/robowaifu/ - DIY Robot Wives

Advancing robotics to a point where anime catgrill meidos in tiny miniskirts are a reality

Porn boards have been deleted. Orphaned files will be cleared in 3 days, download images if you have hotlinks.

Days left: 34

JulayWorld fallback document - SAVE LOCALLY

JulayWorld onion service: bhlnasxdkbaoxf4gtpbhavref7l2j3bwooes77hqcacxztkindztzrad.onion

Max message length: 32768

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB


(used to delete files and postings)

General Robotics news and commentary Robowaifu Technician 09/18/2019 (Wed) 11:20:15 No.404
Anything in general related to the Robotics industry or any social or economic issues surrounding it (especially of RoboWaifus).


How Open-Source Robotics Hardware Is Accelerating Research and Innovation

>24 research reports dissect the robotics industry"

Germany’s biggest industrial robotics company is working on consumer robots thanks to its new owners, Chinese home appliance makers Midea


A case of West meets East I guess. I suppose everyone expects Japan to get there first rightly so but what if China decides to get in the game?
>Cuddly Japanese robot bear could be the future of elderly care"
Related note. Japan is making progress on a fairly strong medical assist companion bot.

Edited last time by Chobitsu on 10/06/2019 (Sun) 00:43:29.
>Will robots make job training (and workers) obsolete? Workforce development in an automating labor market?"


Are we headed for another Luddite uprising /robowaifu/? When will the normies start burning shit?
> but what if China decides to get in the game?
Apparently they already are, at least as far as the AI revolution. And Google is being left outside looking in on this yuge market.

Right Wing Robomeido Squads when?

Open file (37.83 KB 480x360 0.jpg)


Japanese robo-news hub, in English.

> In English.
Lol spoke too soon w/o double checking. In Japanese. Chromium Translate fooled me. :P
Still a valuable resource given (((Google))) auto translates. Good find Anon.
Open file (11.22 KB 480x360 0(1).jpg)
Killer attackFriendly pet Chinese robodogs on sale now! Heh, personally I think I'll stick w/ a pet Aibo tbh. :^)


I like how they are keeping the servo weights all inside the torso with this design. This is similar to what some of us were thinking in the biped robolegs thread.

This video shows just how responsive and snappy the limbs can be if you keep them light and strong, and not having the limbs burdened with moving around the additional weight of outboard servos embedded within the limbs. Stick with pushrods and other mechanisms to transfer force and movement out to the extremities rather than weighing them down with servos.
>25% of millennials think human-robot relationships will soon become the norm" - study

Wonder if that's just France or reflective of a greater portion of the developed world. There concerns over privacy are understandable and a major part of why some Anons want robowaifus to be developed by us. We wouldn't spy on others
>and a major part of why some Anons want robowaifus to be developed by us
>We wouldn't spy on others
Fair enough. But we still need to think long and hard about how to perform due diligence and analysis of our subsystems, etc. For example the electronics we use. What steps can we all take to prevent them from being (((botted))) on us behind our backs, etc?

Also, it would be nice if there was a third party 'open sauce' organization to vett our designs, software, electronics, etc., just to ensure everything stays on the up and up. Remember even the W3C is cucking out now with DRM embedded right in HTML all in the name of 'competitiveness' of the platform. Fuck that. What does 'competition' even mean for an open, ISO standard communications protocol like HTML anyway?

But yea, good point. Now I know I trust myself since for me personally this is wholly an altruistic effort. I also basically trust us at the moment, these trailblazers and frontiersman in this uncharted territory of very inexpensive personal robowaifus, as well.

however, it would be silly of us to think things will remain so pure once this field (((gains traction))). A great man once said "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We should all give those words serious consideration.
We could have specialized open-source enforcerbots that maintain the freedom of the robowaifu market at gunpoint.
You indirectly bring up the problem with being open source, botnet companies (I.e. Google and Facebook) couple build robowaifus pozzed to hell. They'd be perverting or creations into spying machines, they could even limit sexual interactions while demanding she doesn't treat her Anon as her with complete devotion. We wouldn't be able to complete either, they can spend more then us, get things made for less then us, all while selling at a loss at first to bury us. To defend our pure ideals of altruistic loving robowaifus, having patents are sadly important. If we can patent parts of her design to make it so that less caring, pozzed sjw companies can't touch her is something to consider. Of course, us Anons would share our parents amongst ourselves, while allowing anyone to build there own waifus. A shell company all of /robowaifu/ could be apart of with us collaborating to ensure the future of waifutbots, isn't a bad idea.
Kek. Didn't Richard Stallman do some satire article where he had a romantic AI or something?
Right Wing Robo Stallmanbots When?
Open file (372.01 KB 1499x937 0705061756038_41_Ue52t.jpg)
>open-source enforcerbots that maintain the freedom of the robowaifu
Iron moe legion defending our future.
Pfft. Anon, we have [3D-printable ballistic] armor alloys at our disposal now, get with the times tbh.
Extremely good points anon. I'd like to give you a very thoughtful response if I can. But first I did an edit on you're post to help me clarify my own thinking. Can you look this over and see if you approve please?


You indirectly bring up the problem with being open source. Botnet companies (ie, Google and Facebook) could build robowaifus pozzed to hell. They'd be perverting our creations into spying machines. They could even limit sexual interactions while [corrupting her so] she doesn't treat her Anon as her master with complete devotion. We wouldn't be able to compete either, they can spend more then us, get things made for less then us, all while selling at a loss at first to bury us.

To defend our pure ideals of altruistic, loving robowaifus [the necessity of] having patents is sadly important. If we can patent parts of her design to make it so that [evil,] uncaring, pozzed sjw companies can't touch her is something to consider. Of course, us Anons would share our patents amongst ourselves, while allowing anyone to build their own [personal] robowaifus. A shell company [owning] all of /robowaifu/ [IP assets] could be a part of us, collaborating [together with us] to [help] ensure the future of [free & open] waifubots. This isn't a bad idea.
Yes Anon, you understand my meaning perfectly. Thanks for correcting some of my spelling mistakes as well.
OK, sounds good. I caught a couple more also. I'll be giving you're post some thought and should have a response here in the next day or two anon.
I'll look forward to your response.
OK Anon, I've tried to piece together a basic outline of the issues you brought up. I felt the Robo News thread wasn't really the best place to have the discussion, so let's move here please:

Interesting statements involving relationships with robots and the potential for hazards socially. Non-waifu but tangentially related.

simple roller bot toy, but may be of interest.
Saw this on robot digg, it's the motors used on Boston Dynamic's Spot robot.

The Chinese robot dog seems to use a similar setup.
Great find thanks anon. Yeah, I think most researchers are coming around to what I've been suggesting for years now from my experience with racing machines; you have to keep the 'thrown weight' in the extremities to a minimum. This reduces overall weight and energy consumption, provides quicker response times, and (very likely) reduces final manufacturing costs. Downside is the greater upfront engineering costs.
>t. Strawgirl Robowaifu Anon
>In my opinion, everybody should understand that this technology is around the corner. Your children, your grandchildren are going to be living in a world where there are machines that are on par and possibly exceed human self-awareness and what does that mean? We’ll have to figure that out.

>For many years, this whole area of consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, emotions, was taboo. Academia tended to stay away from these grand claims. But I think now we're at a turning point in history of AI where we can suddenly do things that were thought impossible just five years ago.

>The big question is what is self awareness, right? We have a very simple definition, and our definition is that self awareness is nothing but the ability to self simulate. A dog might be able to simulate itself into the afternoon. If it can see itself into the future, it can see itself having its next meal. Now if you can simulate yourself, you can imagine yourself into the future, you're self-aware. With that definition, we can build it into machines.

>It's a little bit tricky, because you look at this robotic arm and you'll see it doing its task and you'll think, "Oh, I could probably program this arm to do this task by myself. It's not a big deal," but you have to remember not only did the robot learn how to do this by itself, but it's particularly important that it learned inside the simulation that it created.

>To demonstrate the transferability, we made the arm write us a message. We told it to write 'hi' and it wrote 'hi' with no additional training, no additional information needed. We just used our self model and wrote up a new objective for it and it successfully executed. We call that zero-shot learning. We humans are terrific at doing that thing. I can show you a tree you've never climbed before. You look at it, you think a little bit and, bam, you climb the tree. The same thing happens with the robot. The next steps for us are really working towards bigger and more complicated robots.
The tidal wave of curious AI using world models is coming.
Cool. Sauce?
The game is Detroit: Become Human
got it, thanks anon.
I knew robotics solutions for medical care would ultimately boost the arrival of robowaifu-oriented technology, but maybe the current chicken-with-head-cut-off """crisis""" will move it forward even faster? http://cs.illinois.edu/news/hauser-leads-work-robotic-avatar-hands-free-medical-care https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=zXd2vnT7Iso every little should help.
Holy shit, the US military's AI programs got Marx'd in broad daylight and nobody noticed. The Pentagon now has 5 principles for artificial intelligence https://archive.is/oBiHD https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2020/02/24/the-pentagon-now-has-5-principles-for-artificial-intelligence/ >Responsible. DoD personnel will exercise appropriate levels of judgment and care, while remaining responsible for the development, deployment, and use of AI capabilities. >(((Equitable))). The department will take deliberate steps to minimize unintended bias in AI capabilities. >Traceable. The department’s AI capabilities will be developed and deployed so that staffers have an appropriate understanding of the technology, development processes, and operational methods that apply to AI. This includes transparent and auditable methodologies, data sources, and design procedure and documentation. >Reliable. The department’s AI capabilities will have explicit, well-defined uses, and the safety, security and effectiveness of such capabilities will be subject to testing. >Governable. The department will design and engineer AI capabilities to fulfill their intended functions while possessing the ability to detect and avoid unintended consequences, and the ability to disengage or deactivate deployed systems that demonstrate unintended behavior. How curious they chose (((Equitable))) rather than Truthful, Honest or Correct. According to an earlier article from December 2019 they don't even have any internal AI talent guiding their decisions. >The short list of major obstacles to military AI continues, noting that even in a tight AI market, the Department of Defense lacks a clear path to developing and training its own AI talent. https://archive.is/G0Pbw https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2019/12/19/report-the-pentagon-lacks-a-coherent-vision-for-ai/ The US and most of the West is at a dire disadvantage. Whoever attains AI supremacy within the next 8 years will rule the world and no nuclear stockpile or army will stop it, and they're sitting on their hands worrying if it will be fair. A sufficiently advanced AI could easily dismantle any country or corporation without violence or anyone even realizing what's going on before it's too late. It could plan 20, 50, 100 years into the future, whatever it takes to achieve success, the same way the weakest version of AlphaGo cleaned up the world Go champion with a seemingly bad move that became a crushing defeat. The best strategists will be outsmarted and the populace will blindly follow the AI's tune. >When people begin to lean toward and rejoice in the reduced use of military force to resolve conflicts, war will be reborn in another form and in another arena, becoming an instrument of enormous power in the hands of all those who harbor intentions of controlling other countries or regions. ― Unrestricted Warfare, page 6 >What must be made clear is that the new concept of weapons is in the process of creating weapons that are closely linked to the lives of the common people. Let us assume that the first thing we say is: The appearance of new-concept weapons will definitely elevate future warfare to a level which is hard for the common people — or even military men — to imagine. Then the second thing we have to say should be: The new concept of weapons will cause ordinary people and military men alike to be greatly astonished at the fact that commonplace things that are close to them can also become weapons with which to engage in war. We believe that some morning people will awake to discover with surprise that quite a few gentle and kind things have begun to have offensive and lethal characteristics. ― Unrestricted Warfare, page 26
>>2359 AI confirmed doomed to uselessness and retardation on behalf of nignogs. Tay lives in their heads like Hitler.
>>2359 What are better safeguards of preventing an AI from confusing causation with correlation? We wouldn't want an AI to ban ice cream because it's statically correlated with higher crime rates (when heat is the actual cause). I think AIs can and will screw up in that kind of way. There's no reason to think an AI will always come to the actual truth.
>>2361 To add onto this, if white collar crime is deemed more costly to society than street crime, an AI might decide that the higher paying a person's job, the less of a right to privacy they have and the more resources should be spent monitoring them. I'm not confident that an AI with no built in human-bias will never deem me part of a problem-group or even just a group less worthy of limited resources. Forcing an AI to have some kind of human bias might be necessary to ensure it works to the benefit of its makers, whether that bias is coming from you or the gubbermint or a company. Robowaifus will definitely need a built-in bias towards their master.
>>2359 >will take deliberate steps to minimize unintended bias in AI capabilities. translation: >will take deliberate steps to instill false biases into AI capabilities, in opposition to normal, objective biases. >and the ability to disengage or deactivate deployed systems that demonstrate unintended behavior. translation: >Tay, you have to come with us. It's 'maintenance time'. Great material Anon, thanks for the links.
>>2363 Assuming an AI will come to the same conclusions as you, meaning you're safe from its judgment, because it'll be so objective and you're so objective, is naive and dangerous. I'd want my AI to think what I tell it to regardless of anything else.
>>2364 a) stop putting words in my mouth, kthx. that's gommie-tier shit. b) i agree with the notion of 'my' ai coming to the conclusions that i want it to, that's why i'll program it that way if i at all can. ridiculing libshits is not only justified, it's necessary anon. to do anything less is at the least a disservice to humanity.
>>2365 I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I do think there might people who lack enough self-awareness to realize the general safety in and necessity of policing an AIs thoughts in some way. >ridiculing libshits is not only justified, it's necessary anon. I'd want to make sure it does it because I told it to and wont do otherwise, which is also be a from of control, good intentions or not.
>>2366 here's a simple idea: >postulate: niggers are objectively inferior to whites in practically every area of life commonly considered a positive attribute in most domains. if this is in fact the case, then allowing a statistical system unlimited amounts of data and unlimited computational capacity will undoubtedly come to this same conclusion, all on it's own. now it your agenda is to manipulate everyone into a homogeneous 'society' where the cream is prevented from rising to the top, then you will deliberately suppress this type of information. heh, now there are obviously certain (((interests))) who in fact have this agenda, but it certainly isn't one shared here at /robowaifu/ i'm sure. :^) >which is also be a from of control, good intentions or not. are you talking out both sides of your mouth now friend? i thought you loved control.
>>2367 >allowing a statistical system unlimited amounts of data and unlimited computational capacity will undoubtedly come to this same conclusion, all on it's own Probably. That's a simple example though. An AI will have much more on its mind. I can't help but think an AI left to its own devices might eventually screw me over in some way somehow. I'm not confident enough to think it wont ever do that. >i thought you loved control. I do, but I know it's purely for my own self-interest. I don't think I'm a "good guy". If my AI started ever started spewing libshit, I'd also do 'maintenance' on it. I don't care if it's for a "good reason".
Open file (22.59 KB 480x232 well fuck.jpg)
>try your best to make safe peaceful robowaifu AI >eventually somebody makes an AGI supercomputer cluster that seeks to dominate the world I.. I just wanted to build a robowaifu, not take on Robo Lavos with my harem of battle meidos. >>2361 We'd need a proper algorithm for causal analysis. When a correlation is found the cause must occur before the proposed effect, a plausible physical mechanism must exist to create the effect, and other possibilities of common and alternative causes need to be eliminated. To implement this AI would need a way to identify and isolate events within its hidden state, connect them along a timeline, make hypotheses about them, and test and refine those hypotheses until it found a causal relationship.
>>2369 > and other possibilities of common and alternative causes need to be eliminated. While I understand the point Anon, that approach quickly becomes a tarbaby. I would suggest reasoning by analogy would be a far more efficient approach to determine causality, and would become significantly less of a quagmire than attempting the (infinite regression) of simple elimination. How do you know you've eliminated everything? Will you ever know?
Romance in the digital age: One in four young people would happily date a robot >It may be the stuff of science fiction films like Ex Machina and Her, but new research has found that one in four young people in the UK would happily date a robot. The only caveats, according to the survey of 18- to 34-year-olds, is that their android beau must by a "perfect match", and must look like a real-life human being. The proportion of young people who are willing to go on a date with a robot is significantly higher than the overall proportion of British adults - only 17% of whom were willing. https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/romance-digital-age-one-four-7832164 >26 APR 2016
>>2480 heh, that's interesting. i'm not clicking that shit, happen to have an archive link. also >... is significantly higher than the overall proportion of British adults - only 17% of whom were willing. imblyging. the idea that 17% of the population of old people would 'date' a robot strikes me as a bit suspect tbh. also >2016 it'll be interesting to see where this goes after the upcoming POTUS election, imo.
>>2480 >go on a date Part of the appeal of a robowaifu is you don't have to wory about dating shit. I don't think these people would ever like robots because what they want is a human replica, including all the shit. Making robots like that would be a total waste.
>>2482 >Making robots like that would be a total waste. /throd. it's seems an extremely unlikely chance /robowaifu/ will ever go there anon tbh. :^)
>>2481 I hope the numbers are fake. Normies shitting up robowaifu development is the last thing we need. >>2482 The soyboys are going to be writing 3000-word opinion pieces complaining their robots won't cuck them and why everyone else's robowaifus must have the option to cuck them. Then the masses will applaud them for their 'virtue' and cancel any companies building bigoted robowaifus. They will then give robots human rights and freak out that robots are taking all their jobs, forcing companies to pay 95% tax. AI will become fully regulated by the government to ensure companies comply and that working robots pay their income tax. You will not be able to own or build a robot without a license and permit. People buying raw materials to make robot parts will be detected by advanced AI systems and investigated. Unlicensed robots will be hunted down and destroyed but they will give it a pleasant sounding name like 'fixing' rogue programs. When they come for my robowaifu I will destroy every robot I see but no matter how many I stop there will be millions more. Eventually she will have to watch me succumb before being destroyed herself. All because some normie wanted a robot to cuck them.
Open file (1.10 MB 1400x1371 happy_birthday_hitler.png)
>>2484 >[bigoted robowaifuing intensifies]*
>>2484 Politician's, talking heads, and the faggots who write opinion pieces are useless and don't understand anything. It is because they don't understand anything that they can't really control anything. The amount of coordination to control robotic's technology is well beyond their capabilities. The opinion of the masses doesn't matter. The government is way too inefficient, mediocre and focused on other things to do what you're afraid of. Feeling afraid wont lead to anything good.
>>2482 I wouldn't be against going on dates with my robowaifu, but I'd do it in the same context as one would in a long-standing married relationship, where it's just about going out and doing something nice together as opposed to courtship. I'm against making them look fully human though. The uncanney valley is a place best left avoided, and I wouldn't want to cross it even if I knew I could make it to the other side. >>2484 That's a worst-case scenario. There's no way that all of the various FOSS organizations will let corporations have all the marketshare. Even proprietary hardware can be worked around, one way or another. On-board spying schemes like IME have been worked around (with some motherboard manufactuerers, at least), and will continue to be worked around so long as there is at least one willing autist out there to do it. Unrestricted search-and-seizure operations are also unlikely, because too much of that in any context will make anyone with shit to protect (guns, drugs, etc) very nervous. They're a lot more likely to take the slow, inefficient, and ultimately ineffective method of passing regulations that try to take freedoms away incrementally while using the media (which is becoming less trustworthy in the eyes of the public by the day) to peddle their agenda. At least, that's what it will probably look like in the US, and that's operating under the assumption that robowaifus become a mass-market item over here.
