[vcf-midatlantic] replying and elaborating to Herb Johnson's postings re: 4004 Based Microcomputer

Sat Jan 13 22:29:27 UTC 2024

I would suggest that point would be where the AI is a general, and not
utilitarian, construct. Anything purpose built should not be treated as
sentient and vice-versa.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 9:30 PM Brian Marstella via vcf-midatlantic <
vcf-midatlantic at lists.vcfed.org> wrote:

> At what point is an AI no longer a robot, or a robot no longer fits the
> assumed description of a device that performs programmed tasks? At what
> point would you consider them an engineered intelligence?
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:22 PM Dean Notarnicola via vcf-midatlantic <
> vcf-midatlantic at lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
>
> > You forgot the 0th law:  A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction,
> > allow humanity to come to harm.
> > And with the advent of AI we may need to add Dilov's 5th law:  A robot
> must
> > establish its identity as a robot in all cases.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:47 PM Jeffrey Jonas via vcf-midatlantic <
> > vcf-midatlantic at lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
> >
> > > This touches upon several of my pet peeves,
> > > so please pardon the way my reply drones on and on and on
> > > until I start foaming at the mouth and falling over backwards ... Oh!
> > > https://youtu.be/DO7VkEFZ7B8 [Monty Python skit]
> > >
> > >
> > > Herb touches upon how our expectations of "computers" have evolved.
> > > To folks outside the engineering profession,
> > > "embedded processors", "industrial controllers" and other
> special-purpose
> > > machines
> > > don't look-and-feel like that's now accepted as a "computer".
> > > Yet the Arduino has made such embedded processing more accessible than
> > ever
> > > to the hobbyist, experimenter, artist, etc.
> > >
> > > Perhaps that applies here: what were once called "computers"
> > > are now considered embedded processors,
> > > IoT (Internet of Things) or Internet appliances.
> > >
> > > I was about to say how cellphones are more of an appliance than a
> > computer
> > > by the way most folks just download apps.
> > > They're not self-hosting, requiring a host system to compile the code.
> > > But then again, even I am using my home PC as an appliance.
> > > I rarely program or even customize it.
> > > I'm running the web browser, text editor, moving files, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Having salvaged lotsa vintage electronics, I've seen the insides of
> lotsa
> > > equipment.
> > > I've subscribed to Circuit Cellar from the beginning.
> > > They were an early advocate of single chip microcontrollers.
> > > These chips come to mind when thinking of embedded processors
> > > (in chronological order)
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004
> > > 1971: the Intel 4004.
> > > I encountered one deep inside a Calcomp DS12 hard drive controller.
> > > See page 55 http://www.bitsavers.org/magazines/Datamation/19710801.pdf
> > >
> > > [AND FOR THE RECORD:
> > > the 4004 was the first _commercially_available_ microprocessor.
> > > The military was first with the MP944 chip set for the
> > > US Navy's F-14 Tomcat fighter's CADC: completed June 1970.
> > >
> > > https://firstmicroprocessor.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/microprocessor-integrates-cpu-function-onto-a-single-chip/
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_CADC
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.wired.com/story/secret-history-of-the-first-microprocessor-f-14/
> > > ]
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_MCS-48
> > > This family of single chip microcontrollers was released in 1976.
> > > The IBM PC used them as the keyboard controller
> > > (allowing a thin coiled cord and serial link instead of ribbon cable
> and
> > > parallel interface).
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_Z8
> > > 1979: the Zilog Z8.
> > > Very popular with hobbyists for the piggyback ROM socket.
> > > Circuit Cellar / Micromint made many Z8 systems such as FORTH in ROM.
> > > http://cini.classiccmp.org/pdf/MicroMint/Micromint_Z8_Forth.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontrollers
> > > 1976: General Instruments' PIC (Peripheral Interface Controller)
> > > evolved from ROM only to flash memory, so they're easily reprogrammed
> and
> > > re-purposed.
> > > PIC, like PDP, is a name to avoid saying "computer" or
> "microprocessor".
> > >
> > >
> > > 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_microcontrollers
> > > 1996: Atmel AVR series of single chip microcontrollers.
> > > Similar to the PIC, popularized by the Arduino.
> > >
> > > The Arduino ecosystem is no longer just for experimenters and
> hobbyists.
> > > It's now used for Industrial automation and machine controllers,
> > > replacing embedded processors such as the Z80 and STD bus.
> > > See:  https://www.automationdirect.com/open-source/home
> > >
> > > What scares me is NOT the tool but how you use it.
> > > Just as everything looks like a nail if you have only a hammer,
> > > and screwdrivers have been abused as pry bars, wedges,
> paint-can-openers,
> > > etc.
> > > The Arduino is just a tool.
> > > My fear is the lack of disciplined programming, proper safety
> engineering
> > > practices
> > > and peer review of mission critical devices that risk injury or death.
> > > I remember the horror of the Therac-25. Do you?
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
> > >
> > > Even Google knows to throw me relevant ads:
> > > https://www.onlogic.com/
> > > "Ideal for IoT, Edge and AI Inferencing applications"
> > > Just like the movie Westworld, what could possibly go wrong ... go
> wrong
> > > ... go wrong
> > >      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westworld_(film)
> > >      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westworld_(TV_series)
> > >
> > > That's what happens when robots/androids violate Isaac Asimov's "Three
> > Laws
> > > of Robotics"
> > >
> > > 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a
> > human
> > > being to come to harm.
> > > 2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such
> > > orders would conflict with the First Law.
> > > 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
> does
> > > not conflict with the First or Second Law.
> > >
> > >
> > > and that's the way it is.
> > >
> > > -- jeff jonas
> > >
> >
>