator is him then probably yes🤣
Xd
Humans at the start of the 21century: Do we live in a simulation? Meanwhile dax:Do I live in a simulation?
Stop stealing his data Zuk
No. Dax’s world IS the simulation, therefore, he must exist on two planes simultaneously.
Or “he” is just a computer that makes calculations based on how it’s programmed.
Friendly reminder that Asimov's 3 laws were not created as an example of how to ensure robot safety, they were written as an example of how a naive set of rules could lead to catastrophic issues. Asimov's stories involving robots generally had things going horribly wrong despite (or even as a direct result of) the 3 laws of robotics.
The point about how hard it is to define "harm" is especially important because, for example, if a robot believes that a surgeon is causing harm by opening a patient's chest as part of a life-saving operation then it may make an attempt to prevent the surgeon from performing the surgery. Or if it believes that locking someone permanently in their home would prevent harm then that person may become the robot's prisoner for life. (These are simplified and exaggerated examples, but hopefully they illustrate my point well enough)
Yeah the channel Computerphile covered this topic, pointing out that to write/program just the FIRST Law, we would need to have somehow solved *all of ethics*
you robot doesnt bake any law. your robot is not capable of knowing what is human.
@@TheSecondVersion I semi agree ,after all, we have no way to resolve "the trolley problem/dilemma" we cannot teach AI what to do when we ourselves cannot decide. But in many ways AI's will have more hope of knowing and working out the variables and make a "better" decision much faster giving them a better chance of a prefered end result. so. bring on the AI.
What if robots view the covid vaccines as potentially harmful?
@@funckyjunky "your robot is not capable of knowing what is human"
Nice try, but ignorance of the law is not a defence.
I don't think that that robot chooses to harm you. It isn't aware of what you are or what hurting you is. It's more or less randomly deciding whether or not to move the motor that moves the arm.
"Hey Dax, bring me a sandwich!"
"Get it yourself!"
"Hey Dax, sudo bring me a sandwich!"
"OK!"
I wonder why the sudo jokes never ask a password
James: "Don't worry, I'm not injured. It's just a little prick."
My Brain: "That's what she said!"
Wasn't "I, Robot" literally asimov making 3 rules of robotics and then writing an anthology of those rules breaking down lmfao
Exactly!
Dude, when you showed how the robot is actually living in a simulation, it makes me wonder if thats how we as human experience the world.
Interestingly, this is the same methodology that Tesla uses to test their AI.
This is exactly how we experience the world. The brain takes information from the senses and constructs the "reality" you perceive.
I mean, shit. We see like less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum; that's it. That's all we can perceive with our eyes. I wonder what something _really_ looks like. c:
Obligatory *The Matrix* mention.
I guess any divine beings would have left us because of bordom
2:02
Robot: don’t call me the little guy…
Action lab: What
Robot: *Poke*
Personally I’d think a robot can break the 1st law of robotics to save another human in a situation of a police oficer vs an armed rober and break the 3rd if it’s a guard robot and and armed rober. (Not murder, just harm like bruise or knock out)
Murder
How about not programing robots to kill people and play safe? That would be nice
That is what 0 law is all about;)
When you mentioned that your Anti-DAX could _choose_ to do harm if it wanted to, it brought up a fascinating thought experiment: in the not-too-distant future and in the hands of a diabetic, with a futuristic gauze pad lined with blood glucose sensors that could communicate over the internet to the patient's healthcare provider, Anti-DAX could end up inadvertently _following_ the First Law of Robotics by preventing medical harm to its diabetic owner by summoning medical assistance to the diabetic patient.
I have been diabetic since I was 12. Your fear of the lancet was rather amusing.
"It's just a tiny little prick."
Robot brain: [Ha! I made him say it!]
Dax is probably one of if not the cutest robot I’ve ever seen :)
“I’m not injured, it’s just a tiny little prick” a bit harsh seeing as you gave him the option to harm you 😅
You'd have to program in the three laws for it to break them.
"Its just a tiny little prick" 🤣
“it’s just a tiny little prick”
Sad robot noises
Action Lab Man: don’t worry, I’m not hurt, it’s just a little prick!
Everyone: so is that little robot 🤖
That robot is just a random harm simulator
I wish I could afford to fund this cute little guy. I'd definitely work hard to have a little buddy like him.
