Wasn’t it an Asimov idea that you cannot prove that a person is not a robot, only that they are one?
This was because a perfect robot would emulate the flesh perfectly, such that there was no physical distinction between them and a real human. They would appear in every way to be human (even under microscope) and act in every way like a human would. They could actually be better people than humans could be.
They would be human in every way, except for the fact that they weren’t.
One of his short stories left you thinking the protagonist might be a robot, but you couldn’t really be sure.
Evidence, featuring Stephen Byerley, who later showed up in The Evitable Conflict. I don’t think it was ever revealed in canon whether Byerley was in fact a robot or not.
After Life by Simon Funk plays this, except not to the microscopic scale. In it are androids which are microscopically clearly not human, but who generally act more like a human than humans do.
Shortly, the standard for comments here is pretty high. (Well, not really, but compared to the rest of the internet, it is.) There’s no one rule for upvoting or downvoting, and a substantial number of people here will downvote anything they don’t see as contributing to the site. I would guess that’s why your comment was downvoted.
Try not to take downvotes personally. (By the same token, don’t take upvotes personally, either.)
In general, the rule you should try to follow (I certainly have trouble following it) is not to comment just to express your thoughts—use comments to communicate specific ideas which you think other people will want to read. Be cautious with humor—it has a high likelihood of being misinterpreted, and tastes in humor vary pretty wildly. (If you see the potential for an -awesome- joke, however, by all means go for it.)
To go into territory which will probably push my own comment into the negative territory (seriously, don’t worry too much about that), there are a few people here who are -really- annoyed by the influx of new users from HPMoR readers who aren’t accustomed to the community yet who seem intent on using downvoting to try to rectify the problem. There are a lot of unwritten rules here, and it will take some time to figure them out.
Before you write a comment, before you even respond to a comment directed at you, ask yourself if you have something that at least 20% of the people here will want to read—don’t write your comments to the person you’re responding to, write them to the site at large (this is something I learned a long time ago, and it serves me well when I keep it in mind). When you respond to somebody, most of the serious readers on LessWrong will see it—if it’s not a personal message, it’s not a personal communication. A lot of people here, including me, spend way more time than is healthy refreshing the comment stream.
You’re writing for an audience, not a conversation. It’s actually a very forgiving audience most of the time (again, just don’t take downvotes personally—I’ve seen comments from Eliezer downvoted to the negative twenties, and I don’t think anybody here actually dislikes him, although there seem to be a few who are lukewarm in his regard). Unless you’re outright offensive (which it becomes easy to do when you get defensive) or come across as aggressively anti-rational, you’ll probably get one or two points against you.
Wasn’t it an Asimov idea that you cannot prove that a person is not a robot, only that they are one?
This was because a perfect robot would emulate the flesh perfectly, such that there was no physical distinction between them and a real human. They would appear in every way to be human (even under microscope) and act in every way like a human would. They could actually be better people than humans could be.
They would be human in every way, except for the fact that they weren’t.
One of his short stories left you thinking the protagonist might be a robot, but you couldn’t really be sure.
Evidence, featuring Stephen Byerley, who later showed up in The Evitable Conflict. I don’t think it was ever revealed in canon whether Byerley was in fact a robot or not.
After Life by Simon Funk plays this, except not to the microscopic scale. In it are androids which are microscopically clearly not human, but who generally act more like a human than humans do.
Sounds like zombies to me. Does the robot know he’s a robot?
Not if you can read his mind.
Of course, Azimov robots are bound by the Three Laws, so presumably there would be a difference … I think.
Could someone please tell me why that comment was voted down?
I’m not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I just want to know.
Shortly, the standard for comments here is pretty high. (Well, not really, but compared to the rest of the internet, it is.) There’s no one rule for upvoting or downvoting, and a substantial number of people here will downvote anything they don’t see as contributing to the site. I would guess that’s why your comment was downvoted.
Try not to take downvotes personally. (By the same token, don’t take upvotes personally, either.)
In general, the rule you should try to follow (I certainly have trouble following it) is not to comment just to express your thoughts—use comments to communicate specific ideas which you think other people will want to read. Be cautious with humor—it has a high likelihood of being misinterpreted, and tastes in humor vary pretty wildly. (If you see the potential for an -awesome- joke, however, by all means go for it.)
To go into territory which will probably push my own comment into the negative territory (seriously, don’t worry too much about that), there are a few people here who are -really- annoyed by the influx of new users from HPMoR readers who aren’t accustomed to the community yet who seem intent on using downvoting to try to rectify the problem. There are a lot of unwritten rules here, and it will take some time to figure them out.
Before you write a comment, before you even respond to a comment directed at you, ask yourself if you have something that at least 20% of the people here will want to read—don’t write your comments to the person you’re responding to, write them to the site at large (this is something I learned a long time ago, and it serves me well when I keep it in mind). When you respond to somebody, most of the serious readers on LessWrong will see it—if it’s not a personal message, it’s not a personal communication. A lot of people here, including me, spend way more time than is healthy refreshing the comment stream.
You’re writing for an audience, not a conversation. It’s actually a very forgiving audience most of the time (again, just don’t take downvotes personally—I’ve seen comments from Eliezer downvoted to the negative twenties, and I don’t think anybody here actually dislikes him, although there seem to be a few who are lukewarm in his regard). Unless you’re outright offensive (which it becomes easy to do when you get defensive) or come across as aggressively anti-rational, you’ll probably get one or two points against you.