And now, I want to continue with the first post of the year, which is dedicated to "robots", the machines that are more and more among us and that are very useful and important for our society but at the same time, a bit strange and intriguing!
Hola mis queridos amigos, en primer lugar me gustaría desearos un ¡feliz año nuevo!
Y ahora, quiero continuar con la primera publicación del año que está dedicada a los "robots", las máquinas que están cada vez más entre nosotros y que son muy útiles e importantes para nuestra sociedad pero al mismo tiempo, un poco extrañas e intrigantes.
Info: from Speak Up magazine
Photos: elboletin.com / granadadigital.es / saposyprincesas.elmundo.es/ muyinteresante.es/ computerworld.es / eldiario.es
**********************************
ROBOTS / MACHINES LIKE US
From the film "2001: A Space Odissey" to the TV series "Westworld", the prospect of creating a machine that can act and think as a human does, has fascinated and frightened us in fiction. But how close are we to creating a self.aware being in reality? And, if we do create one, will it really be a threat to humanity? The mathematical physicist and Professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, Sir Roger Penrose and the computer scientist and specialist in artificial intelligence Sir Nigel Shadbolt, discussed the real present and future of artificially intelligent machines at a conference held at London's Institute of Art and Ideas.
Sir Nigel Shadbolt began by putting AI into perspective by saying that 37 years ago when he went to a department of AI in Edinburgh to study the subject, there were only a handful of places that even did that, and that they had on display, robots that could just about stack toy bricks. Four decades later he says that they have some remarkable AI achievements. Systems that we carry around on the supercomputers in our pockets called phones and that search a web of billions of pages. The programs can understand our speech, they can recognise faces in photographs but however, they are not smart self-aware systems.
COMPUTING IS NOT THINKING
Sir Roger Penrose says that if we do want to create conscious self-aware beings, then computers are not the place to start. He explains that his definition of a machine would be a computer controlled robot or something like that and such devices would not be intelligent. Computers, they do what are called "computations" and these notions of computations or algorithms were put forward very clearly by Alan Turing and other logicians -they put forward arguments, which basically tell us that understanding is not something that a computational device is capable of.
DO IT WITH FEELING
So what is "human understanding'? This mystery, says Penrose, provides the clue as to why AI intrigues us so much. He states that mimicking or "machine learning" takes place in an unconscious part of the brain -but then consciousness takes over.
DEEP BLUE
But, we are often fooled into thinking that machines are intelligent, automated telephone services being an exasperating example! In 1996, world chess champion Gary Kasparov was beaten by a computer program called Deep Blue. It had a profound effect on him, he was unnerved by the experience, says Shadbolt. Kasparov thought that the program was reading his mind! And that's something that humans do, they ascribe to these systems lots of intentionality. But what Deep Blue had was pretty fast processing power for the time, it looked millions of moves ahead, it had millions of opening and closing game positions, and so, it could look deep into its own search space and deep into its opponent. That chess machine certainly couldn't play a game of checkers, It had no ability to transfer that one skill into another area.
DON'T TRUST THEM.
In fact, it was probably this paranoia that caused Kasparov to make foolish moves that allowed the computer to win. We must not place too much trust in computers, for the ultimate responsibility is our own because one thing we should be aware of and should worry about is the ability or the inability of us as people to put limits on what those very narrowly capable systems are doing, whether it's trading financial derivatives or flying drones in autonomous control on seek and destroy missions, says Shadbolt. They don't have to be self-aware to be a real threat. "A robot shall not harm a human or through its action cause a human to be harmed".
ROBOT RIGHTS
And if in the distant future artifically intelligent conscious beings are created, then it may defeat the purpose of their creation. Why do we need artifical intelligence? And one of the reasons is: "Well, you can send it down the radioactive mine, or you can send it up to some distant star and you don't have to worry about bringing it back." But of course if it really is conscious, there's a moral obligation to that device! You wouldn't be allowed to turn them off without their permission!
*******************************
VOCABULARY OF THE TEXT
-PROSPECT: posibilidad.
-FRIGHTEN: atemorizar.
-SELF-AWARE BEING: un ser consciente de sí mismo.
-CARRY AROUND: llevar encima.
-DEVICES: dispositivos, aparatos.
-MIMICKING: imitar.
-TAKE OVER: hacerse con el control.
-FOOLED INTO THINKING: nos engañan para hacernos creer.
-UNNERVED: furioso.
-ASCRIBE TO THESE SYSTEMS LOTS OF INTENTIONALITY: se atribuye a estos sistemas un alto grado de intencionalidad.
-CHECKERS: el juego de damas.
**********************************
WRITE IN ENGLISH THESE SENTENCES.
1 El cerebelo tiene la mitad de neuronas que el telencéfalo.
2 Penrose utiliza aquí términos técnicos para diferenciar distintas partes del "encéfalo" (brain).
3 El cerebelo se encuentra en la parte posterior del cráneo donde se concentra el control de las vías sensitivas y motoras.
4 El telencéfalo (cerebrum) es la parte más voluminosa, la que contiene el córtex cerebral y los dos hemisferios.
5 Shadbolt está citando la primera de las célebres leyes de la robótica de Isaac Assimov (1920-1992). famoso escritor estadounidense de origen ruso.
6 Assimov ha influido en muchos escritores de ciencia ficción. La primera ley de Assimov establece que "un robot no permitirá nunca que un humano resulte herido" ni siquiera por inacción.
7 La segunda ley de Assimov dice que un robot debe cumplir las órdenes dadas por los seres humanos a excepción de aquellas que no respetasen la primera ley.
8 La tercera ley de Assimov dice que un robot debe proteger su propia existencia siempre y cuando esta protección no perjudique la primera o la segunda ley.
********************************
SOLUTIONS to the sentences.
1 The cerebellum has about half as many neurons as the cerebrum has.
2 Penrose uses here some technical terms to demonstrate the difference among the parts of the brain.
3 The cerebellum is placed in the back of our head where the control of feelings and movement is concentrated.
4 The cerebrum is the bulkiest part, the one that has got the cortex and the two hemispheres.
5 Shadbolt is mentioning the first of the famous robotics Laws by Isaac Assimov (1920-1992), a well-known American writer of Russian origin
6 Assimov has influenced a lot of science-fiction writers. The First Assimov's Law establishes that "a robot won't allow a human to be harmed" even by inaction.
7 The Second Assimov's Law says that "a robot must obey the orders given by human beings except the ones that don't respect the first Law".
8 The Third Assimov's Law says that "a robot must protect its own existence so that this protection doesn't harm the first or the second Law".
SEE YOU MY FRIENDS!!!
HAVE A NICE DAY!!!
