Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Jacque Fresco - Human or Robot Systems (Repository)

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
I want to talk a little bit about robots and human behavior; the major difference between cybernated organisms and human systems. A lot of people think that programming is exactly the same in people and robotics. It is not. The major difference is that you can design a robot to walk over, pick up an object and put it in another place but before the robot moves if you put the object in a place the robot was going to put it in it will still walk over and grab nothing in particular. Do you understand that? That's programmed. The difference between human systems and robots is that it's not linear. That means that the robot can do certain things that you program into it and if you look at that under a microscope you can see magnetic domains that will make the robot walk over to a given area and sit in a chair. If you pull the chair away the robot will walk over and sit on nothing and fall over. That's programmed. The human system differs considerably. When you work on a human being or a chimpanzee or any animal- I'll work with the chimp this time. Put the chimp in a big box and in that box are rods sticking out at different lengths with a cue (a circle, a triangle on one of them, different patterns) and you don't have to teach it anything. It'll walk in and sooner or later, it'll touch those things. When it touches any one of them water will come forth, touches another one, food. It touches another one and a soft bed comes out of the wall. If the animal is put there for a long enough time it will use those rods appropriately. Any animal has a range of behavior. When put in an environment, it doesn't respond like a robot. It looks at the environment and seeks reinforcement: food. If the leaves are circular where the food is it will go to the circular leaves. That's called 'associative memory'. Programmed computers have no associative memory. They follow a pattern. If you look at a phonograph record with a microscope, you'll see zigzags cut in the bakelite [vinyl] record. Those zigzags are representations of the voice of a person. While the record is playing if it's somebody singing 'Caruso' it can't deviate from those patterns. Robots that are programmed can't deviate from those programs unless you have path alongside it and you show variations, instead of a circle a slight ellipse. The animal will touch that thing thinking it's a circle because they're not that critical and it gets burned slightly so it will never touch that one again. That's what the animal has that the robot doesn't have. If the robot touches something and it doesn't reinforce it... How do you reinforce a robot? If he gets stung, that wouldn't bother him at all but a robot can learn to respond to different figures. When he sees a triangle, presses a button, he gets lubricated but he doesn't feel good when he gets lubricated so there's no reason to retain that action. It's only when a human touches something and they feel good touching it, that they repeat it. A robot cannot touch something and say "Hey, that feels good." They can reach out, do that and pull back but they can't make anything of it. Do you understand that? The reason I say "Do you understand that?" is because there's so much conflict today about robots and people: Will robots take over? Not if they're programmed not to take over. If they're programmed to take over, they can only shoot a guy in a certain uniform. If the guy stays put in a given area the robot can walk over, unless you condition the robot with the eyes to follow anything that moves and shoot it. Is a robot an assassin? No, it's programmed to shoot. That's quite different. Human beings have some people believe, 10 to 15 billion neurons. A robot has hundreds of thousands of associative sets, not billions. If you learn that a cup gives you water anything that looks like a cup might support water. We can deviate from our programming. Our programming appears rigid, but alongside of it is associative memory: I touched that and I felt pain. I touched the other thing and I didn't feel pain. I got something. A robot never looks at a thing and says "That's interesting!" If you were to float in midair in front of a robot it wouldn't say "Now that is interesting!" It can't do that, it can only do what it's programmed to do. A man can see things and be programmed and compare it to something else. Is that very clear, or do you want to question anything there? That's a major difference between programmed behavior and human programming. Humans have a lot of associations prior to programming so the other associations, if it reminds him of the other he can deviate. That's why people walk out of here when I speak with different interpretations. (Roxanne) Kurzweil talks about using nanotechnology and implanting something in the head like a second brain that may be so fast that it could take over the other brain in the person. This is something he's raised. - You can do that but it doesn't give [the robot] leverage like "I wonder about that." I've never seen that happen. A man could say that. A man could look at an event, and say "That's strange, the way that paper holds up that speaker." A robot does not do that. It looks at the speaker. It doesn't even look at it and say "That looks like a speaker." Unless you put a speaker in front of the robot and say "That's a speaker" so when its eye sees it, it says "That's a speaker." When you turn it sideways, it doesn't know what that is. When you turn it sideways and say "That's also a speaker." If you rotate the speaker in many positions so the robot has associations with the shape in different positions, he can call it a speaker. If you call an orange an orange, but if you cut it in half it can't call it an orange. It doesn't say "It looks like half an orange." Do you understand that? (Roxanne) This thing that Kurzweil is putting out like 'singularity' is when you start to implant things in people's heads that have so many more calculating ability, or... - If it is not connected to the other neurons it won't do anything. -It couldn't take over? -No unless it's connected. (Joel) He's proposing that it is connected somehow. There is some interface between... -If there is an interface organic neurons respond to certain rate of speed. Anything beyond that rate, it can't respond. Electronic systems travel almost at the speed of light. Neural associations are relatively slow. If you try to speed up digestion of food in a human the digestive acids flow at a certain rate. If you were to triple the rate, it might digest portions of the intestines. Do you understand what I mean? For instance, let's take a bear and put it in a room this size with a bunch of objects sticking out (they have to stick out) 40 of them. A bear might learn how to use 12 of them but not 40. It won't remember 40. It doesn't have the neuronal amount to remember... A bear could remember because when a bear walks through an environment "This bush has berries." He remembers where the bush is "This area has animals that I can eat." A bear can build up maybe thousands of associations but first you have to study the range of the animal. How many levers an animal can remember will tell you what its outside response will be. If you find a bear [that] can learn to work 47 levers (a little beyond that or a little less), if that's true, then you know what the bear can respond to in the environment: 40 different systems. A human can generate associations with thousands of things in the environment. If a human learns to eat certain food and he has to climb a tree to get it if you put that food at the base of the tree he won't climb the tree. A robot will. Do you understand that? If you program a robot to climb a tree to get the apple it'll do that. If you put the apple on the ground, the robot goes "Ha!" And they simplify things. No, unless you build in something special in the robot to handle unforeseen variables and that's what people don't know how to do yet. They don't know how to program a robot to say "What have we here?" because the words "What have we here?" don't mean anything to a robot. It means something to a human being. (Roxanne) The roboticists and Kurzweil are bringing up when the robot does become connected to the environment and does have enough information that it would surpass and overtake people. - No, a robot does not ask questions. A robot does not say "I've been here before. I've seen that before." They don't have enough neurons to build all kinds of associations. (Roxanne) Do you think it's possible that they can do that if they use biological.... -If it's programmed, no. But if a robot is self-programming then the reason for a robot's actions are very different than human systems. When a human puts something into his mouth, it tastes good while if a robot does it, nothing. There's no reward. What's a reward to a robot? Sitting down does it say "Whew, I'm so tired and now I feel better." He doesn't feel. When he sits down, he doesn't say "It's good to have a chair in my area." He doesn't give a shit about those things. If the light gets so bright that the eyes of the robot turn off, he says "I can't see" (if you wire him that way) but he doesn't turn down the light unless you wire it that way. He turns down the light when it gets bright not because it's bright, but because he has senses that turn off the light. Do you understand that difference? (Roxanne) You were explaining this last night in terms of humans have to have experience to react... Yes, that means a robot doesn't seek experience. A robot doesn't want to know why some tires wear out faster than others. He doesn't take a microscope and look at the rubber under a microscope. A robot is not equipped that way. They don't have pleasure and pain. If they had pleasure and pain they would have preferences. Do you understand? If a robot cuts wood with a rotary saw: All the wood is shoved in there automatically; he cuts it. If you put a human in there, he'll cut him too. He doesn't think "That's a person, I don't want to cut that." The robot cannot do anything unless it's programmed to do it. It could be programmed to cut wood but it will cut anything else shoved in there. If you interfere with its programming it doesn't say "Wait a while, you're interfering with the programming!" If radar picks up fog in San Francisco the airplane might fly above the weather. The airplane moves up based on what's out there. If it's fog, it moves up, but it doesn't move up to avoid the fog! That's human projection. A robot moves up because there was fog ahead. Its senses bounce back and give it a thing that controls the elevators and makes it move up. If it's raining, the robot may open an umbrella above itself. But when the raindrops hit the umbrella they make contact with two terminals so there's a flow across. That opens the umbrella. But the robot says "It's raining. I'm going to get wet. I'll open it." No, none of that. Do you understand that? I'm talking about robotics today. When people say "Do you think robots will take over?" There's no basis for it if they're programmed a certain way.

Video Details

Duration: 15 minutes and 17 seconds
Country: United States
Language: English
Producer: The Venus Project
Director: The Venus Project
Views: 142
Posted by: ltiofficial on Dec 4, 2011

This is a portion of lecture given on robot systems, the fears of "robot takeover", and specifics of how human behavior differs from mechanical systems.

Note: This LTI Repository location contains only "official", fully proofread versions of the transcript & its derived translations. More translations will be added as they are completed at

If your language is not yet represented here, consider helping these efforts by joining your language team at (LTI Forum)

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.