Terminators

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:17 am

Anyone else get the hell freaked out of them when they read stuff like this?

(If you are not registered it is free and there is no spam.)

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:27 am

Do not trust the pusher robot.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:39 am

Not really. When they start getting smart I'll worry.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:41 am

Better robots dying than humans dying.

It'll be kind of absurd when war is just sending robots to kill other robots, but war is absurd already.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:47 am

My friend alerted me to this when I sent her the link.

My favorite part is the explanation of why they refused the "Who, me?" bomb.

I think the idea of robots killing humans in general freaks me out a whole Hell of a lot. I don't know if it's because I'm afraid they'll lose control, which is probably mostly an unjustifiable fear, or if it's because I'm afraid they won't be able to show compassion for injured enemies or if I'm just terrified by how efficient they could be. But it freaks the Goddamn Hell out of me.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:57 am

Lucas J wrote:

Anyone else get the hell freaked out

Very, very freaked out. I don't really know why. This just seems like one of those very distinguishable "steps" towards complete automation.

As a politician, I'm not sure if I'd try to curb their development (lest our enemies make them before we do). As a human being though, I'm really crossing my fingers that some kind of spiritual renaissance occurs at some point soon. As it is right now, there's really no reason not to put robots in charge of everything.

The day the first armed robot kills an innocent thing is going to be a really, really, really, really sad day. Scarier and more sad than wrongful executions, which are bottom-of-the-barrel-of-infinite-sadness-sad.

Sad

Joined: 08 Feb 2005 Posts: 193 Location: the Axis of Rad

I'm freaked out too. I'm especially worried about robots being switched from "KILL" to "DO NOT KILL" mode. What happens when there are issues with that transition?

I also don't particularly like reading this:

Quote:

"They don't get hungry," said Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon. "They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:15 am

ED-209 wrote:

Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.

Levity!

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:21 am

Indeed, it is creepy that way, but I already consider war to be so absurd anyways, fighting robots can't really effect me... the idea of a killing machine going into a room and wiping it out is creepy, but no more creepy than a person doing it.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:30 am

BizRodian wrote:

Indeed, it is creepy that way, but I already consider war to be so absurd anyways, fighting robots can't really effect me... the idea of a killing machine going into a room and wiping it out is creepy, but no more creepy than a person doing it.

I'll have to disagree with you! I consider it exponentially creepier for a soulless creature to kill than a human! Granted, war is pretty adsurd, but would you rather have men moving through buildings to see the actual cost or robots moving through buildings shooting everything that moves?

I'm in the middle of East of Eden, which is why the story of Cain and Abel comes to mind (and Steinbeck's interpretation of it, to be specific). No matter how much sin we have in us, there is always some possibility of redemption - that's what makes us human. Humans can overcome their own corruptions, and they sure as Hell can see the effects of other humans. Robots... designed to kill... have no sense of sin and therefore no possibility of redemption, no chance for justice.

All I'm sayin' is that we won't have any veterans to talk about the absurdities of war in a few dozen years. The only people who will see war are the people being killed.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:47 am

Quote:

With the development of nanotechnology - the science of very small structures - they may become swarms of "smart dust."

There's the bit I find particularly unsettling. If something like this got out of control...

Not cool.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:01 am

You'll have men of questionable origin selling feather dusters out of the trunks of their cars!

Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 74 Location: No, YOU k

They are forgetting asimov's first law of robotics: all robots will eventually turn against their masters.

Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 463 Location: Birmingham, UK

i don't see the difference between robots and, say, nerve gas or smart bombs, in this context.

Guest

GambleOn wrote:

Quote:

With the development of nanotechnology - the science of very small structures - they may become swarms of "smart dust."

There's the bit I find particularly unsettling. If something like this got out of control...

Not cool.

If you haven't already, read Michael Crichton's PREY. It's about just that- nanotech dust clouds and what happens when they go awry!

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:57 am

Johnny 5 wrote:

Johnny 5 is alive!

Guest

Steve! wrote:

If you haven't already, read Michael Crichton's PREY. It's about just that- nanotech dust clouds and what happens when they go awry!

I think it's important that we not let Michael Crichton dictate our priorities for scientific research. Although the man may tell a good story, he is an ignorant reactionary.

Here is some real information on what nanotechnology may be used for, as well as what is unlikely to happen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3788673.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3920685.stm

Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 74 Location: No, YOU k

Quote:

The scientist many regard as the father of nanotechnology has backed away from his famous claim that nano-machines could turn the world into a "grey goo".

So I guess we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief and quite safely start using nano-machines in everyday life ... or can we?

Check out the picture of Eric Drexler, the scientist in question:

isn't there something just not quite right about him? Isn't his sudden change of heart a little suspect? Don't his glowing white eyes look a bit suspect? I think it's only too clear what's happened: one night in his secret underground laboratory, professor drexlor's own diminutive creations turned against him, breaking him down into a grey goo, and rebuilding an evil version of him made out of millions and millions of nano-drexlors. They are now using the anti-drexlor as a mouthpiece to encourage the world to build more nano-bots so they can take over and turn us all into their giga-slaves. Fiendish.

