Yes, Still Alive
Oh, so there a few topics tonight. As you should know by now, I'm awake at night and asleep during the day. I'm fine and nothing horrible has happened to me or is an issue, really. But I have found something interesting. One is an observation on TV scheduling and another is an observation of the combined theories from an episode of a TV show. On, the semester ends today (April 16) and then I'm done with class until fall. And I graduate in the fall so, yea!
So first my observation on TV scheduling. Now, I've spent most of my life like the majority of people. As a light-dweller. lol ;) So here's what I've noticed about TV scheduling during the day time. This would be between 6 AM and 10 PM in my time zone (Central Standard Time, aka CST). This schedule is relatively constant. The only time there's a major change to scheduling is when 1) a new show starts, 2) a current show is canceled, and 3) when a show goes into syndication on a new network. Really, #3 is mostly during the later hours of the day.
Why is this? Well, who's at home during these times? Either a non-working people/parents or a child who isn't old enough to go to school. The majority of people are awake during those daytime hours, too. Who has time to go shopping and wants things a lot? Non-working persons/parents and children. So that's a pretty good reason to keep things the same. People don't like change, right? So don't change things unless the network is canceling a show that doesn't bring in enough of an audience, is putting out new episodes of a show, or running a show in syndication.
However, at night, things are very different. First, what are "night" hours? Well, they're 11PM to 5 AM CST. But if we translate that in the US, coast to coast, that is as early as 9 PM (on the west coast) and as late as 6 AM (on the east coast). Well, we're night-dwellers. There are fewer of us awake and we are breaking a kind of unwritten rule of society. My father and grandmother keep saying, "You have your days and nights mixed up." That's very telling about their expectations of reality and feeling like they have to conform to societal norms. They assume I'm "mixed up." No, I know exactly what time I'm awake and what time I'm asleep. Did it happen by mistake? Well, it just happened without a conscious choice, so I suppose it could have been a mistake. However, I've had more than enough time to get myself back on an 'acceptable' waking and sleeping hours schedule. I have just chosen not to do so. I like things the way they are. So there's an unwritten rule of society that you should sleep when the sun is down and be awake when the sun is up. There really is no difference (aside from what businesses are open and what businesses are closed). I mean, it's the middle of the night here in the US but it's late afternoon/early evening in Japan. So if I lived in Japan then being on an American CST "normal" sleep schedule and they lived in Japan, too, then according to my father and grandmother, I'd have my days and nights mixed up. So what is time but a system that we arbitrarily set up to match our planet's rotation. What about other planets that might have a 36 hour planetary rotation? It's just different from them, but because I'm not doing what they do I'm the one who's "mixed up." I could easily say the same thing about them. I don't because it's arbitrary. I choose when I'm awake and when I'm asleep, just like they do.
Now that I watch TV every day... er, night... I have noticed that the schedule changes much more often that day time day schedules. I tried to figure out what I'd watch on TV at all the different times of the night. I'd get a pattern set and then some show would switch around time slots with another show or it'd only be on during a specific day(s). There is much more change. But what is this? Well, they don't make as much money at night because most people are asleep. The age demographic and employment demographic are different from the light-dwellers. So commercials are different and they can see how well accepted a show in syndication is with the night-dwellers. We're a kind of test audience before making any real changes to day time TV schedules. Well, other than when the new fall line-up comes out and shows that didn't do well are canceled and new shows to take their place debut. I just find it strange that night time TV schedules change so frequently. Oh! And the commercials are very different from the day time commercials! Virtually no child-focused toys are advertised. Companies that advertise as being advocates for citizens against the government to get Disability payments for those who can't work, advertisements tort lawyers, hook-up chat lines, and adult sexual products abound! (Well, not on the cartoon channels, but other channels.)