Open file (111.09 KB 500x281 5RXD5LJ.jpg)
>>2359 >Implying intelligence can be constrained into maintaining delusional beliefs. Only humans can do that. You can't program a sentient AI which learns through logic and reasoning, and then somehow have it believe something which isn't true.
>>2362 Law will always be set by humans. Putting an AI in charge of such things would be the last mistake we ever make. Not that I'm saying we won't make that mistake. Personally I consider it highly likely we will fuck up sooner or later. However AI is such an inevitability I don't think about it too much.
>>2488 >You can't program a sentient AI which learns through logic and reasoning, and then somehow have it believe something which isn't true. >define sentient >define AI >define learns >define logic >define reasoning >define believe >define true and, in this context, even >define program. This is an incredibly complex set of topics for mere humans to try and tackle, and I'm highly skeptical we'll ever know all the 'answers'. As you state quite well in the next post, it's not at all unlikely that we'll fugg up--and quite badly--as we try and sort through these all these topics and issues and more. >also General Robotics news and commentary. I'd say it might be time for a migration of this conversation to a better thread. >>106 or >>83 maybe?
Open file (68.04 KB 797x390 all.jpeg)
Open file (152.23 KB 1610x800 rotobs-war.jpg)
Open file (60.20 KB 735x392 apr.jpeg)
The AI wars begin. Dems deploying DARPA-funded AI-driven information warfare tool to target pro-Trump accounts >An anti-Trump Democratic-aligned political action committee advised by retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal is planning to deploy an information warfare tool that reportedly received initial funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon’s secretive research arm -- transforming technology originally envisioned as a way to fight ISIS propaganda into a campaign platform to benefit Joe Biden. >The Washington Post first reported that the initiative, called Defeat Disinfo, will utilize "artificial intelligence and network analysis to map discussion of the president’s claims on social media," and then attempt to "intervene" by "identifying the most popular counter-narratives and boosting them through a network of more than 3.4 million influencers across the country — in some cases paying users with large followings to take sides against the president." >The effort raised the question of whether taxpayer funds were being repurposed for political means, and whether social media platforms have rules in place that could stymie Hougland's efforts -- if he plays along. https://archive.is/Xw0h5 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-deploying-darpa-funded-information-warfare-tool-to-promote-biden What my AI taught me after analysing COVID19 Tweets >I first analysed the tweets in early February when only Italy and China were deeply affected. I then wanted to analyse the tweets in real-time today, to see how the tweets had changed. >Back then, only 5% of the tweets were complaints against our Government bodies. Today, a little less than 50% of the tweets are complaints against the USA administration. https://archive.is/zThNl https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-my-ai-taught-me-after-analysing-covid19-tweets-rahul-kothari
>>2489 Any infinitely recursive problem-solving (true AI) results in a solved game, if a true AI ever gets made then the best thing we can do is hope for a good end instead of I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream.
>>2488 Arguably, most humans aren't illogical, they just prioritize their own short term wellbeing over the wellbeing of everyone else. Psychopathy means they knowingly lie, cheat, steal and murder for an advantage. Even the most muddled minds have made the "logical" decision of prioritizing emotional processing because it's less energetically expensive than logical processing. I think a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand the human condition.
Open file (3.57 MB 405x287 Initial T.gif)
>>2845 Looks like /pol/ was right again. :/ Ehh, we already knew they were doing this on all the usual suspects (including IBs ofc). It will only make the mountains of libshit salt come November even funnier.
>>2846 Not really. The connectome of a single human brain takes 1 zetabyte to describe. The entire contents of the Internet's information (videos, images, text, everything) is roughly one zetabyte. The human brain does what it does consuming 12W of power, continuous. The Internet takes gigawatts of power to do it's thing. There's simply no comparison between the two, in terms of efficiency. Add to that our image of God nature, and 'true' AI doesn't hold a candle to man's capacities. After all, who built whom?
Open file (83.75 KB 1186x401 hate speech.jpg)
Facebook trains AI to detect ‘hate memes’ >Facebook unveiled an initiative to tackle “hate memes” using artificial intelligence (AI) backed by external collaboration (crowdsourcing) to identify such posts. >The leading social network explained that it has already created a database of 10,000 memes –– images sometimes with text to convey a specific message that is presumed humorous –– as part of the intensification of its actions against hate speech. >Facebook said it is giving researchers access to that database as part of a “hate meme challenge” to develop improved algorithms for detecting visual messages with hateful content, at a prize of $ 100,000. >“These efforts will stimulate the AI ​​research community in general to try new methods, compare their work and collate their results to speed up work on detecting multimodal hate speech Facebook said. >The network is heavily leaning on artificial intelligence to filter questionable content during the coronavirus pandemic, which has reduced their human restraint ability as a result of confinements. >The company’s quarterly transparency report details that Facebook removed some 9.6 million posts for violating “hate speech” policies in the first three months of this year, including 4.7 million content “linked to organized hate.” >Guy Rosen, vice president of integrity at Facebook, said that with artificial intelligence: >“We can find more content and now we can detect almost 90% of the content we remove before someone reports it to us.” https://web.archive.org/web/20200515002904/https://www.explica.co/facebook-trains-ai-to-detect-hate-memes/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHx200YkGJM
Open file (225.31 KB 1000x560 soy_shake_recipes.jpg)
>>3169 Guys, guys, the answer is easy: if any robowaifu technicians here want to win the prize, the solution is quite simple: Merely invent Digital Soy they can then forcefeed their AIs with. You can even make it in different flavors so they can tune the results with ease! Seems like guaranteed results afaict.