I guess we'd better learn to like the taste of grey goo.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:15 am

MackJ wrote:

ED-209 wrote:

Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.

Levity!

ED-209 was my favorite robot for a while when I was a kid, and I always felt sad that he couldn't use stairs. Distraughty the Eagle

Nowadays my favorite robot is Tom Servo, and I think he'd have issues navigating stairs, too. I guess I just have a soft spot for robots of limited mobility.

Guest

eruditebaboon wrote:

isn't there something just not quite right about him? Isn't his sudden change of heart a little suspect? Don't his glowing white eyes look a bit suspect? I think it's only too clear what's happened: one night in his secret underground laboratory, professor drexlor's own diminutive creations turned against him, breaking him down into a grey goo, and rebuilding an evil version of him made out of millions and millions of nano-drexlors. They are now using the anti-drexlor as a mouthpiece to encourage the world to build more nano-bots so they can take over and turn us all into their giga-slaves. Fiendish.

While attractive, your theory does not hold up under even basic scrutiny. This man clearly has a full beard, while the evil Drexlor would naturally sport a goatee only. CASE CLOSED.

Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 74 Location: No, YOU k

That's science I can't argue with. Perhaps the extraneous moustach and lamb chops are false?

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:05 pm

eruditebaboon wrote:

Check out the picture of Eric Drexler, the scientist in question:

Hmm, looks like a character model from Half Life 2 to me!

Lucas J wrote:

I'll have to disagree with you! I consider it exponentially creepier for a soulless creature to kill than a human! Granted, war is pretty adsurd, but would you rather have men moving through buildings to see the actual cost or robots moving through buildings shooting everything that moves?

While I sort of agree, like I said, when the things get smart, I'll start to worry. Right now, they're not smart.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:01 pm

Lucas J wrote:

All I'm sayin' is that we won't have any veterans to talk about the absurdities of war in a few dozen years. The only people who will see war are the people being killed.

See... that's not cool. It's already bad enough that the US Military out-technologies everyone else's by a long shot... now war is going to be easier and loss free? Jesus, why not conquer the whole freaking world?

Sorry, but I feel pretty strongly about this shit. I think it's sick, sick, sick.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:12 pm

eruditebaboon wrote:

They are forgetting asimov's first law of robotics: all robots will eventually turn against their masters.

i've got my eye on you roomba vacuum cleaner.

Joined: 17 Nov 2004 Posts: 107 Location: AZ

hahaha, sorry couldn't resist

To be serious, I don't know how I feel about this. They may be robots, but it will always be people giving the orders. And I don't like people approving the suffering and death of anyone. That's always going to be the problem. I guess it's a matter of people wanting power, and they're going to build whatever it takes. I don't think anyone really wants war to happen anyway, it's more just about the intimidation factor. When we build weapons, I really think it's more for the ability to threaten people with them than to actually use them. But in order to seriously threaten people, they have to be really usable, which is why it's just sad if they end up being used.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:49 pm

They've talked of putting them into action in Iraq... which is sad considering how much of a turkey shoot our "boys" are having over there already. It turns my stomach when I think of robots with automatic weapons systematically eliminating "the enemy" overseas. Will these robots be gunning down entire families in their vehicles as well?

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:42 pm

For me, it's not the robots themelves that are scary, but those morons in power that will order them around.
Especially if they are the kind that says kitsch cliches like:

Quote:

"They don't get hungry," said Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon. "They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."

I mean, come on! There are people who say stuff like that in positions of power at the Pentagon?
Guess I should start storing supplies in the basement.

<edit> Dino tumbs up for Monika's post, which already said everything I wanted to, in a more thought- provoking way.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:54 pm

M wrote:

Steve! wrote:

If you haven't already, read Michael Crichton's PREY. It's about just that- nanotech dust clouds and what happens when they go awry!

I think it's important that we not let Michael Crichton dictate our priorities for scientific research. Although the man may tell a good story, he is an ignorant reactionary.

While I agree that we shouldn't let him (or any one person really) dictate our priorities for scientific research, I think it's somewhat unfair to call him an ignorant reactionary. The man graduated summa cum laude from Harvard with a degree in Anthropology and is also a medical doctor (that degree is also from Harvard), among other impressive credentials.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:32 pm

That dust is pretty scary. It reminds me of the little chopped up "Sorcerer's Apprentice" Itchys with axes, destroying Scratchy's lungs. Also: I don't want nano-robots swimming around in the water I drink.

I think that robots fighting robots is so ridiculous that it's funny, even though the whole robot army thing is terrifying. Robots should only be used to build cars, mow lawns, and make music. Robots can also inspire dances too if they want.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:25 pm

i am not a fan of michael crichton's books. i have read timeline, prey, and the andromeda strain. the ending to the andromeda strain is the lamest thing ever. and i don't like how he tries to make everything sound so scientific when really its mainly a bunch of crap. timeline was worse than prey. timeline stunk and i hated it.