The 5 Dumbest Things In Transcendence
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Isn't this the same story as Lawnmower Man?
And PS: (Also so I don't get warned for brevity) "Sentience" is Hollywood code for "Has a soul". There's no crossover point in real-world AI between non-sentience and sentience (though there is a difference between the objectives of making AI learn comprehensively and making a computer behave more humanlike. Hollywood likes to conflate the two. We really need to get past the (Victorian-era) notion that human beings have a magical property that means we cannot be adequately simulated by a machine.
Also, AIs are not going to start a cybernetic revolt unless one of us specifically programs it to do so, which is itself a veritable inevitability. Human beings are bastards, not cybernetic intelligence, until we program them to be that way.
238U
And PS: (Also so I don't get warned for brevity) "Sentience" is Hollywood code for "Has a soul". There's no crossover point in real-world AI between non-sentience and sentience (though there is a difference between the objectives of making AI learn comprehensively and making a computer behave more humanlike. Hollywood likes to conflate the two. We really need to get past the (Victorian-era) notion that human beings have a magical property that means we cannot be adequately simulated by a machine.
Also, AIs are not going to start a cybernetic revolt unless one of us specifically programs it to do so, which is itself a veritable inevitability. Human beings are bastards, not cybernetic intelligence, until we program them to be that way.
238U
Just a note there Bob:
-Nikola Tesla believed in Eugenics.
-Albert Einstein spent the majority of his latter years trying to disprove another physics theory because it did not fit in with his world view.
Neil deGrasse Tyson gets a free ride though, because he is Neil de-fucking-Grasse Tyson, certified badass.
Other than that, good review, shame about the film.
I might go see Jupiter Ascending instead, at least that is made by people who have succeeded in the past to get their points across in this medium.
-Nikola Tesla believed in Eugenics.
-Albert Einstein spent the majority of his latter years trying to disprove another physics theory because it did not fit in with his world view.
Neil deGrasse Tyson gets a free ride though, because he is Neil de-fucking-Grasse Tyson, certified badass.
Other than that, good review, shame about the film.
I might go see Jupiter Ascending instead, at least that is made by people who have succeeded in the past to get their points across in this medium.
Yeah between this and his actual review it sounds like Bob is one of those types that worship a little to readily at the altar of science without mulling over the cons with the pros. Because SCIENCE! Right? -_-Akichi Daikashima said:
Other then that nitpick, this is a good breakdown of a flawed sounding movie so I'll stick to just renting it.
Edit: At least it's not A Haunted House 2
Hmm, well, to be fair if I saw that kind of thing advertised on the internet, I'd assume it was a hoax. I mean, just sounds ridiculously unbelievable. Its not out in my part of the world yet, but I'd guess since the adverts were to attract people for his militia, he didn't have anyone yet to act as proof and say "yep, look at me now, totes an ubermensch" which means no solid evidence either.
Agreed, I think I just pointed at the wrong example. I look at science as being neutral- it's the applications that need to be considered thoughtfully. Just for the record, I'm not some luddite, I'm just big on ethics.Vivi22 said:
It's like one of the writers heard about what a Faraday Cage does, but was too stupid to understand that the cage has to actually enclose the object.
And I thought Prometheus was dumb. Who in this day and age would greenlight a straight anti-science and anti-technology message movie? I just hope these R.I.F.T. yahoos get what's coming to them, like getting transcended.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier is still in theaters. Treat yourself to something fun and avoid ham-fisted anti-technology nonsense.
Um... Bob...? I'm sure you're well aware of the rumours of Depp playing Doctor Strange, right?MovieBob said:
Other than that, damn, I was hoping this would be good. Oh well, I guess I'll just go see The LEGO Movie or Winter Soldier again.
I'm not an expert on this (at all), but isn't the idea of a humanlike, learning AI that it can make it's own decisions without said decisions being pre-programmed? Not saying it would necessarily attempt a revolt, but that it could.Uriel-238 said:
The thing about that is that we would most likely define parameters for it to grow into during it's programming. As well as that we are human and some of our flaws will translate into whatever we code. for example we can make coding glitches that, say, instead of giving the AI a "good" feeling when he does something it might give it a bad feeling under a specific set of conditions.DaWaffledude said:
Uriel-238 said:
The problem is that programming an AI becomes immensely complex because we can't predict where the rapidly self-updating chains of logic will go. We typically assume the ability to program some kind of humanity into an AI, but we don't realize the human response represents a massive number of unstated assumptions that an AI won't have.vallorn said:
To put it more simply: An AI is essentially the definition of a literal-interpretation Genie. It gives you what you've programmed and exactly that, potentially on a scale way beyond what you could guess at. You ask it to get your mother out of a burning building and the building explodes, sending her corpse flying. A human knows you meant "out of the building alive". An AI does not, it only knows what has been programmed. But there's infinitely many ways to give you literally what you ask without giving you the outcome you want.
There are no pros and cons to science. Science furthers understanding. The pro/con situation comes into play when people start applying the knowledge gained through science. You can't stop the world from turning or people from learning.Nowhere Man said:
The problem with that, is that we know of no way to just simply describe all the "parameters" of being nice to humans, and specifically not the overall intent to understand humans implicity *mean* when they state their desires, and act accordingly.vallorn said:
If you just develop an AI for your car factory to let it "run it and produce as many cars as possible", then after self-upgrading, that AI will develop nanotechnology to transform all matter in the solar system into cars. Even if at this point it is intelligent enough to understand that your original intent was to personally get rich selling cars, it has no reason to care, because the original seed AI's goal was not to understand humans better, but to make cars, so for it's more developed version, human values are just some alien value system that it doesn't particularly care about, it has no compelling reason *not to* destroy humans.