Human uniqueness - what the Robot would find difficult to acheive

You are unique - that is your strength

There is only one you

Machine learning robots can study humans and learn from them, but can they become unique or adopt uniqueness traits?

Another way of looking at this is Cybernetics. A method of control. What will a Robot assess as 'normal' behaviour? When or will it determine a behaviour trait is not 'normal' and disregard copying it?

These questions are at the crux of developing humanoid robots.

We are all unique

This is what makes us as humans different from each other. Sure, many of us follow set paths of conduct, but just how much is conditioned and how much 'burned in' from the start?

Although we are all genetically coded, it is the variations of the genetic code that make us unique, not just from appearance but as chemical bipeds, variations in the coding vary our chemical balance.

'Nature' seems to have got it right in most cases, but perhaps social conditioning is the key to how we turn out.

If we take the American Indian people, they had no crime, no prisons and did without money, taxes and laws. How? Because the people co-existed in a group where none of these values was necessary to ascribe to.

Look at the world outside of theirs and even with these 'values' it is imperfect and really a failure, in that it ascribes to a set of values it can not achieve - zero crime, no law breaking, all tax due paid.

Boundaries and Cybernetics

So, what boundaries do 'normal' humans adhere to that make them 'normal'? What makes seemingly 'ordinary' people resort to things like fetish behaviour, lawlessness, addiction?

Cybernetics - a sort of natural control mechanism is the key. Essentially it is a check and control method of maintaining a situation within agreed parameters.

Say we enact laws, their tenets are 'cybernetic control' in that they set out 'containment boundaries' that adherence to is crucial for the law to hold true.

Without 'feedback' that is data coming back from the object you are interacting with, there is no control over the situation. With no  limits you are in a state of anarchy.

It is as simple as hammering in a tack, at a certain point you stop when the tack is flush and to go on merely damages what you are hammering. This is a simple 'feedback loop'.

Essentially we and computers use this logic as a basis of operation, things can go wrong though.

What is 'normal'?

'Normal' is difficult to define, but in simple terms, everything conforms to certain outcomes. Once those boundaries are exceeded, damage is done.

The Robot might have to be pre-programmed to observe certain cybernetic conditions, but it relies on cold, program logic.

It has to have consciousness and empathy to be like Humans. This level of consciousness and empathy has to be set and an algorithm pattern regulated back to certain parameters of what is 'acceptable.'

Essentially, the Human that sets the parameters for the Robot, and sets its behaviour, its cybernetic boundaries of what is acceptable or not.

So, what the Robot adheres to is dictated by us, it  is the 'what' we direct to it to conform to that is the question and we have yet to see if the Robot decides its own path, something that may end up being against our values.

Consideration

The questions are when does the Robot stop from creating a harmful situation? If the Robot cannot consider Human feelings, its interactive usefulness is limited to us at a social level. If it cannot compute when 'enough is enough,' or 'reasonable boundaries' then harm might ensue.

This applies across the board in almost any activity from dispensing medication, work, sex, the situations are likely endless.

As Humans, we find these boundaries recognisable, yet we do not always adhere to them ourselves or prevent situations becoming unpleasant by continuing an action - with the attendant consequences.

Some individuals go beyond what is 'normally' acceptable, which may be a result of their own egomaniacy or boundaries being different to the accepted normalcy.

Multi-level awareness

As Humans, we are different from any other creature because our brain is developed for language. Comparing the Chimpanzee brain to a Human brain is a fruitless exercise, we are not the same animal and our genetic difference at 10% is a universe away.

When extrapolated over the millions of variances, plus the obvious anthropological differences between Humans and Chimpanzees with which we cannot breed, yet Humans can with an Almas which occurs in Asia and is closer as a relative species therefore.

Language drives our brain to operate on 3 planes - Past - Now - Future. Our thinking brain even before we speak, is 'modelling' the scenarios and end-games of what we will say and do, we do not appreciate what is going on here in general because our brain has developed this as a core function.

(The best scenario is then established and potentially actionable, the end result does come down to 'what is acceptable' as the end action, this potentially varies from Human to Human as to the outcome and the consequences of such.)

We don't need to know how our heart works in brain terms because the brain 'manages' that 'background' stuff. Like in our cars, we don't have to manually pump the fuel, cause the spark interval whilst also trying to drive the car and negotiate road hazards, that 'management' is done in the background, leaving us to just drive.

This is the 'plate spinning' scenario that the computer has to do and can do to essentially operate like 'us.'

Brain V Computer

The 'wetware' Human brain is massively complex for what it is, yet to replicate that capacity in silicon chips and switchgear would take a massive computer, at present.

Each day that passes, we go further down the road of achieving a Robot in Human form, something that we have been trying to do for millennia.