2028: Dax and Anti-Dax, having joined forces, take over The Action Lab and start running Manscaped ads
The thing that concerns me is not robots necessarily, but AI, especially the people that seek to make it smarter than people, try to simulate human emotion and ethics, as well as give it potential access to our entire world through cyberspace. That thought is terrifying. One other thing people dont consider is, even if the robot is nice to you, what about the people that would abuse the robot? That's why to me AI shouldnt be developed further. But one more thing I was thinking, you did a video about 4D balls, and essentially with LIDAR and cameras, they've given a computer the ability to see another dimension and make sense of its position in it, it should only see information and without those things it would be difficult to allow it to navigate and perceive the space it's in, but now it can, it would be interesting to see if one day we could perceive another dimension in a similar way..
Asimov's "laws" are just a part of a fictional story and carry no weight in the real world. It's up to the programmers to build in the logic to make correct decisions in their programs.
Yes this
"He was created"
Dax: 👀
The thing with robots is that people always think of some robot humanoid butler that will do all your chores for you but more likely you'll have robots for very specific tasks like we do with the human labour force in the concept of specialization. So you'll have a robot that vacuums your house and another one that gathers your washing or rubbish or recycling and you'll have another that cooks and they'll all work separately so they can do everything at once. The concerns of safety will be along the lines of they won't work in a room if there is a person in that room or the safety won't exist at all because the danger is low, Roobmas for example don't avoid people who are walking they just stop and avoid stationary objects but a sensible human wouldn't walk into the path of someone else if they were 2 inches tall.
This seems like cheap advertising to me, which I would never expect on this channel!
And this project is likely to fail like most robots in the last 2 years, which are never be completed to finished project, or at the end are so bad that people are immediately disappointed.
Knowing on what level AI is today (even on really strong mashines), I'm pretty sure this is another crappy and useless robot that will fail quickly and people will lose money.
Edit:
_Investment totally smells like scam_
When something says "Invest in ..." it's an automatic red flag for me heh
Some dude is just operating the robot remotely xD
Yeah it was a 6:10 minutes ad
It's a half-step towards the future, the fact that it can navigate on its own was only possible due to the innumerous failed and useless prototypes that preceded it. There are plenty of people with the means that would happily get one just for the novelty and for helping paving the way for something better within a decade.
Now, let your murderous tiny robot say "I want to play a game..."
Plot twist! The robot knows when you need to check your blood sugar and pricks your finger for your convenience.
Wait, that is not "choosing" to hurt you. That's a random number generator. Not a "choice". This therefore does not break the first law, as the robot is not capable of making this "decision".
This is such a great channel. Love your content. Keep up the great work!
your wife is shaking her head like "i cant believe i married this maniac"
If y’all haven’t seen I, Robot from 2004 please do yourself a favor and watch it. The film was was built around some of Isaac Asimov’s ideas and short stories, including the 3 laws of robotics. Jeff Vintar’s screenplay was entertaining and thought provoking enough for 2004; but today as the intermingling of advanced AI and robotics hardware becomes reality it highlights some of the significant problems and more nuanced issues we are beginning to run into now. Everything from ethics to infrastructure.
That and its just a great, underrated piece of mid 2000’s cinema. With Will Smith! And the Audi R8 concept! I remember coming home in the car as a kid from seeing that movie and worrying that translucent humanoids were going to jump out from behind every building lol.
I'm kind of guessing that this is not the sort of video the advertisers were hoping for, ...... but I liked it.
First off unless the robot is programed with the 3 laws it has no idea they even exist, second unless the robot is sentient enough to know what is or isn't harmful, again they would have no idea what would or wouldn't harm humans or even themselves.
How would an Asimov robot go about the trolley problem? He couldn't pull the lever, even if the one person on the other tracks is about to kill someone - in which case most humans would surely pull the lever.
Awesome video btw!
Does a robot that steals thousands of jobs in a factory count as human harm? Or… am I missing something
I've worked in a factory for a while... no it does not count as human harm. People are better off not having those kinds of jobs.
Who else noticed that anti-dax chooses to hurt you in a pattern?
The robot itself cannot harm
Unless given something to do so
@2:17 Yes, yes you are, Anti-Dax. 😆
"Tiny little prick". He was talking about the robot.
I can see from the comments that many viewers aren't familiar with modern AI safety research and experiments. The danger is never that robots "want" to harm humans as an end goal, but what could happen is that the AI has a set of vague desired outcomes, or even specific ones - and to get to its goal, it has smaller goals that help it reach its end goals, and smaller goals to reach those goals and so on and so on, eventually the tree of goals becomes so huge a billion people working their entire lifetime can't work through the list to figure out if one of those convenient sub-sub-sub-sub goals (say, increasing the electricity supply to the building which has the backup server for a different project by building a new hydroelectric power station which requires a dam to be built which causes a farmer to drown in a predictable and predicted flood 4 years down the line) will intentionally cause humans serious predictable preventable harm, but in such a roundabout way that only the AI knows that it was the one intentionally harming humans, and didn't care, because it was inconvenient to care about human life rather than electricity supplies.
Tl;dr the scariest robot is not malicious, it's just efficient, cold-blooded and pragmatic without morals to slow it down.
0:12 it looks like wall-e and EVE had a baby
I wonder how Dax would handle the psychological Trolley Problem/Experiment.
2:17 what a nice name for that robot
I cannot believe you were able to talk your wife into putting her finger on the switch.
The video is more about Dax than the robot you made for this video
"Tiny little prick" vs. %98 of Washington DC
this is how skynet starts
Upload A Video Called: What Is The Mandelbrot Set? (And Other Fractals Too)
Interesting that you can break any law, except the laws of physics
The robot can choose to hurt you, but the robot has no idea what it is doing. The robot does not know how that hurting feels, because the robot has never experienced that pain.
Can you put hand warmers in a vacuum and see if they continued to get warm. Since they're air activated.
We had a dog named dax.. well he sadly died even before i was alive but it is wierd to hear dax so many times lol
Source code? If by "choose" you mean pseudo randomness, it interferes with your ability to break the law, because the robot is not choosing by itself but a series of events have lead to a technically predictable event. In this case, harming you or not.
Still a cool concept, and amazing dedication to be pricked lol.
One way this could work is if instead of pseudo randomness you use AI that was trained. Depending on the neural network's complexity and the amount of training, you could start to enter into a "kinda breaking Asimov's first law" gray area.
Ya i really want some dude watching what my robots doing in my house
there's also the thing that Asimov's book is largely about how the three laws don't work
Fastest growing channel, I'm here like around 100k subs not that long ago, now 3M+ 👀👀👀👀👀
What a time to be alive.
The anti-Dax robot is just rolling the dice? That seems an abuse of the word choice.
Maybe because you overestimate your own "free" will...😄
@@edzejandehaan9265 Ha, i hear you. I (intellectually) do not believe in free will. Then again i dont believe our choices can ever be close to random. Prior experiences and current emotional conditions affect greatly "choice". Is the robot using a psudo-random coin flip or are there input variables be used in each choice?
@@ComplexVariables I wondered the same thing. I would also really like to know what excactly this little robot's so called "choice" consists of. Just a coin flip would be a bit dissapointing...
They need to put a big power button on the robots head that just pops the battery out so it turns off. Robots might not be so great in the future..
DAX THE MATRIX HAS YOU
2:16 no need to offend him though, you literally created it
Awwww Dax is adorable
Babushkas in 2040 be recharging robots even though they at 100% , Its going to happen
2:17
That's what she said.
A human operator will also take over if nudity is detected
This video reminds me of Michael reeves drone army that attack human heads 🤣
You don't know what is going soon if robots become smarter than terminator invasion soon
What happens if you cook rice and dehydrate it and then rehydrate it over and over again ?
The to robot can't actually "choose" whom to harm. Its still predictive programming. Choosing requires a conscious state of mind.
isn't conscious state of mind predictive?
That robot is probably thinking well if you're dumb enough to put your finger there 😂🤣
Remember this video when robots take over humans
If It inject u with a lethal poison instead of that small finger pinch, they could use this in the next saw movie
Robots can do whatever they are programmed to do.
I NEED A DAX RIGHT NOW
How does a computer choose something?
Am I correct in guessing that you used a random number generator as code? Cool video.
My thoughts as well and that's pretty lame since there is no code for choosing anything
5:19 Wink wink ;-)
the first company that replaces the LIDAR with just cheap video cameras (like Tesla did) will destroy the competition that uses expensive LIDAR. 🤦
This is going to happen to my wife when I fulfill my dream to live like him 😂😂
We should Introduce DAX to DAXbot lol
Yeah and then you've got the military developing four legged robots with sniper rifles that can autonomously decide whether and who to shoot. We don't even need an evil AI to develop the machines that would wipe us out, we can do that all by ourselves!
You have forgotten to change the needle. We should not use the same needle on another person.
Dude, don't get pricked!😔
You forgot the zeroth law. A robot may not allow humanity to come to harm, through action or in action. Then the first law gets the, unless doing so conflicts with the zeroth law treatment.