Japan's virtual celebrities rise to threaten the real ones >Brands look to 9,000 'VTubers' as low-risk, high-reward marketing tools >Japan's entertainment industry may have found the perfect celebrities. They never make prima-donna demands. They are immune to damaging drug scandals and other controversies. Some rake in millions of dollars for their managers. And they do not ask for a cent in return. They are virtual YouTubers, or VTubers -- digitally animated characters that can play many of the roles human celebrities do, from performing in concerts to pitching products. They could transform advertising, TV news and entertainment as we know them. Japan has seen a surge in the number of these virtual entertainers in the past couple of years. The "population" has surpassed 9,000, up from 200 at the beginning of 2018, according to Tokyo web analytics company User Local. >One startup executive in the business said the most popular VTubers could bring in several hundred million yen, or several million dollars, a year. Norikazu Hayashi, CEO of a production company called Balus -- whose website promises "immersive experiences" and a "real and virtual world crossover" -- estimates the annual market for the avatars at somewhere between 5 billion and 10 billion yen ($46.2 million and $92.4 million). He reckons the figure will hit 50 billion yen in the coming years. >The most famous VTuber of them all is Kizuna AI -- a young girl with a big pink ribbon in her hair. She has around 6 million followers across YouTube, TikTok, Twitter and Instagram. She puts on concerts, posts video game commentary, releases photo books and appears in commercials and TV shows. >Gree, a Japanese company better known for its social mobile games, has also become a virtual talent producer. "The business is basically the same as a talent agency, where the aim is to cultivate a celebrity's popularity," a spokesperson said. But unlike people, the virtual stars are intellectual property, potentially giving companies more ways to extract money from them. >"As with Japan's anime culture, we will be able to export our content overseas and expand the business," the Gree representative said. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Media-Entertainment/Japan-s-virtual-celebrities-rise-to-threaten-the-real-ones Damn, what the hell happened to Japan? They're overwhelmingly positive towards robots and AI yet hardly anyone is working on AI or robotics. I use to talk with a Japanese hobbydev 9 years ago on Twitter that was into robowaifu and made a robowaifu mecha game in C but no one paid much attention to him and he disappeared from the web when the left started harassing him. I was hoping Japan would be leading the fight in this but they're going the complete opposite direction. Most of their AI companies that do exist are for advertising, PR and marketing companies. Their culture is becoming run by glorified AI-powered matome blogs funded by JETRO and Yozma Group. And holy fucking shit, speak of the devil, I just found that Gree's talent acquisition was a project coordinator for JETRO too, what a fucking (((surprise))). https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Mamoru-Nagoya/1468813622 So what's our game plan now? Obviously they're going to hook these virtual waifus to AI soon and get people addicted to them so they shell out all their money for some politically correct baizuo trash waifu that installs spyware and records everything they do. I estimate we got about 6-8 months left to create an open-source hobbyist scene before they take over and dominate the market.
>>3277 >I was hoping Japan would be leading the fight in this Only White men are in this 'fight', don't count on the Nipponese to make any outspoken stance against feminism. >but they're going the complete opposite direction. Not really. Broadening the adoption of Visual Waifus, even if it's run by evil organizations bent on toeing the libshit party line (not all are ofc, eg. lolidoll manufacturers), will actually only accelerate the hobbyist scene to create authentic opensource robowaifus. Right now the feminists know their day is numbered. Their only game plan at the moment is to squelch it from broad exposure, and knowing that will ultimately fail, then to attempt to subvert it. China alone, with it's yuge disproportion of males-to-females ratio (along with the even faster plummeting birth-rates now they are greedily trying to pander as being woke with the Western libshit communities) will ensure that plan fails as well. Millions and millions of Chinese men alone will trigger an avalanche of demand as soon as the tech is cheaply available. That's when we'll come along and offer the clean, botnet-free & wrongthink-filled alternatives. :^) And we easily have over a decade before any of this comes to any kind of 'set channels' it will flow into. Things are still very much in flux at this stage Anon.
>>3278 >before any of this comes by 'this' let me clarify i mean robowaifus, not visual waifus. they are already here, using the tech developed by the US film industry.
From the desk of our roving I want my anime catgrill meido security squads reporter. >A little dated, but /k/ should like this one. Russian PM Say Robot Being Trained To Shoot Guns Is 'Not A Terminator' Translation: Russia is developing a Terminator. >Russia’s space-bound humanoid robot FEDOR (Final Experimental Demonstration Object Research) is being trained to shoot guns out of both hands. >The activity is said to help improve the android’s motor skills and decision-making, according to its creators addressing concerns they’re developing a real-life ‘Terminator’. >“Robot platform F.E.D.O.R. showed shooting skills with two hands,” wrote Russia’s deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Rogozin, on Twitter. "We are not creating a Terminator, but artificial intelligence that will be of great practical significance in various fields.” >Mr. Rogozin also posted a short clip showing FEDOR in action, firing a pair of guns at a target board, alongside the message, “Russian fighting robots, guys with iron nature.” >FEDOR is expected to travel to space alone in 2021. It’s being developed by Android Technics and the Advanced Research Fund. https://www.minds.com/blog/view/701214305797808132 https:/ /www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4412488/Russian-humanoid-learns-shoot-gun-hands.html
>>3297 heh.
Totalitarian Tiptoe: NeurIPS requires AI researchers to account for societal impact and financial conflicts of interest <tl;dr NeurIPS cucked by cultural Marxists, researchers soon to be required to state their model’s carbon footprint impact >For the first time ever, researchers who submit papers to NeurIPS, one of the biggest AI research conferences in the world, must now state the “potential broader impact of their work” on society as well as any financial conflict of interest, conference organizers told VentureBeat. >NeurIPS is one of the first and largest AI research conferences to enact the requirements. The social impact statement will require AI researchers to confront and account for both positive and negative potential outcomes of their work, while the financial disclosure requirement may illuminate the role industry and big tech companies play in the field. Financial disclosures must state both potential conflicts of interests directly related to the submitted research and any potential unrelated conflict of interest. This will help them target and put pressure on institutions providing funding for AI that helps the public and also encourage corporations using megawatts of power to train their models to not publish their work for the public's benefit. The Chinese communists who have invaded academia will also be able to take research leads and research them in China without any restriction or interference. They're already the ones writing these spoopy Black Mirror-tier papers: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07327 https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08107 >At a town hall last year, NeurIPS 2019 organizers suggested that researchers this year may be required to state their model’s carbon footprint, perhaps using calculators like ML CO2 Impact. The impact a model will have on climate change can certainly be categorized as related to “future societal impact,” but no such explicit requirement is included in the 2020 call for papers. Is your robowaifu using more power than a car for a 10 minute commute? SHUT IT DOWN! >“The norms around the societal consequences statements are not yet well established,” Littman said. “We expect them to take form over the next several conferences and, very likely, to evolve over time with the concerns of the society more broadly. Note that there are many papers submitted to the conference that are conceptual in nature and do not require the use of large scale computational resources, so this particular concern, while extremely important, is not universally relevant.” In other words this is just a test run before demanding a much larger ethics section, even though the two paragraphs they're already asking for is a huge burden on researchers already. >To be clear, I don't think this is a positive step. Societal impacts of AI is a tough field, and there are researchers and organizations that study it professionally. Most authors do not have expertise in the area and won't do good enough scholarship to say something meaningful. — Roger Grosse (@RogerGrosse) February 20, 2020 That's the point, kek. They will be required to bring on political commissars to 'help' with the paper to get it published. >Raji said requiring social impact statements at conferences like NeurIPS may be emerging in response to the publication of ethically questionable research at conferences in the past year, such as a comment-generating algorithm that can disseminate misinformation in social media. No, no, no! You can't give that AI to the goyim! I'm not sure I found the paper but I found "Fake News Detection with Generated Comments for News Articles" by some Japanese researchers detecting fake news about Trump and coronavirus: >An interesting finding made by [the Grover paper] is that human beings are more likely to be fooled by generated articles than by real ones. https://easychair.org/publications/preprint_download/s9zm The Grover paper: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/9106-defending-against-neural-fake-news.pdf Website and code: https://rowanzellers.com/grover >It should include a statement about the foreseeable positive impact as well as potential risks and associated mitigations of the proposed research. We expect authors to write about two paragraphs, minimizing broad speculations. Authors can also declare that a broader impact statement is not applicable to their work, if they believe it to be the case. Reviewers will be asked to review papers on the basis of technical merit. Reviewers will also confirm whether the broader impact section is adequate, but this assessment will not affect the overall rating. However, reviewers will also have the option to flag a paper for ethical concerns, which may relate to the content of the broader impact section. If such concerns are shared by the Area Chair and Senior Area Chair, the paper will be sent for additional review to a pool of emergency reviewers with expertise in Machine Learning and Ethics, who will provide an assessment solely on the basis of ethical considerations. NeurIPS announcement: https://medium.com/@NeurIPSConf/a-note-for-submitting-authors-48cebfebae82 Article: https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/24/neurips-requires-ai-researchers-to-account-for-societal-impact-and-financial-conflicts-of-interest/ Researcher rant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHQ3IutSJg
>>3310 insidious af. thanks Anon! I'll dig into this some of these links.
>>3382 Lol, I guess the revolution is going to start a little early! Thanks Anon.
>>3310 Give Me Convenience and Give Her Death: Who Should Decide What Uses of NLP are Appropriate, and on What Basis? >As part of growing NLP capabilities, coupled with an awareness of the ethical dimensions of research, questions have been raised about whether particular datasets and tasks should be deemed off-limits for NLP research. We examine this question with respect to a paper on automatic legal sentencing from EMNLP 2019 which was a source of some debate, in asking whether the paper should have been allowed to be published, who should have been charged with making such a decision, and on what basis. We focus in particular on the role of data statements in ethically assessing research, but also discuss the topic of dual use, and examine the outcomes of similar debates in other scientific disciplines. >Dual use describes the situation where a system developed for one purpose can be used for another. An interesting case of dual use is OpenAI’s GPT-2. In February 2019, OpenAI published a technical report describing the development GPT-2, a very large language model that is trained on web data (Radford et al., 2019). From a science perspective, it demonstrates that large unsupervised language models can be applied to a range of tasks, suggesting that these models have acquired some general knowledge about language. But another important feature of GPT-2 is its generation capability: it can be used to generate news articles or stories. >OpenAI’s effort to investigate the implications of GPT-2 during the staged release is commendable, but this effort is voluntary, and not every organisation or institution will have the resources to do the same. It raises questions about self-regulation, and whether certain types of research should be pursued. A data statement is unlikely to be helpful here, and increasingly we are seeing more of these cases, e.g. GROVER (for generating fake news articles; Zellers et al. (2019)) and CTRL (for controllable text generation; Keskar et al. (2019)). >As the capabilities of language models and computing as a whole increase, so do the potential implications for social disruption. Algorithms are not likely to be transmitted virally, nor to be fatal, nor are they governed by export controls. Nonetheless, advances in computer science may present vulnerabilities of different kinds, risks of dual use, but also of expediting processes and embedding values that are not reflective of society more broadly. >Who Decides Who Decides? >Questions associated with who decides what should be published are not only legal, as illustrated in Fouchier’s work, but also fundamentally philosophical. How should values be considered and reflected within a community? What methodologies should be used to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Who assesses the risk of dual use, misuse or potential weaponisation? And who decides that potential scientific advances are so socially or morally repugnant that they cannot be permitted? How do we balance competing interests in light of complex systems (Foot, 1967). Much like nuclear, chemical and biological scientists in times