The hype and misunderstanding of AI

[Ringel05]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

You could be right, but what if you're not? Do you want to wake up some day when this is the number one song on the radio?

I wouldn't underestimate AGI at all. I'm actually following the conversation among the physicists pretty closely, and so-far, none of them have any real fail-safe to propose. That, too is being worked on though...and humans are pretty fuckin awesome. Some say they're not while they walk around on a wireless device that's able to reach any other human on the planet.

Uuuummmm..... ML and AI are two completely different things....... Of course you're talking about neither with a wireless device, that's just standard tech.

 

[G.T.]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

You could be right, but what if you're not? Do you want to wake up some day when this is the number one song on the radio?

I wouldn't underestimate AGI at all. I'm actually following the conversation among the physicists pretty closely, and so-far, none of them have any real fail-safe to propose. That, too is being worked on though...and humans are pretty fuckin awesome. Some say they're not while they walk around on a wireless device that's able to reach any other human on the planet.

Uuuummmm..... ML and AI are two completely different things....... Of course you're talking about neither with a wireless device, that's just standard tech.

I wasnt referring to ML or AI or calling phones that...I was making a point about human intelligence. You mighta misread that, or read intent into it.

 

[Ringel05]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

I was relaying that the usage had become generic as was stated in the linked articles and showing the true difference as also stated in the articles.
I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies and that it will happen sooner than later.

You're out of the loop, then. Perhaps you should listen to the folks at MIT that are literally working on developing AGI.

The "sky net" sort of thing is an actual concern, not a crack-pot one.

No I don't think I'm out of the loop and credentials don't always impress me considering how familiar I am with those that have them. Yes I'm fully aware that there are those who think we will have AI with in the next 10 years but not AGI unless they've made huge strides in bio-computers beyond a simple calculator (they haven't) then all we're dealing with is moral and ethical questions derived from what ifs.

 

[Ringel05]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

You could be right, but what if you're not? Do you want to wake up some day when this is the number one song on the radio?

I wouldn't underestimate AGI at all. I'm actually following the conversation among the physicists pretty closely, and so-far, none of them have any real fail-safe to propose. That, too is being worked on though...and humans are pretty fuckin awesome. Some say they're not while they walk around on a wireless device that's able to reach any other human on the planet.

Uuuummmm..... ML and AI are two completely different things....... Of course you're talking about neither with a wireless device, that's just standard tech.

I wasnt referring to ML or AI or calling phones that...I was making a point about human intelligence. You mighta misread that, or read intent into it.

No I was just reading what you posted and your reference wasn't that clear.

 

[G.T.]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

You could be right, but what if you're not? Do you want to wake up some day when this is the number one song on the radio?

I wouldn't underestimate AGI at all. I'm actually following the conversation among the physicists pretty closely, and so-far, none of them have any real fail-safe to propose. That, too is being worked on though...and humans are pretty fuckin awesome. Some say they're not while they walk around on a wireless device that's able to reach any other human on the planet.

Uuuummmm..... ML and AI are two completely different things....... Of course you're talking about neither with a wireless device, that's just standard tech.

I wasnt referring to ML or AI or calling phones that...I was making a point about human intelligence. You mighta misread that, or read intent into it.

No I was just reading what you posted and your reference wasn't that clear.

I think it was clear.

The AGI reference and the cell phone reference were completely independent clauses in independent sentences representing completely different subjects.

The cell phone reference was about how awesome human ingenuity is.

The AGI reference was regarding the "Terminator/Sky Net" discussion.

If you read the paragraph, I think it's clear enough not to quibble.

 

[G.T.]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

I was relaying that the usage had become generic as was stated in the linked articles and showing the true difference as also stated in the articles.
I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies and that it will happen sooner than later.

You're out of the loop, then. Perhaps you should listen to the folks at MIT that are literally working on developing AGI.

The "sky net" sort of thing is an actual concern, not a crack-pot one.

No I don't think I'm out of the loop and credentials don't always impress me considering how familiar I am with those that have them. Yes I'm fully aware that there are those who think we will have AI with in the next 10 years but not AGI unless they've made huge strides in bio-computers beyond a simple calculator (they haven't) then all we're dealing with is moral and ethical questions derived from what ifs.

Be you impressed or not, it's a heavily weighted question in the industry.

 

[Ringel05]

You could be right, but what if you're not? Do you want to wake up some day when this is the number one song on the radio?

I wouldn't underestimate AGI at all. I'm actually following the conversation among the physicists pretty closely, and so-far, none of them have any real fail-safe to propose. That, too is being worked on though...and humans are pretty fuckin awesome. Some say they're not while they walk around on a wireless device that's able to reach any other human on the planet.

Uuuummmm..... ML and AI are two completely different things....... Of course you're talking about neither with a wireless device, that's just standard tech.

I wasnt referring to ML or AI or calling phones that...I was making a point about human intelligence. You mighta misread that, or read intent into it.

No I was just reading what you posted and your reference wasn't that clear.

I think it was clear.

The AGI reference and the cell phone reference were completely independent clauses in independent sentences representing completely different subjects.

The cell phone reference was about how awesome human ingenuity is.

The AGI reference was regarding the "Terminator/Sky Net" discussion.

If you read the paragraph, I think it's clear enough not to quibble.

Okay.

 

[Ringel05]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

I was relaying that the usage had become generic as was stated in the linked articles and showing the true difference as also stated in the articles.
I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies and that it will happen sooner than later.

You're out of the loop, then. Perhaps you should listen to the folks at MIT that are literally working on developing AGI.

The "sky net" sort of thing is an actual concern, not a crack-pot one.

No I don't think I'm out of the loop and credentials don't always impress me considering how familiar I am with those that have them. Yes I'm fully aware that there are those who think we will have AI with in the next 10 years but not AGI unless they've made huge strides in bio-computers beyond a simple calculator (they haven't) then all we're dealing with is moral and ethical questions derived from what ifs.

Be you impressed or not, it's a heavily weighted question in the industry.

That I already knew hence my reference to moral and ethical "what ifs".

 

[G.T.]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

I was relaying that the usage had become generic as was stated in the linked articles and showing the true difference as also stated in the articles.
I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies and that it will happen sooner than later.

You're out of the loop, then. Perhaps you should listen to the folks at MIT that are literally working on developing AGI.

The "sky net" sort of thing is an actual concern, not a crack-pot one.

No I don't think I'm out of the loop and credentials don't always impress me considering how familiar I am with those that have them. Yes I'm fully aware that there are those who think we will have AI with in the next 10 years but not AGI unless they've made huge strides in bio-computers beyond a simple calculator (they haven't) then all we're dealing with is moral and ethical questions derived from what ifs.

Be you impressed or not, it's a heavily weighted question in the industry.

That I already knew hence my reference to moral and ethical "what ifs".

You literally denied it and now you're saying you already knew it...you feelin well>?

"I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies"

That's LITERALLY the hot topic within the very industry we're discussing, among the literal scholars working on it.

 

[White 6]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

I was relaying that the usage had become generic as was stated in the linked articles and showing the true difference as also stated in the articles.
I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies and that it will happen sooner than later.

You're out of the loop, then. Perhaps you should listen to the folks at MIT that are literally working on developing AGI.

The "sky net" sort of thing is an actual concern, not a crack-pot one.

No I don't think I'm out of the loop and credentials don't always impress me considering how familiar I am with those that have them. Yes I'm fully aware that there are those who think we will have AI with in the next 10 years but not AGI unless they've made huge strides in bio-computers beyond a simple calculator (they haven't) then all we're dealing with is moral and ethical questions derived from what ifs.

Sounds like you have a decent bead on it. On You Tube, Answers With Dave did an interesting piece on the subject if you haven't already seen it, but I suspect you have.

 

[Ringel05]

I was relaying that the usage had become generic as was stated in the linked articles and showing the true difference as also stated in the articles.
I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies and that it will happen sooner than later.

You're out of the loop, then. Perhaps you should listen to the folks at MIT that are literally working on developing AGI.

The "sky net" sort of thing is an actual concern, not a crack-pot one.

No I don't think I'm out of the loop and credentials don't always impress me considering how familiar I am with those that have them. Yes I'm fully aware that there are those who think we will have AI with in the next 10 years but not AGI unless they've made huge strides in bio-computers beyond a simple calculator (they haven't) then all we're dealing with is moral and ethical questions derived from what ifs.

Be you impressed or not, it's a heavily weighted question in the industry.

That I already knew hence my reference to moral and ethical "what ifs".

You literally denied it and now you're saying you already knew it...you feelin well>?

"I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies"

That's LITERALLY the hot topic within the very industry we're discussing, among the literal scholars working on it.

Sentient to me means conscience even Koch says that will never happen, it can simulate but not be so I did not contradict myself. I said I knew the moral and ethical questions exist. Two completely different things.

 

[G.T.]

You're out of the loop, then. Perhaps you should listen to the folks at MIT that are literally working on developing AGI.

The "sky net" sort of thing is an actual concern, not a crack-pot one.

No I don't think I'm out of the loop and credentials don't always impress me considering how familiar I am with those that have them. Yes I'm fully aware that there are those who think we will have AI with in the next 10 years but not AGI unless they've made huge strides in bio-computers beyond a simple calculator (they haven't) then all we're dealing with is moral and ethical questions derived from what ifs.

Be you impressed or not, it's a heavily weighted question in the industry.

That I already knew hence my reference to moral and ethical "what ifs".

You literally denied it and now you're saying you already knew it...you feelin well>?

"I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies"

That's LITERALLY the hot topic within the very industry we're discussing, among the literal scholars working on it.

Sentient to me means conscience even Koch says that will never happen, it can simulate but not be so I did not contradict myself. I said I knew the moral and ethical questions exist.

We don't even know what conscience is & barely understand how it works, let alone do we know whether or not it's achievable through technology. & That's one guy postulating.

So what, is my take. I'm pretty sure we can do damn near anything we think of. The Universe proves stranger and stranger, I'm super optimistic.

 

[Ringel05]

No I don't think I'm out of the loop and credentials don't always impress me considering how familiar I am with those that have them. Yes I'm fully aware that there are those who think we will have AI with in the next 10 years but not AGI unless they've made huge strides in bio-computers beyond a simple calculator (they haven't) then all we're dealing with is moral and ethical questions derived from what ifs.

Be you impressed or not, it's a heavily weighted question in the industry.

That I already knew hence my reference to moral and ethical "what ifs".

You literally denied it and now you're saying you already knew it...you feelin well>?

"I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies"

That's LITERALLY the hot topic within the very industry we're discussing, among the literal scholars working on it.

Sentient to me means conscience even Koch says that will never happen, it can simulate but not be so I did not contradict myself. I said I knew the moral and ethical questions exist.

We don't even know what conscience is & barely understand how it works, let alone do we know whether or not it's achievable through technology. & That's one guy postulating.

So what, is my take. I'm pretty sure we can do damn near anything we think of. The Universe proves stranger and stranger, I'm super optimistic.

Well I'm part of the school that agrees with his postulations, I don't think we can ever create a sentient (self aware) construct. We can create mimics but that's as far as we can go. To me AGI in it's true form is more akin to Shelley's Frankenstein, a story, a fiction.

 

[Ringel05]

I sincerely doubt the term is being used to "foil us." It's just a colloquialism at this point, and I'm not sure there's a single person I've met that's under the impression that AGI exists. I've never met one or heard testimony on the airwaves that it does...so this "misleading" we're talking about here seems to be missing the mark.

Should the only person that thinks AGI exists come forward, the OP (not you ringel, just what you wrote) would have some sort of merit. If nobody is under that impression, then you're merely quibbling over the misuse of terms. Oh well?

Anyhoo, anyone who wants to take a deep dive into AI, or sorry AGI don't hurt me, Lex Fridman's channel on youtube is a great, great resource. He's got interviews, at length, with many of the leading researchers, world-wide, from the world of AGI. Also other interviews ABOUT AGI, and its implications, etc

I was relaying that the usage had become generic as was stated in the linked articles and showing the true difference as also stated in the articles.
I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies and that it will happen sooner than later.

You're out of the loop, then. Perhaps you should listen to the folks at MIT that are literally working on developing AGI.

The "sky net" sort of thing is an actual concern, not a crack-pot one.

No I don't think I'm out of the loop and credentials don't always impress me considering how familiar I am with those that have them. Yes I'm fully aware that there are those who think we will have AI with in the next 10 years but not AGI unless they've made huge strides in bio-computers beyond a simple calculator (they haven't) then all we're dealing with is moral and ethical questions derived from what ifs.

Sounds like you have a decent bead on it. On You Tube, Answers With Dave did an interesting piece on the subject if you haven't already seen it, but I suspect you have.

No I haven't, none of my research involves You Tube which I distrust, it all centers around the academic.

 

[G.T.]

Be you impressed or not, it's a heavily weighted question in the industry.

That I already knew hence my reference to moral and ethical "what ifs".

You literally denied it and now you're saying you already knew it...you feelin well>?

"I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies"

That's LITERALLY the hot topic within the very industry we're discussing, among the literal scholars working on it.

Sentient to me means conscience even Koch says that will never happen, it can simulate but not be so I did not contradict myself. I said I knew the moral and ethical questions exist.

We don't even know what conscience is & barely understand how it works, let alone do we know whether or not it's achievable through technology. & That's one guy postulating.

So what, is my take. I'm pretty sure we can do damn near anything we think of. The Universe proves stranger and stranger, I'm super optimistic.

Well I'm part of the school that agrees with his postulations, I don't think we can ever create a sentient (self aware) construct. We can create mimics but that's as far as we can go. To me AGI in it's true form is more akin to Shelley's Frankenstein, a story, a fiction.

Thats a weird leap for me to make...its mere postulating and at best, the honest approach seems to be agnosticism.

We do not know enough.

We dont know much about consciousness, therefore its limits or constraints.

We dont know the technological limitations to any practical extent...

We are also not sure, exactly, how far along the research is because there are literally dozens of researchers keeping their progress quiet via legal contracts.

 

[fncceo]

What I want from AI is a very limited set of skills.

 

[G.T.]

What I want from AI is a very limited set of skills.

My wife is still hot but maybe when we're elderly she will let me dabble in some of those uh, Robotics products.

 

[Ringel05]

That I already knew hence my reference to moral and ethical "what ifs".

You literally denied it and now you're saying you already knew it...you feelin well>?

"I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies"

That's LITERALLY the hot topic within the very industry we're discussing, among the literal scholars working on it.

Sentient to me means conscience even Koch says that will never happen, it can simulate but not be so I did not contradict myself. I said I knew the moral and ethical questions exist.

We don't even know what conscience is & barely understand how it works, let alone do we know whether or not it's achievable through technology. & That's one guy postulating.

So what, is my take. I'm pretty sure we can do damn near anything we think of. The Universe proves stranger and stranger, I'm super optimistic.

Well I'm part of the school that agrees with his postulations, I don't think we can ever create a sentient (self aware) construct. We can create mimics but that's as far as we can go. To me AGI in it's true form is more akin to Shelley's Frankenstein, a story, a fiction.

Thats a weird leap for me to make...its mere postulating and at best, the honest approach seems to be agnosticism.

We do not know enough.

We dont know much about consciousness, therefore its limits or constraints.

We dont know the technological limitations to any practical extent...

We are also not sure, exactly, how far along the research is because there are literally dozens of researchers keeping their progress quiet via legal contracts.

And that's why there's always differing schools of thought, people see things differently. Personally I'd be more concerned about the moral and ethical ramifications of cloning than AGI which in a sense is also mimicking (copying) not creating new sentient life.

 

[G.T.]

You literally denied it and now you're saying you already knew it...you feelin well>?

"I have run into a very few who think that the AI will turn into the sentient Sci-Fi monsters as depicted in movies"

That's LITERALLY the hot topic within the very industry we're discussing, among the literal scholars working on it.

Sentient to me means conscience even Koch says that will never happen, it can simulate but not be so I did not contradict myself. I said I knew the moral and ethical questions exist.

We don't even know what conscience is & barely understand how it works, let alone do we know whether or not it's achievable through technology. & That's one guy postulating.

So what, is my take. I'm pretty sure we can do damn near anything we think of. The Universe proves stranger and stranger, I'm super optimistic.

Well I'm part of the school that agrees with his postulations, I don't think we can ever create a sentient (self aware) construct. We can create mimics but that's as far as we can go. To me AGI in it's true form is more akin to Shelley's Frankenstein, a story, a fiction.

Thats a weird leap for me to make...its mere postulating and at best, the honest approach seems to be agnosticism.

We do not know enough.

We dont know much about consciousness, therefore its limits or constraints.

We dont know the technological limitations to any practical extent...

We are also not sure, exactly, how far along the research is because there are literally dozens of researchers keeping their progress quiet via legal contracts.

And that's why there's always differing schools of thought, people see things differently. Personally I'd be more concerned about the moral and ethical ramifications of cloning than AGI which in a sense is also mimicking (copying) not creating new sentient life.

Cloning is a good topic, but honestly by the time they're able to clone what matters...i.e. the actual brain with its thoughts and memories in tact...we will probably already have agi, if we're ever going to have it.

But on that, too I'm optimistic. I've seen a memory printed onto a piece of paper. Biology meets technology.

Really, I fuck around with Religious folks because I do think that it's mostly all bullshit - - - but when things align as they do, it keeps my mind wide open.

 

[Ringel05]

What I want from AI is a very limited set of skills.

My wife is still hot but maybe when we're elderly she will let me dabble in some of those uh, Robotics products.

The best we can hope for in that area now is blow up dolls........ Or paid "services".......