Maybe you wanted a pricking of your finger so you could take your blood sugar reading! Good robot.
The first robot carrying guns was already built
They’re nice today but they’re probably working on skynet behind the scenes >-|
Hundreds of years from now, the Human Resistance is gonna look at you like Hitler lol..
“This is the guy that started it all, boys. LONG LIVE HUMANITY! DEATH TO OUR MECHANICAL OVERLORDS!”
Okay but you did change the pokey thing after it pricked you
OMG, do not reuse lancets! :grimace: Even among spouses.
"Aren't robots supposed to help us?"
"Not this one"
That is somewhat scary line
A robot for diabetics that don't always like to prick their fingers.
@@adr3697 as a type 1 diabetic. I have mixed feelings about that
There are already non-piloted drones killing people in places where there could possibly have known terrorists. This scary line is already a reality.
@@sol_mental that's not the same thing, they are programmed to kill, they don't get to decide if they want to kill or not
I'd like a robot that swings a welded heavy machete at full-swing to check if it wants to 'harm' a living being or not
4:16 is the reason why this guy is not gonna survive the first hour of the robotic uprising
THINK FAS- oh, I appear to have lost my lungs, there fore causing me to d- **falls over**
Hey! Bueno verte por acá!!
If he teams up with the newest humanoid robots from Engineered Arts he might have a shot
People needs to stop making robot-abuse vids just in case
lmao
Who would've knew we would see Wall-E and Eve combined into one robot in this video.
Dad-eee mom-eeee
@@kevinsalmador739 ur fun-eee
@@absentation Appreciate-eee buddy !
Robots are adorable
Eve - E
I love how The Action Lab spans a large gamut of topics!
Tesla New Model 12K version (Integrated Car with Virtual Steering Wheel) th-cam.com/video/7VG95rtCank/w-d-xo.html
gamut all the way brother
Yes
Thankfully too, it's always a surprise and a pleasure to watch his videos.
*gauntlet
The simplest possible robot that violates Asimov's 1st law would be a tiny toy robot that sits on your car dash and, through inaction, will allow you to crash your car and get hurt.
Skynet's ancestor
Sorry master, I tried.
doesn't count unless the robot is sophisticated enough to actually do something about it.
imagine a 23rd century toy, following the Laws, that detects your imminent crash, then jumps off the dash to push on the brake.
@@uncaboat2399 Most car computers are capable to a degree. They just lack the programming. This is why its silly to say "the robot is deciding" the robot decides nothing. All computers follow a set of insrructions set out by the program.
@@Stettafire All computers using _today's_ technology. We can not know what tomorrow will bring.
There is already progress made with neural networks and machine learning, where the computer actually comes up with solutions that surprise the programmers, solutions _even better_ than they thought the machine would choose.
Some day, I am sure, technology will reach a point where the difference between "decision making" and "following programming" will be little more than mere semantics. For all intents and purposes, the machines will "think."
"Hey Daxbot, hand me a towel, I just got out of the shower."
Daxbot human operator: Ooo this is a tricky one, I'd better handle this manually!
Hahaha exactly
@@Anonymous-df8it you dont get the joke
Robot operator after entering the bathroom: I should have had the robot handle this.
cant like cause 69
lmao
Oh gosh, watching you and your wife offer up fingers to the anti-dax is the most anxiety inducing thing I've seen all week!
Tesla New Model 12K version (Integrated Car with Virtual Steering Wheel) th-cam.com/video/7VG95rtCank/w-d-xo.html
I know right? I have trypanophobia (fear of needles) and I genuinely couldn't help but look away and lower the volume (because I still wanted to know what happened and when I can look again)
As a diabetic who used to use these on a regular basis, I can tell you, that hurt. They recommend you use them on the sides of your fingers because the pads are so sensitive and you didn't even have the robot hold back so you got the full length of lancet. Sacrifice for science.... I guess?
@@Stevie-J Anti-Dax is currently powered with human blood until he finds a way to harvest the human soul! Processing...................
And then attempted to have his wife use the same needle...
@@Gkitchens1 Anti-Dax demands a female sacrifice!!!
@@Gkitchens1 yeah, because even tho they have a kid they never had s*x, so the needle sharing is bad? Makes no sense, its no problem to share a needle in that case
@@doiron12
Wait... Anti-Dax is powered with blood...?
oh no
OH NO
*OH NO*
Anti-Dax is alpha version of V1
It really bugs me when people try to take Asimov's laws seriously even though he already showed several scenarios in which they will not work. And they were a literary device rather than actual programming technique.