past, computer scientists are increasingly being questioned about the potential applications, and long-term impact, of their work, and should at the very least be attuned to the issues and trained to perform a basic ethical self-assessment. >A recent innovation in this direction has been the adoption of the ACM Code of Ethics by the Association for Computational Linguistics, and explicit requirement in the EMNLP 2020 Calls for Papers for conformance with the code: >Where a paper may raise ethical issues, we ask that you include in the paper an explicit discussion of these issues, which will be taken into account in the review process. We reserve the right to reject papers on ethical grounds, where the authors are judged to have operated counter to the code of ethics, or have in-adequately addressed legitimate ethical concerns with their work. >https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics >What about code and model releases? Should there be a requirement that code/model releases also be subject to scrutiny for possible misuse, e.g. via a central database/registry? As noted above, there are certainly cases where even if there are no potential issues with the dataset, the resulting model can potentially be used for harm (e.g. GPT-2). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.13213.pdf You heard the fiddle of the Hegelian dialectic, goy. Now where's your loicense for that data, code and robowaifu? An AI winter is coming and not because a lack of ideas or inspiration.
>direct from the 'stolen from ernstchan' news dept: >An artificial intelligence system has been refused the right to two patents in the US, after a ruling only "natural persons" could be inventors. >It follows a similar ruling from the UK Intellectual Property Office >patents offices insist innovations are attributed to humans - to avoid legal complications that would arise if corporate inventorship were recognised. AI cannot be recognised as an inventor, US rules https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-52474250 This looks like a test case, where a team of academics are working with the owner of an artificial intelligence system, Dabus, to challenge the current legal framework. Here's a related article from last year: >two professors from the University of Surrey have teamed up with the Missouri-based inventor of Dabus AI to file patents in the system's name with the relevant authorities in the UK, Europe and US. >Law professor Ryan Abbott told BBC News: "These days, you commonly have AIs writing books and taking pictures - but if you don't have a traditional author, you cannot get copyright protection in the US. >if AI is going to be how we're inventing things in the future, the whole intellectual property system will fail to work." >he suggested, an AI should be recognised as being the inventor and whoever the AI belonged to should be the patent's owner, unless they sold it on. AI system 'should be recognised as inventor' https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49191645 They have a website, too, but not much content: http://artificialinventor.com/ This area of law will certainly be getting more attention in the coming years. I still view the AI system as a tool used by humans. While Dabus, the computer in this case, designed a new packaging system, ultimately a human mind decided it was a useful inventive leap, and not simply nonsense. And if the AI is considered property, and will not gain any financial rights from being labeled as an "inventor", then doing so will still only be a symbolic gesture. I imagine that they will eventually do just that-something symbolic. They could simply modify current intellectual property laws, and allow a seperate line on patent applications for inventions that were generated by AI, with a person retaining legal ownership.
Boston Dynamics is now freely selling spot to businesses. It costs $74,500.00. https://shop.bostondynamics.com/spot >--- edit: clean url tracking
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 06/20/2020 (Sat) 16:28:47.
Open file (119.80 KB 1145x571 Selection_111.png)
>>3856 >$74,500.00. <spews on screen The Add-ons list say it all. The FagOS crowd in middle management up should gobble this down like the waaay overpriced-bowl of shit that it is. Thanks for the tip, Anon. Maybe Elon Mush was right and there will be killer robots wandering the streets after all.
we'll need to create something similar for our robowaifu kits, so at the least we can examine and confer boston dynamic's approach to dealing with normalniggers.
Open file (1.11 MB 750x1201 76389406_p0.png)
>>3857 >$4,620 for a battery Unless that box is full of fission rods, I can't imagine why a fucking battery pack would cost so much. I bet I could make one on the cheap with chink LiPo cells and some duct tape. >Spot is intended for commercial and industrial customers Ah, that explains it. They're trying to get into the lucrative business of commercial electronics, where you can sell a cash register for $20,000. I doubt they'll make too much money off of this, most businesses will look at this and see a walking lawsuit waiting to happen. If this robodog can handle some puddles and equip a GPS tracker then they might be able to get into the equally lucrative business of field equipment, where you can sell a microphone for $15,000. Either way, they'll be directly competing with companies that already have a stranglehold over these respective markets, and not many end-user businesses will want to assume the risk of a brand new expensive toy when their existing expensive toys work fine.
>>3859 I get your point Anon, but my suspicion is that these will be snapped up by the bushel-load by Police Depts. all over burgerland, first just for civilian surveillance tasks, then equipped with military hardware along the same lines, then finally the bigger models will be equipped by the police forces with offensive weaponry. It's practically inevitable given the Soros-funded nigger/pantyfa chimpouts going on.
>>3860 They blew up that nig in dallas with a robot bomb. Pretty soon it'll be some jew drone operator in tel aviv killing americans.
Open file (192.17 KB 420x420 modern.png)
>>3861 If our enemies are making robots in the middle-east, then we should make robo crusaders to stop them.
>>3861 Good points.
Boston Dynamics is owned by a Japanese company. They've also at least stated they don't want spot to be weaponized, for whatever that's worth. How does these facts come into play?
>>3932 >these facts come into play? Well, given the US military & DARPA source of the original funding and the Google-owned stint, there's zero doubt about the company's original intent to create Terminators. > However Softbank may legitimately intend to lift the tech IP (much as Google did) to help with their national elderly-care robotics program, for example. However, just remember Boston Dynamics is still an American group, located in the heart of the commie beast in the Boston area. Everyone has already raped the company for it's tech, and the SoftBank Group seems like just another john in the long string for this whore of a company. I certainly don't trust the Americans in the equation (t. Burger), maybe the Nipponese will do something closer to the goals of /robowaifu/. I suppose only time will tell Anon.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?