2040 - Humans to be replaced by machines.
Discussion
I was in the operating theatre earlier this week when the surgeons were discussing whether robots will eventually replace human surgeons to do operations. Unless all humans somehow were programmed to have exactly the same anatomy and a finite range of problems/complications, then it would never be possible.
That is an odd argument as they are basically say that unless everyone was the same then surgery is impossible unless they are doing it.
The only reason for a view such as that would be their belief that a machine can only follow exact instructions and not improvise in a situation using general knowledge in the context of the task they are carrying out.
The only reason for a view such as that would be their belief that a machine can only follow exact instructions and not improvise in a situation using general knowledge in the context of the task they are carrying out.
I suppose the criteria for the robot would be that:
- it could recognise anatomy, vessels, ligaments, etc, and rarely-to-never identify them wrongly (which I would think is unlikely, but I suppose may be possible).
- it could recognise when things went wrong, what is wrong, and how to deal with it appropriately and quickly.
- it knew when to convert from one type of operation to another, for example from a laparoscopic procedure to an open one, and make the right decision every time.
It's an interesting discussion anyway.
- it could recognise anatomy, vessels, ligaments, etc, and rarely-to-never identify them wrongly (which I would think is unlikely, but I suppose may be possible).
- it could recognise when things went wrong, what is wrong, and how to deal with it appropriately and quickly.
- it knew when to convert from one type of operation to another, for example from a laparoscopic procedure to an open one, and make the right decision every time.
It's an interesting discussion anyway.
tank slapper said:
I remember reading about an experiment some years ago that used an evolutionary approach to designing an integrated circuit. It started off with random configuration, with the best examples being selected to populate the following generations. They ended up with a circuit that worked, however when they looked at the configuration of the individual components, they found that logically it shouldn't have done. What had happened was that properties of the components that would never normally be considered, had ended up affecting the function of the design to an extent that it couldn't be replicated by building the circuit from discrete components.
Got a reference for that? Very interesting. The evolutionary approach is something I'm familiar with (genetic algorithms/programming is a well-established branch of computer science with lots of practical applications) but I've not heard of this being done with physical kit, certainly not with the oddities of individual components combining in novel ways. That thought is fascinating, and has surely some relevance to the way the brain evolved from very simple cells. Thought and consciousness are, perhaps, just a lucky artefact?I have done some digging and I think that this may have been the article that I read - link here - although I seem to recall it was in New Scientist. It was a long time ago though so I might be mistaken, but it was definitely in a print magazine and not online. It stuck in my mind as I was reading Dawkins' Selfish Gene at the time and it was relevant.
Having found the above article, I did some more searching and came up with an article called Analysis of Unconventional Evolved Electronics. which was published in Communications of the ACM; Apr99, Vol. 42 Issue 4, p71-79, 9p. Authors are Thompson, Adrian and Layzell, Paul. (It's on the author's website here
Edit - It was in New Scientist - Creatures from primordial silicon, Davidson, Clive. New Scientist, 11/15/97, Vol. 156 Issue 2108, p30, 5p, 3 Color Photographs, 2 Diagrams
A few quotes from that article:
Having found the above article, I did some more searching and came up with an article called Analysis of Unconventional Evolved Electronics. which was published in Communications of the ACM; Apr99, Vol. 42 Issue 4, p71-79, 9p. Authors are Thompson, Adrian and Layzell, Paul. (It's on the author's website here
Edit - It was in New Scientist - Creatures from primordial silicon, Davidson, Clive. New Scientist, 11/15/97, Vol. 156 Issue 2108, p30, 5p, 3 Color Photographs, 2 Diagrams
A few quotes from that article:
New Scientist said:
"I wanted to see what happens if you let evolution break out of the constraints that humans have," says Thompson. "If you give it some hardware, does it do new things?" These questions could only be answered if a way were found to combine the "wet" processes of biological evolution with the "dry" world of silicon chips. Thompson found the solution in a field-programmable gate array (FPGA).
..
Thompson realised that he could use a standard genetic algorithm to evolve a configuration program for an FPGA and then test each new circuit design immediately on the chip. He set the system a task that appeared impossible for a human designer. Using only 100 logic cells, evolution had to come up with a circuit that could discriminate between two tones, one at 1 kilohertz and the other at 10 kilohertz.
..
By generation 220, the fittest individual produced outputs almost identical to the inputs—two waveforms corresponding to 1 kilohertz and 10 kilohertz—but not yet the required steady output at 0 volts or 5 volts (see Diagram). By generation 650, the output stayed mostly high for the 1 kilohertz input, although the 10 kilohertz input still produced a waveform. By generation 1400, the output was mostly high for the first signal and mostly low for the second. By generation 2800, the fittest circuit was discriminating accurately between the two inputs, but there were still glitches in its output. These only disappeared completely at generation 4100. After this, there were no further changes.
Once the FPGA could discriminate between the two tones, it was fairly easy to continue the evolutionary process until the circuit could detect the more finely modulated differences between the spoken words "go" and "stop".
..