Within the next 30 years we may have Humanoid robots in society. We can now capture data and video from our brains so it may be possible to create some hybrid that will be a new sub-species.

The half way may be to create remote Human Robot entities which receive data instructions from super computers, ethereally.

What must be achieved is to assess the outcome of what we are trying to create and how we perceive that to become, if we get it wrong, it could be very serious for us, potentially.

We need to ask the basic question - 'What are we trying to achieve'? and we need to obtain a consensus on the thing we are trying to create, if we get this wrong it could be potentially disastrous. We need a strategy of what we are going to build in and what we are going to ensure is not built in.

Future jobs, future skills - how to remain relevant and make it...

In the next 10 years, 9 million jobs will be lost to automation

The march of the Robots was a situation that worried the founder of Cybernetics Norbert Wiener just after WW2 when he could see from the advances of the by our standards primitive computer, that humans would lose out in the workplace to automation.

So what's at stake? For you as a potential victim, you need to take safeguard action.

Firstly, you need to get yourself transferable skills that you can take to new jobs.

Secondly, you need to be interested in things that Robots cannot do and learn to do those.

The Cyber Human is perhaps less than 50 years away

We hear a term being used now called 'Singularity.' That is when the robot becomes indistinguishable from the human. With 'on-line' communication, you may not always be aware that you are dealing with a machine.

In the flesh, you are because there is no second glance needed, the robot humanoid is still that and you an tell the difference even if it has cyberskin.

A computer may be able to do a lot of things but it doesn't have much intelligence. It relies on programmed conditional logic to operate. Much as we do but we work in different ways, through acquired learning. The computer mainly learns through downloaded information and some can learn through real scenario learning.

Future robot humanoids will have peer to peer communication by data

The average 4 year old child has better tactile recognition and response than many computerised units. This will come to a computerised human but only through a lot of development work in sensory telemetric data recognition and analysis capability.

What I am saying is that if it encounters a Bird's egg, it will be able to define it as such and handle it with the appropriate care and restraint, rather than crush it. In this case, the 4 year old can carefully handle the egg from the outset.

This gives us the situation of the machine having to build massive potential data banks of data based on the sensory information gained from everyday objects that we know of from acquired learning. But I am meandering a bit here....

The future skills humans will need are the skills that robots cannot do at present, such  as plumbing or wiring in a house where systems may need renewal or installation where there is no template 'plan' to work from. Situations where the human works out the strategy based on previous experience.

Another future proof way is to be as Mike Rowe says, 'Be interested in other people's crap' and also to follow your ability not your passion. By all means have hobbies and if these offer a genuine and possible progression into a career then do so if that is viable. But many people think they are just 'good enough' and the reality is they aren't.

What do other people not want to do? According to Ebay, in the UK there are on average up to £4000 value of items that people have and do not use, if you can sell that sort of thing for profit, that's an example of being interested in other people's crap, or selling your crap to other people

That said, there are due to the demographic vacuum left by generations of childless people in the UK an avenue where services will be needed and few to fill them. With an aging population, the burden on the young in time will be immense.

Future proof yourself before you become the future!

The cancer of compliance and the self-regulation industry, a symptom of the EU Kontrol mechanism?

Compliance, just another cancerous self-policing method we should say 'enough' to.

There comes a time when you just have to say 'that is enough,' that time is now overdue.

So what am I talking about? Institutional control that has been imposed through a conditioned acceptance. In a word compliance.

Compliance is another of the social engineering industries that has been foisted on people, like race relations, political correctness, 'climate change,' and centrist regulation.

Its a jobs for the boys and girls and those in between in our enlightened age. Common sense seems to frequently go out of the window and the industrial scale empire building which includes creation of 'compliance' monitors, continues.

Can you not see the bigger picture? Whilst you are concerned with petty control games foisted on you by hectoring overseers, the people behind the scenes are doing things whilst you are distracted to which you should be aware and saying 'stop' to.

The EU is all about control, whilst that institution lasts. It over burdens with red tape and creates a protectionist trading environment where business competition rules and regulations really hamper businesses, because they cannot do business in some situations.

Compliance is a control, the clue is in the name. It does not embrace free thinkers or free thinking, because those are at odds with the game. It is a product of a soviet era socialist mechanism, you only have to see how that held the Eastern Bloc countries back from 1945 to 1989.

Here, free thinkers were imprisoned, the state made rules and the West embraced the 'dissidents' who railed against the system, but now tenets of a similar system are in place in the EU base, no one rails against that, except a growing band of dissatisfied people who have now seen the light.

But they are decried by this conglomerate as 'reactionary' or worse.

It is time to say this is enough, we can think for ourselves and we are not going to be treated like children anymore. The game is up and Brexit was the first foundation stone being taken away.