Now, I finished watching a show and thought I'd write my thoughts about it. It's a TV show on the Science Channel called "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman." Basically they take some scientific field of study, look at some part of it, and have different specialists talk about their theories and work in that field of study. It was a show about robotics. This particular episode talked mostly about AI (Artificial Intelligence). There were 3 different theories about what was the "most important thing a machine needs to know in order to gain sentience and what the greatest thing humans had figured out that let us be the dominant species on the planet."
1. Learning how to move: Basically, they said that because we learned how to move so well and our bodies are built like they are that we were able to escape danger, find/hunt food, and make tools. So, 2 scientists wrote a computer modeling program that gave a basic shape and movement points to a computer model. So it might be 2 legs that have 4 points at which they can bend, each are attached at the top. So basically it was a crude version of our own legs but with more points that it could bend the leg. The program would run and try different ways to bend at the points it could bend in order to make it from one side of the screen to the other side without falling over. Any time it did fall over, the computer reset the model, and used what it learned from it's previous attempts to know what did and didn't work well. Sometimes it was successful by walking much like we do and sometimes it learned a different way that worked, such as hopping and using the bending points jump and to absorb the shock of landing. Then they built various designs of actual robots that had different numbers of legs and bending points in it's legs. Then it used similar software to let the robot do trial-and-error to learn how to move. So it was able to learn how to move. A robot that could learn movement on it's own. But is that enough?
2. Emotions and feelings: So the basic idea behind this was a guy who built a robot that he programmed with the ability to recognizes different colors. Then he allowed it to recognize the color and either tap it from behind (which the robot took as bad/pain) or to pet it on a sensor bar (which the robot took as good/positive). He would repeat this with 2 different colors (green/bad and blue/good). Then he sat a green object in front of the robot and it would say "green bad" and back away from the object quickly. Then he sat a blue object in front of the robot and it would say "blue good" and use it's very simple "arms/hands" to pick the blue object up. He claimed that the robot learned that green was something bad and caused it to "feel fear" and that blue was something good and caused it to "feel desire." I'm not so sure it actually felt anything. It just learned positive stimuli from negative stimuli. Plants can do this but they certainly don't have emotions that are comparable to human emotions. So don't really think that the robot that he built felt emotion. I don't think that a robot needs learn how to understand emotion in order to be sentient.
3. Language: This scientist said that when he was 5 years old he wondered how he came to be who he is and why he wasn't his sister or his brother. Now... tell me what child has an existential crisis at age 5?! Okay, not the point... moving on. He created 2 humanoid robots that had legs, hands, arms, and a head. There was single camera eye in the center of it's head so that it could "see." Now, he had each robot programmed with the same series of phonetic sounds that could be used and which phonetic sounds could be before or after each phonetic sound. But the robots would have nothing to talk about with each other. So he programmed them with the same movement abilities, but the robot was unaware of what it looked like and in what ways it could move. So, each robot was put in front of a mirror and used it's camera eye to look at it's reflection and watch how it could move it's hands and arms while the other robot (that looked exactly like it was not in view or turned on). They were only programmed 2 concepts that were movements that they inherently understood. Shaking it's head up and down to signify "correct" and shaking it's head from side to side to signify "incorrect." Then they put in front of each other and "talked" about movement. One would say a word (which it decide on based on the phonetic sounds it was given but chose the order of the phonetic sounds) and then did a movement. The other robot would repeat the word and try to mimic the other robot. If it was successful then the first robot would nod it's head for "correct." If it moved in a different way than the first robot then the first robot would shake it's head for "incorrect," repeat the word and the action. When the second robot was successful then it came up with a different word and then did a different movement than the first robot did. In this way they were building a simple language, of their own design (given the phonetic rules, which all human languages have phonetic rules), and build a joint language that they both used to talk about movement. It was even able to do this with the robot's creator instead of a robot that looked exactly like it and had the exact same voice as it. Which is actually pretty awesome. However, this does mean that, eventually, as autonomous robotics advances, the robots may create their own language for everything that it can understand and not tell the humans what their words means. So robots could start speaking to each other behind our backs, in a language of their own creation that we don't understand. Little scary.
