Re: NASA "LSAM" and where's sci.space.xx gone?

On 29 May, 11:52, Alex Terrell <alexterr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 May, 11:24, jacob navia <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would take all crew members away.

Automatic explorers can be remote controlled from earth without any
problems: time delay only 1 second.

No life support means that the mass of the vehicle would shrink
enormously.

Automatic explorers could build the crew buildings, setup all the
needed stuff and explore the surroundings well before any human
arrives at the site.

But then...

Why send any humans at all?

To fix the machines when things go wrong. Like at a modern open caste
mine - no humans does digging.

It would be good to hear from someone who works in a modern open cast
mine. What do humans do? Do they need to come into contact with the
mined material?

No they don't but they do drive excavators. If robots were to drive
excavators on the Moon they would need to be equiped with a similar
amount of AI. Same for repair. I think a lot of nonsense is talked
about repair. You can ask yourself one simple question. Is it better
to send humans to the Moon, or doo you simply send a bigger inventory
of spares? If spares are not available humans will not be able to
repair the machines anyway.

Humans are not necessary in the moon.

Are humans necessary?

The criterion is can human manual dexterity (I am not talking here
about general AI which is a much more complex matter) be completely
reproduced by a robot? I think that anyone who says "no" should be
prepared to justify that statement.

NASA is I believe asking the wrong questions and putting the cart
before the horse. The question to ask is this. Suppose you have an
objective - suppose you need so much Helium 3 for example, how do you
get it? What is the cheapest method? If I have a mining station on the
Moon what is the cheapest way of maintaining it? Is sending
astronauts? or developing suitable robots? I would be surpised if
astronauts proved the cheapest solution. They are certainly not the
cheapest solution for anything scientific.


- Ian Parker

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "true" AI Hardware Development
    ... resistance to functional description at all. ... that we can build functionally equivalent machines. ... no two humans are the same. ... Do you understand that all computers are physical machines that work by ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Robot survival instincts
    ... But if we killed the humans, ... I don't really buy your premise that machines are going to take over ... that will turn control of the earth, ... maximize the odds of our genes surviving and nothing else. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Merging with machines inevitable, scientists say
    ... I see the odds of the machines taking over being exceptionally slim. ... Humans are programmed by evolution with the goal of surviving. ... build AIs with the goal of surviving. ... advanced AIs for the sole purpose of taking over control from the humans. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Robot survival instincts
    ... Reinforcement learning machines have no desire to ... Even Asimov's robots had survival instincts. ... these machines so they do the best job while not being a threat to humans, ... Linux survives because it exists in an environment that ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: "true" AI Hardware Development
    ... we can't build machines that are functionally equivalent to a horse. ... we have found nothing but signal processing going on in the ... matching resisters in each radio will have different resistance values. ... no two humans are the same. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)