So how did evolution do it—and without a clock? When he looked at the final circuit, Thompson found the input signal routed through a complex assortment of feedback loops. He believes that these probably create modified and time-delayed versions of the signal that interfere with the original signal in a way that enables the circuit to discriminate between the two tones. "But really, I don't have the faintest idea how it works," he says.
One thing is certain: the FPGA is working in an analogue manner. Up until the final version, the circuits were producing analogue waveforms, not the neat digital outputs of 0 volts and 5 volts. Thompson says the feedback loops in the final circuit are unlikely to sustain the 0 and 1 logic levels of a digital circuit. "Evolution has been free to explore the full repertoire of behaviours available from the silicon resources," says Thompson.
..
That repertoire turns out to be more intriguing than Thompson could have imagined. Although the configuration program specified tasks for all 100 cells, it transpired that only 32 were essential to the circuit's operation. Thompson could bypass the other cells without affecting it. A further five cells appeared to serve no logical purpose at all—there was no route of connections by which they could influence the output. And yet if he disconnected them, the circuit stopped working.
There is a link to Adrian Thompson's website, which is here...
Thompson realised that he could use a standard genetic algorithm to evolve a configuration program for an FPGA and then test each new circuit design immediately on the chip. He set the system a task that appeared impossible for a human designer. Using only 100 logic cells, evolution had to come up with a circuit that could discriminate between two tones, one at 1 kilohertz and the other at 10 kilohertz.
..
By generation 220, the fittest individual produced outputs almost identical to the inputs—two waveforms corresponding to 1 kilohertz and 10 kilohertz—but not yet the required steady output at 0 volts or 5 volts (see Diagram). By generation 650, the output stayed mostly high for the 1 kilohertz input, although the 10 kilohertz input still produced a waveform. By generation 1400, the output was mostly high for the first signal and mostly low for the second. By generation 2800, the fittest circuit was discriminating accurately between the two inputs, but there were still glitches in its output. These only disappeared completely at generation 4100. After this, there were no further changes.
Once the FPGA could discriminate between the two tones, it was fairly easy to continue the evolutionary process until the circuit could detect the more finely modulated differences between the spoken words "go" and "stop".
..
So how did evolution do it—and without a clock? When he looked at the final circuit, Thompson found the input signal routed through a complex assortment of feedback loops. He believes that these probably create modified and time-delayed versions of the signal that interfere with the original signal in a way that enables the circuit to discriminate between the two tones. "But really, I don't have the faintest idea how it works," he says.
One thing is certain: the FPGA is working in an analogue manner. Up until the final version, the circuits were producing analogue waveforms, not the neat digital outputs of 0 volts and 5 volts. Thompson says the feedback loops in the final circuit are unlikely to sustain the 0 and 1 logic levels of a digital circuit. "Evolution has been free to explore the full repertoire of behaviours available from the silicon resources," says Thompson.
..
That repertoire turns out to be more intriguing than Thompson could have imagined. Although the configuration program specified tasks for all 100 cells, it transpired that only 32 were essential to the circuit's operation. Thompson could bypass the other cells without affecting it. A further five cells appeared to serve no logical purpose at all—there was no route of connections by which they could influence the output. And yet if he disconnected them, the circuit stopped working.
Edited by tank slapper on Thursday 10th March 16:57
Marf said:
slomax said:
Bio mechanics will play a major role too, especially if a host is concerned. US scientis are already producing cultured meat grown in a lab from cloned animal muscle tissue. I think this could take off. If we can make some sort of structure or frame for people who have lost limbs and then grow muscles around it, that would be amazing. The host (person) already has a blood supply for glucose and oxygen along with nerves and tendons. I'm no biologist, but this is potentially really exciting.
Yup, there is BIG money being pumped into regenerative medicine research. As I understand it we as humans do possess the same mechanisms for regeneration as found in lizards, some fish and even mice. However these mechanisms are only active whilst we are in the womb, the key will be finding the genetic switch to turn them back on.
Marf said:
Brighton Derly said:
Marf said:
Fascinating how so much thought on this subject seems to be influenced by fiction.
Fiction reflects reality.
Dangerous2 said:
Marf said:
slomax said:
Bio mechanics will play a major role too, especially if a host is concerned. US scientis are already producing cultured meat grown in a lab from cloned animal muscle tissue. I think this could take off. If we can make some sort of structure or frame for people who have lost limbs and then grow muscles around it, that would be amazing. The host (person) already has a blood supply for glucose and oxygen along with nerves and tendons. I'm no biologist, but this is potentially really exciting.
Yup, there is BIG money being pumped into regenerative medicine research. As I understand it we as humans do possess the same mechanisms for regeneration as found in lizards, some fish and even mice. However these mechanisms are only active whilst we are in the womb, the key will be finding the genetic switch to turn them back on.
Dangerous2 said:
Marf said:
Brighton Derly said:
Marf said:
Fascinating how so much thought on this subject seems to be influenced by fiction.
Fiction reflects reality.
Marf said:
Dangerous2 said:
Marf said:
Brighton Derly said:
Marf said:
Fascinating how so much thought on this subject seems to be influenced by fiction.
Fiction reflects reality.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff