他们不需要有社交生活。因为他们不认为……不管别人怎么跟你说。人工智能是发明。图灵会告诉你的。实际上,他做到了。但没人注意。

I think professionals get so wrapped in their disciplines, they are not able (willing?) To separate reality: 'how things probably are' from fantasy: ' how they might possibly be'. Sure, I tend to think outside the box and/or jump out of the system on a few things myself. It is good mental gymnastics;helps keep me sharper in advanced years. But, when we talk of notions such as computer social skills---or the lack thereof, we are in the realm of What Does it Matter?, not how things probably are. This is more Asimov than is either practical or pragmatic. Is it useful to speculate on the improbable? I don't think so. Artificial Intelligence is making differences-this much is inarguable. Mental gymnastics are good therapy. And, idle chat IS a social skill, banal as it can often be. Computers are marvelous tools, SKA, algorithims. I would, however, rather play chess with another human being.

Exoskeleton tech can get people with paraplegia mobile. Assistive robots have infinite patience for autistic kids to learn from and play with even. Eldercare robots give failing parents peace of mind. Medical rescue robots provide people with epilepsy dignity and timely care. There are way more applications than this for robots. These roles call for social skills and sensitivity to perform well. Philosophers must consider the limits and possibilities.

先进的神经形态芯片正在研发中，它将添加神经网络单元，以处理线索，从而检测癫痫发作、记录抑郁症，并找到与年轻的自闭症患者互动的途径。这些和许多其他的任务都是可以完成的。只需要几次失败，人们就会对解决这些高需求用例的技术失去信任。

I agree Robots don’t need to be social like humans, but they need to respond to human emotion and traits (some of which humans might not even perceive.) The most dangerous thing a robot could do would be to imitate humans, perhaps. Sometimes you want a robot to act and feel like a human; in general, robots should communicate socially with humans that they are not themselves humans. If that seems odd, it won’t very soon. Robots are becoming more and more human. That, I agree, is a problem.

Tim:
I do not often look to film or popular literature for philosophy.. But, I was moved by I Robot. The hi-tech Audi was neat, too.

Nice banter, here.

和信息!我不明白为什么没有更多的学者利用这个优秀的资源，我把它描述为知识交流的公共效用。无论如何，社会化机器人的概念似乎与人工智能密切相关，人工智能是一个因其模糊性而引人注目的术语。如果智能包含对相关选项的辨别能力，例如，运动传感器发出的信号是一个人的身体进入一个结构，而不是被风吹进来的一片树叶，那么人工智能和自然智能之间就没有可检测到的区别。然而，如果就像论坛参与者Smith在他10月7日的文章的第一段中所说的那样，人工智能补上了正常智能的空缺，那么它就是后者的延续，因此只能通过程度来区分。但我认为，许多人对这种技术如何在我们的社会中使用的担忧是非常重要的。也就是说，人工智能是一种天然愚蠢的消费产品。自动驾驶汽车。相对于美国现有条件，自然智能的一个产物将是通过国家层面从私人交通到公共交通的快速转变，减少交通拥堵的经济外部性和碳氢化合物燃烧对大气的破坏。只有在自然智能在其自愿部署中没有发挥作用的情况下，将人工操作的私人交通代表为一种智能才可能是合理的。

Whoa, now. This choice of subject matter implies that not only could robots be people, they are. A bit premature, don't you think? I am not there yet. I might countenance a notion of life extension through improved circuitry if only I could see some percentage in it. But I am not so self-indulgent (or self-assured) to believe extension of my life would make a difference that made a difference. That would amount to loathsome egomania---which we have seen more than enough of. I like to speculate about an array of topics. I even like dancing robots. Humans are social animals, when they choose. So are cats. Society; social; & socialization are words and concepts that fit certain life forms more precisely than others. Unless the definitions of the words and concepts have changed, they do not fit machines---even sophisticated ones. (Please. Make no mistake. AI and robots are machinery.) Those who elect to use such words and concepts in discussions around AI, robots and so on, need both a faster horse and better cart to put before it.

If this is absurdity, I'll take it over contextual reality. The next big thing is notoriously illusive.