Now, there was a guy who talked about robots moving and having a wireless connection to the members of it's team. So 2 teams were created, programmed with the rules of soccer, and then allowed to play against each other. The 2 teams wireless connection to the members of their team were different. So they couldn't listen in on each other's tactics. However, they knew where every member of their own team was and what each member of their team could see. So they were able to make strategies, get back up if a robot from the other team knocked them down, and were able to dynamically change positions on the field depending on where the ball was. They started to learn each other's tactics and could better defend against each other and had to come up with new tactics to try and score points. Now, these robots were small, humanoid in shape, and very basic. But the fact that they were able to, in essence, read each other's minds and see with each other's eyes, advanced versions of themselves would very easily be able to learn the tactics of human players and would be able to position themselves on the field so that their robotic teammates would be in place to perform the next action that was part of the tactics. Pretty neat if you ask me.
So in each of these scenarios there comes the worry that robots will gain an upper hand and no longer need humans. The ability to learn, create their own language, acquire and create their own tactics, and would simply not need us anymore. That it is possible that humanity's legacy will be sentient robots.
A Japanese inventor has a different view on robotics. Instead of creating a robot that is able to move on it's own, he has created some exoskeleton arms and legs that respond to human brain impulses for movement. Even in someone who has been injured and can't walk anymore still sends a signal down the spine and to the leg, for example. It's just that the nerves in the leg no longer respond. But these electrical impulses can be picked up by the exoskeleton legs through the person's skin and assist the person in moving. There are people who have been unable to walk since birth who are now able to walk using these prototype exoskeleton legs. It's also being tested and used in rehabilitative therapy for people who were bed ridden for months, had their leg muscles atrophy, and are no longer able to stand/walk for very long without assistance. But it only provides them with the dynamic amount of strength to support movement and hold them up that their muscles are unable to provide. It allows for longer therapy sessions and greater mobility. It's helping them rebuild their muscles by "listening" to the electrical impulses and providing them with just enough strength that they lack to move their legs. The leg, shoulder and arm exoskeleton parts (as of 2013) are able to provide a human with the ability to lift 200kg more than they normally would be able to. It's not a full Iron Man exoskeleton frame or anything... yet. However, it is a significant tool for physical healthcare rehabilitation and allowing those who are paralyzed with the ability to walk (and use their arms) again. I could see it being used in construction, too.
This Japanese inventor is working on capturing movements of human beings so that they can be replicated perfectly. Tiger Woods awesome physical ability to play golf could be copied perfectly. When Tiger Woods dies his ability dies with him, but if he wore the exoskeleton, and it was able to record his movements, then it could be stored and reproduced by someone else hundreds of thousands of years later! However, just like the Iron Man exoskeleton frame, I can see this being adapted for military purposes, made into a full body suit that protects the wearer from incoming weapon's fire, provides them with greater physical speed and strengths, and even the ability to analyze what the suit wearer sees to avoid an attack since it can duplicate the actions of others. Hell, combine that technology with the robots that are in constant contact with each other, and it could be programmed to keep track of where the other squad members are, what their exoskeletons see, and, even if the person can't see an incoming attack themselves, the exoskeleton is getting information from the other exoskeletons, so sight-unseen the exoskeleton would be able to warn the wearer of incoming danger or just take action to protect the wearer itself.
Why deal with each person's unique ability to shoot accurately when it can do analysis and aim for the user? Why deal with different people's abilities as a sniper and copy the movements of the best sniper on file that's uploaded to the exoskeleton and compensate for it's user to make them into an equally great sniper? Now, the sniper thing has to deal with the weapon used, ammo used, distance to target, wind speeds, and if the target is moving or stationary. So it's not enough just to copy the best sniper's physical actions. There is some calculations that need to be done. Right now, humans are better able to do that without the bulky equipment it would take for a computer to assist the sniper but if the exoskeleton can be improved upon and modified specifically for military use, then it's certainly possible that the data storage could be small and use very little power. The exoskeleton itself would eventually be able to use less and less power, too, or have a power saving mode for when the wearer isn't in combat. Hell, why not a voice activated distance combat mode for sniper assistance that provides tactical information need to hit the target or a mode for semi-automatic weapons fire assistance that provides tactical information for better accuracy, a close-combat mode for hand to hand combat that increases physical speed and strength, a retreat mode that increases physical speed for running, and a power saving mode that only uses enough power to assist the wearer in regular movement.
Now, this could able to adapted to use no soldier at all. Just a robot army, but having a human that is robot and computer assisted would certainly give an edge on the ground. I think that, in the end, it should be a collaboration between humans and machines. We build the machines to assist us but don't allow them enough autonomy to be a threat. Any advanced AI could become dangerous, but if it's a slave AI that had it's abilities limited, can offer advice, and assistance then it wouldn't be such a big threat of becoming dangerous. Having the slave AI only be able to act independent or contrary to it's wearer if it detects a threat to the wearer then that'd be okay, but there'd have to be someone in the exoskeleton for it to move at all. If we're talking military use here, too, then if it's too damaged or running low on power it could be programmed to eject the wearer and short circuit if it's in the field to keep it out of enemy hands.
There are a lot of possible purposes for an exoskeleton that increases strength, reflexes, speed, and is physical protection... but for every possible great good, there must be a possible great bad. There is nothing that is without an equal opposite. That's just what I've been thinking about for the past few hours as I've written this.
I know this was a random rambling ranty kind of thing and if you've stuck around this long, I thank you. I've have a lot of contemplation time since I stopped trying to keep myself busy all the time. Some of it's been good for be. Some of it... not so much. It's just that we living in an exciting time. If we don't kill ourselves or poison our planet first, we could achieve greater things than I ever hoped were possible.
For the past month and half I've had this big fascination with science/technology, philosophy, and spirituality. I think all those things are important to the success and balanced growth of humanity. Not too much of any one of those things over the other.
So first my observation on TV scheduling. Now, I've spent most of my life like the majority of people. As a light-dweller. lol ;) So here's what I've noticed about TV scheduling during the day time. This would be between 6 AM and 10 PM in my time zone (Central Standard Time, aka CST). This schedule is relatively constant. The only time there's a major change to scheduling is when 1) a new show starts, 2) a current show is canceled, and 3) when a show goes into syndication on a new network. Really, #3 is mostly during the later hours of the day.
Why is this? Well, who's at home during these times? Either a non-working people/parents or a child who isn't old enough to go to school. The majority of people are awake during those daytime hours, too. Who has time to go shopping and wants things a lot? Non-working persons/parents and children. So that's a pretty good reason to keep things the same. People don't like change, right? So don't change things unless the network is canceling a show that doesn't bring in enough of an audience, is putting out new episodes of a show, or running a show in syndication.
However, at night, things are very different. First, what are "night" hours? Well, they're 11PM to 5 AM CST. But if we translate that in the US, coast to coast, that is as early as 9 PM (on the west coast) and as late as 6 AM (on the east coast). Well, we're night-dwellers. There are fewer of us awake and we are breaking a kind of unwritten rule of society. My father and grandmother keep saying, "You have your days and nights mixed up." That's very telling about their expectations of reality and feeling like they have to conform to societal norms. They assume I'm "mixed up." No, I know exactly what time I'm awake and what time I'm asleep. Did it happen by mistake? Well, it just happened without a conscious choice, so I suppose it could have been a mistake. However, I've had more than enough time to get myself back on an 'acceptable' waking and sleeping hours schedule. I have just chosen not to do so. I like things the way they are. So there's an unwritten rule of society that you should sleep when the sun is down and be awake when the sun is up. There really is no difference (aside from what businesses are open and what businesses are closed). I mean, it's the middle of the night here in the US but it's late afternoon/early evening in Japan. So if I lived in Japan then being on an American CST "normal" sleep schedule and they lived in Japan, too, then according to my father and grandmother, I'd have my days and nights mixed up. So what is time but a system that we arbitrarily set up to match our planet's rotation. What about other planets that might have a 36 hour planetary rotation? It's just different from them, but because I'm not doing what they do I'm the one who's "mixed up." I could easily say the same thing about them. I don't because it's arbitrary. I choose when I'm awake and when I'm asleep, just like they do.
