1962: Are HUMANOID MACHINES Imminent? | Machines Like Men | Past Predictions | BBC Archive 

The computer that could play the board game made me think so much about modern AI

Ripping yarns!

Cool 😎 thanks for sharing 👍

This was SO satisfyingly Nerdy! T H A N K S🙏!

too much woke trash on it now

Technology that helps identify racism and transphobia. And then limits the civil liberties of perpetrators until they learn to submit to the rules without question.

Only passed away a few years ago. Probably 10!

@@flybobbie1449 He died in 2006 at the age of 84. He just missed the introduction of the first iPhone in 2007.

Raymond had 20 seconds to comply.

Just DON'T forget your Towel..!

Not to mention, it does a massive 1,000 calculations per second, an whopping 1,000 slower than a Commodore 64, and millions of times slower than your phone.

You are dangerously, and prophetically correct!

😂

Where Is She NOW?!😊

CLICK is So underated🤷‍♂️

Such a pessimistic opinion, at least we no longer sit on those bulky ass machines only doing something that seems like a "overly fancy calculator" to us. Compared to our stone tablets on our pockets we have today, do you think its "not much has changed" lmao? Plus we don't really need machines to think like a man, they are more powerful than a man. Side Note: Take a look at chatGPT and AIs as of today, its terrifying but its just a primitive of things soon to come, were just at the base of an accelerated climb of breakthroughs. "ChatGPT is just a language model that is very good at recognizing patterns and giving verbose answers but still it's very impressive and getting there as far as 'thinking machines like men' is concerned." as one commenter noted.

@@Cpt_John_Price yes technology has come along. However we still need a very complicated operating system, to do well at one human task at a time. The self learning abilities are still at a slow speed, and often still need our input to get over many hurdles. I'm not talking about machines having self-awareness, and thinking for themselves. I'm just talking about a machine, that can switch between multiple types of tasks, that we as humans would need them to do. Things like house choirs, driving the kids to school, buying groceries or changing the oil in the car. We can't even get one, and teach it to do one of those things, if it wasn't already built and programmed specifically to do so. Just like the paper ribbon, feeding information into some of the tech, in this video. We've gone from a room sized machine, that can learn to play checkers, to a larger than human sized machine, that can help you carry stuff around a worksite. (Not available to the public.) Or there's a garbage can sized machine, that can take orders and serve food. You still have to program everything, from the layout of the store, your menu and what you want it to say. Or similar machines in hospitals, that take stuff to patients or act as a communication device. Plus there's the machines, that can deliver food. Then there's the machines that can carry a full on conversation, but can't do anything physical. That took over 60 years, and all we've ended up with is expensive delivery systems, messengers, and some talking computers, all separate from each other. The things in our pockets are nothing but a few cameras, speakers, notebooks and calendars, or an "overly fancy calculator". It only does what you tell it to do, or what a programmer has installed on it. Go ahead play a game of checkers, against your phone, not an app controlled by another machine. Have a conversation with it, and get unprogrammed responses from it. Get it to help you carry anything, besides files. It's not human like at all, and it's not actually smart. We have animals, that are happy to do multiple tasks for us. I can train a dog more tasks, than any machine could dream of doing. Plus they are wonderful companions, and provide protection. They can even predict dangerous situations, are very self-aware, yet no threat to humankind. Alright, they might not be able to talk, but they communicate just aswell as a talking machine, if not better. All at way less of a cost. Going back to powerful machines. As if we need to fear robots, becoming self-aware anyway. Imagine how complex a robot would have to be, to be able to self assess it own damages and fix itself. Where would it source its parts from? Without humams programming and maintaining machines, machines are useless. They are less man like, and more tool like. Now that's realistic thinking for you.

What HAS changed is that compute power has got several orders of magnitude smaller and cheaper. In 1962 the idea of having separate processors for each function would have scared the accountants to death - but not now.

​@@alanmusicman3385 the accountants of just six years after 1962 when 'cut-and-paste' was invented - before man set foot on the Moon!

I can't do that Dave.

@@MatthewHarrold I'm through arguing with you, HAL, now open the door!

Alexa! Open the pod bay door…..Alexa!….ALEXA!!! LOL

ChatGPT calculated how to go back in time and created it.

@@mattsparling9843 in all fairness ChatGPT is just a language model that is very good at recognizing patterns and giving verbose answers but still it's very impressive and getting there as far as 'thinking machines like men' is concerned.

@@davedogge2280 I imagine chatgpt as a person who just google the answers incredibly efficient, if chatGPT made mistakes, its usually because the stuff its googling at has mistakes.

Its been a year no voice ans video​@@davedogge2280

Nothing, it would be useless

@@Markcain268 just the calculator function would blow their mind, or its ability to take video of things. That you could use.

You could get an iphone 14 pro for £64.32

What did 'the girls' do?

And? Who cares what morsel of useless information is floating around in her mind like a lonely fish turd in a pond?

I think programmer is a generous title for someone operating a calculator.

She went on to develop the Petticoat 5. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-z0fJNDOHYp4.html

Absolute Idiots?

For centuries, the word 'man' (and its plural) has had *_two_* meanings, one generic, one specific. The generic meaning is 'person', as used in 'mankind', 'manhole cover' and 'man the pumps', etc.; even women footballers shout "man on!" to warn of an approaching opponent. In Downton Abbey, when the Dowager Countess and Cousin Isobel laid down a challenge, they said: "May the best man win", even though they were both women. Unfortunately, some militant people came along one day and 'overlooked' the generic meaning and accused everyone of being sexist. There are indeed some sexist people (at whom their complaints should have been more precisely aimed), but that was never true across the board; to suggest otherwise is offensive in itself. The same is true of 'he' and 'him', long used for non-specific references to people (e.g. "He who laughs last, laughs least"), yet we are now saddled with the constant inconvenience of having to construct awkward sentences that use plural pronouns for singular unspecified people. 🤦‍♂

we are DEVO

@@4nna5 I was hoping for that!

​@@heraldeventsandfilms5970 could never ignore a spud reference c: