Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Gay marriage? meh; worry about the robot love

By LoRayne Apo-Joynt | 03.05.09 | 2:07 pm

This worries me far more than two people of the same sex united in a social contract: imagine a robot hugging you repeatedly and not letting you go. It’s just a geek’s futuristic fantasy, you might say, but apparently this has already happened recently to a Japanese research assistant.

Toshiba’s Akimu Robotic Research Institute was able to successfully program a robot to feel affection for humans. Unfortunately repeated work on fine-tuning the emotion programming translated into an obsessive passion for humans on which this robot named “Kenji” focused its attention. A research assistant working alone with Kenji was prevented from leaving the lab and hugged repeatedly by the robot until she was able to summon co-workers to de-activate Kenji.

Dr. Takahashi, the chief researcher on the robotic project, said, “This is only a minor setback. I have full faith that we will one day live side by side with, and eventually love and be loved by, robots.”

Remind me to be more careful shopping for electronics, especially with the Toshiba brand name on them.

Comments

  • FrankAV

    Now we are expecting machines to love us back? They should just stay in the drawer. Where do we start to draw the line between man and machine? Are we soon going to think it murder to unplug a game console as much as much as a breathing machine? There are some People who are obsessed with their life like replica's. Oh can't forget trekies obsession with making out with Data. Are we soon to become obsessed with perfection of program love instead of imperfection. Kenji was only acting according such program. Isn't love grand? I wonder if there is such thing as a restraining order along side that warranty?

    • Rayne1

      I'm less concerned with the philosophy of seeking affection from an object instead of a human; I'm far more concerned about development of mechanized devices endowed with artificial intelligence, but without any ethics.

      Particular the Three Laws of Robotics — why is Toshiba skipping over them?

      For folks who are not geeks, the Three Laws of Robotics were morals which Isaac Asimov wrote of in the 1930's-1940's, ones which were supposed to underpin the actions of robots as tools to serve mankind. The Laws are:

      1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
      2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
      3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

      Why did Toshiba ignore the lessons of Asimov's work and bypass the “Prime Directive” (serve and protect humans) when working on development of a semi-sentient being? The implications are incredibly ugly if all developers acted so rashly.

      Humans have enough problems with their own ethical framework, just as your comment indicates; why would we create more beings without any ethical framework at all?

  • FrankAV

    Now we are expecting machines to love us back? They should just stay in the drawer. Where do we start to draw the line between man and machine? Are we soon going to think it murder to unplug a game console as much as much as a breathing machine? There are some People who are obsessed with their life like replica's. Oh can't forget trekies obsession with making out with Data. Are we soon to become obsessed with perfection of program love instead of imperfection. Kenji was only acting according such program. Isn't love grand? I wonder if there is such thing as a restraining order along side that warranty?

  • Rayne1

    I'm less concerned with the philosophy of seeking affection from an object instead of a human; I'm far more concerned about development of mechanized devices endowed with artificial intelligence, but without any ethics.

    Particulary the Three Laws of Robotics: why is Toshiba skipping over them?

    For folks who are not geeks, the Three Laws of Robotics were morals which Isaac Asimov wrote of in the 1930's-1940's, ones which were supposed to underpin the actions of robots as tools to serve mankind. The Laws are:

    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    Why did Toshiba ignore the lessons of Asimov's work and bypass the “Prime Directive” (serve and protect humans) when working on development of a semi-sentient being? The implications are incredibly ugly if all developers acted so rashly.

    Humans have enough problems with their own ethical framework, just as your comment indicates; why would we create more beings without any ethical framework at all?

  • FrankAV

    Now we are expecting machines to love us back? They should just stay in the drawer. Where do we start to draw the line between man and machine? Are we soon going to think it murder to unplug a game console as much as much as a breathing machine? There are some People who are obsessed with their life like replica's. Oh can't forget trekies obsession with making out with Data. Are we soon to become obsessed with perfection of program love instead of imperfection. Kenji was only acting according such program. Isn't love grand? I wonder if there is such thing as a restraining order along side that warranty?

  • Rayne1

    I'm less concerned with the philosophy of seeking affection from an object instead of a human; I'm far more concerned about development of mechanized devices endowed with artificial intelligence, but without any ethics.

    Particulary the Three Laws of Robotics: why is Toshiba skipping over them?

    For folks who are not geeks, the Three Laws of Robotics were morals which Isaac Asimov wrote of in the 1930's-1940's, ones which were supposed to underpin the actions of robots as tools to serve mankind. The Laws are:

    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    Why did Toshiba ignore the lessons of Asimov's work and bypass the “Prime Directive” (serve and protect humans) when working on development of a semi-sentient being? The implications are incredibly ugly if all developers acted so rashly.

    Humans have enough problems with their own ethical framework, just as your comment indicates; why would we create more beings without any ethical framework at all?

Categories & Tags: | | | |