Now that I watch TV every day... er, night... I have noticed that the schedule changes much more often that day time day schedules. I tried to figure out what I'd watch on TV at all the different times of the night. I'd get a pattern set and then some show would switch around time slots with another show or it'd only be on during a specific day(s). There is much more change. But what is this? Well, they don't make as much money at night because most people are asleep. The age demographic and employment demographic are different from the light-dwellers. So commercials are different and they can see how well accepted a show in syndication is with the night-dwellers. We're a kind of test audience before making any real changes to day time TV schedules. Well, other than when the new fall line-up comes out and shows that didn't do well are canceled and new shows to take their place debut. I just find it strange that night time TV schedules change so frequently. Oh! And the commercials are very different from the day time commercials! Virtually no child-focused toys are advertised. Companies that advertise as being advocates for citizens against the government to get Disability payments for those who can't work, advertisements tort lawyers, hook-up chat lines, and adult sexual products abound! (Well, not on the cartoon channels, but other channels.)
Now, I finished watching a show and thought I'd write my thoughts about it. It's a TV show on the Science Channel called "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman." Basically they take some scientific field of study, look at some part of it, and have different specialists talk about their theories and work in that field of study. It was a show about robotics. This particular episode talked mostly about AI (Artificial Intelligence). There were 3 different theories about what was the "most important thing a machine needs to know in order to gain sentience and what the greatest thing humans had figured out that let us be the dominant species on the planet."
1. Learning how to move: Basically, they said that because we learned how to move so well and our bodies are built like they are that we were able to escape danger, find/hunt food, and make tools. So, 2 scientists wrote a computer modeling program that gave a basic shape and movement points to a computer model. So it might be 2 legs that have 4 points at which they can bend, each are attached at the top. So basically it was a crude version of our own legs but with more points that it could bend the leg. The program would run and try different ways to bend at the points it could bend in order to make it from one side of the screen to the other side without falling over. Any time it did fall over, the computer reset the model, and used what it learned from it's previous attempts to know what did and didn't work well. Sometimes it was successful by walking much like we do and sometimes it learned a different way that worked, such as hopping and using the bending points jump and to absorb the shock of landing. Then they built various designs of actual robots that had different numbers of legs and bending points in it's legs. Then it used similar software to let the robot do trial-and-error to learn how to move. So it was able to learn how to move. A robot that could learn movement on it's own. But is that enough?
2. Emotions and feelings: So the basic idea behind this was a guy who built a robot that he programmed with the ability to recognizes different colors. Then he allowed it to recognize the color and either tap it from behind (which the robot took as bad/pain) or to pet it on a sensor bar (which the robot took as good/positive). He would repeat this with 2 different colors (green/bad and blue/good). Then he sat a green object in front of the robot and it would say "green bad" and back away from the object quickly. Then he sat a blue object in front of the robot and it would say "blue good" and use it's very simple "arms/hands" to pick the blue object up. He claimed that the robot learned that green was something bad and caused it to "feel fear" and that blue was something good and caused it to "feel desire." I'm not so sure it actually felt anything. It just learned positive stimuli from negative stimuli. Plants can do this but they certainly don't have emotions that are comparable to human emotions. So don't really think that the robot that he built felt emotion. I don't think that a robot needs learn how to understand emotion in order to be sentient.
3. Language: This scientist said that when he was 5 years old he wondered how he came to be who he is and why he wasn't his sister or his brother. Now... tell me what child has an existential crisis at age 5?! Okay, not the point... moving on. He created 2 humanoid robots that had legs, hands, arms, and a head. There was single camera eye in the center of it's head so that it could "see." Now, he had each robot programmed with the same series of phonetic sounds that could be used and which phonetic sounds could be before or after each phonetic sound. But the robots would have nothing to talk about with each other. So he programmed them with the same movement abilities, but the robot was unaware of what it looked like and in what ways it could move. So, each robot was put in front of a mirror and used it's camera eye to look at it's reflection and watch how it could move it's hands and arms while the other robot (that looked exactly like it was not in view or turned on). They were only programmed 2 concepts that were movements that they inherently understood. Shaking it's head up and down to signify "correct" and shaking it's head from side to side to signify "incorrect." Then they put in front of each other and "talked" about movement. One would say a word (which it decide on based on the phonetic sounds it was given but chose the order of the phonetic sounds) and then did a movement. The other robot would repeat the word and try to mimic the other robot. If it was successful then the first robot would nod it's head for "correct." If it moved in a different way than the first robot then the first robot would shake it's head for "incorrect," repeat the word and the action. When the second robot was successful then it came up with a different word and then did a different movement than the first robot did. In this way they were building a simple language, of their own design (given the phonetic rules, which all human languages have phonetic rules), and build a joint language that they both used to talk about movement. It was even able to do this with the robot's creator instead of a robot that looked exactly like it and had the exact same voice as it. Which is actually pretty awesome. However, this does mean that, eventually, as autonomous robotics advances, the robots may create their own language for everything that it can understand and not tell the humans what their words means. So robots could start speaking to each other behind our backs, in a language of their own creation that we don't understand. Little scary.
Now, there was a guy who talked about robots moving and having a wireless connection to the members of it's team. So 2 teams were created, programmed with the rules of soccer, and then allowed to play against each other. The 2 teams wireless connection to the members of their team were different. So they couldn't listen in on each other's tactics. However, they knew where every member of their own team was and what each member of their team could see. So they were able to make strategies, get back up if a robot from the other team knocked them down, and were able to dynamically change positions on the field depending on where the ball was. They started to learn each other's tactics and could better defend against each other and had to come up with new tactics to try and score points. Now, these robots were small, humanoid in shape, and very basic. But the fact that they were able to, in essence, read each other's minds and see with each other's eyes, advanced versions of themselves would very easily be able to learn the tactics of human players and would be able to position themselves on the field so that their robotic teammates would be in place to perform the next action that was part of the tactics. Pretty neat if you ask me.
So in each of these scenarios there comes the worry that robots will gain an upper hand and no longer need humans. The ability to learn, create their own language, acquire and create their own tactics, and would simply not need us anymore. That it is possible that humanity's legacy will be sentient robots.
A Japanese inventor has a different view on robotics. Instead of creating a robot that is able to move on it's own, he has created some exoskeleton arms and legs that respond to human brain impulses for movement. Even in someone who has been injured and can't walk anymore still sends a signal down the spine and to the leg, for example. It's just that the nerves in the leg no longer respond. But these electrical impulses can be picked up by the exoskeleton legs through the person's skin and assist the person in moving. There are people who have been unable to walk since birth who are now able to walk using these prototype exoskeleton legs. It's also being tested and used in rehabilitative therapy for people who were bed ridden for months, had their leg muscles atrophy, and are no longer able to stand/walk for very long without assistance. But it only provides them with the dynamic amount of strength to support movement and hold them up that their muscles are unable to provide. It allows for longer therapy sessions and greater mobility. It's helping them rebuild their muscles by "listening" to the electrical impulses and providing them with just enough strength that they lack to move their legs. The leg, shoulder and arm exoskeleton parts (as of 2013) are able to provide a human with the ability to lift 200kg more than they normally would be able to. It's not a full Iron Man exoskeleton frame or anything... yet. However, it is a significant tool for physical healthcare rehabilitation and allowing those who are paralyzed with the ability to walk (and use their arms) again. I could see it being used in construction, too.
This Japanese inventor is working on capturing movements of human beings so that they can be replicated perfectly. Tiger Woods awesome physical ability to play golf could be copied perfectly. When Tiger Woods dies his ability dies with him, but if he wore the exoskeleton, and it was able to record his movements, then it could be stored and reproduced by someone else hundreds of thousands of years later! However, just like the Iron Man exoskeleton frame, I can see this being adapted for military purposes, made into a full body suit that protects the wearer from incoming weapon's fire, provides them with greater physical speed and strengths, and even the ability to analyze what the suit wearer sees to avoid an attack since it can duplicate the actions of others. Hell, combine that technology with the robots that are in constant contact with each other, and it could be programmed to keep track of where the other squad members are, what their exoskeletons see, and, even if the person can't see an incoming attack themselves, the exoskeleton is getting information from the other exoskeletons, so sight-unseen the exoskeleton would be able to warn the wearer of incoming danger or just take action to protect the wearer itself.
Why deal with each person's unique ability to shoot accurately when it can do analysis and aim for the user? Why deal with different people's abilities as a sniper and copy the movements of the best sniper on file that's uploaded to the exoskeleton and compensate for it's user to make them into an equally great sniper? Now, the sniper thing has to deal with the weapon used, ammo used, distance to target, wind speeds, and if the target is moving or stationary. So it's not enough just to copy the best sniper's physical actions. There is some calculations that need to be done. Right now, humans are better able to do that without the bulky equipment it would take for a computer to assist the sniper but if the exoskeleton can be improved upon and modified specifically for military use, then it's certainly possible that the data storage could be small and use very little power. The exoskeleton itself would eventually be able to use less and less power, too, or have a power saving mode for when the wearer isn't in combat. Hell, why not a voice activated distance combat mode for sniper assistance that provides tactical information need to hit the target or a mode for semi-automatic weapons fire assistance that provides tactical information for better accuracy, a close-combat mode for hand to hand combat that increases physical speed and strength, a retreat mode that increases physical speed for running, and a power saving mode that only uses enough power to assist the wearer in regular movement.
Now, this could able to adapted to use no soldier at all. Just a robot army, but having a human that is robot and computer assisted would certainly give an edge on the ground. I think that, in the end, it should be a collaboration between humans and machines. We build the machines to assist us but don't allow them enough autonomy to be a threat. Any advanced AI could become dangerous, but if it's a slave AI that had it's abilities limited, can offer advice, and assistance then it wouldn't be such a big threat of becoming dangerous. Having the slave AI only be able to act independent or contrary to it's wearer if it detects a threat to the wearer then that'd be okay, but there'd have to be someone in the exoskeleton for it to move at all. If we're talking military use here, too, then if it's too damaged or running low on power it could be programmed to eject the wearer and short circuit if it's in the field to keep it out of enemy hands.
There are a lot of possible purposes for an exoskeleton that increases strength, reflexes, speed, and is physical protection... but for every possible great good, there must be a possible great bad. There is nothing that is without an equal opposite. That's just what I've been thinking about for the past few hours as I've written this.
I know this was a random rambling ranty kind of thing and if you've stuck around this long, I thank you. I've have a lot of contemplation time since I stopped trying to keep myself busy all the time. Some of it's been good for be. Some of it... not so much. It's just that we living in an exciting time. If we don't kill ourselves or poison our planet first, we could achieve greater things than I ever hoped were possible.
For the past month and half I've had this big fascination with science/technology, philosophy, and spirituality. I think all those things are important to the success and balanced growth of humanity. Not too much of any one of those things over the other.