Are we heading down the path to a robot apocalypse?

Mardrax

New member
Mar 12, 2009
24
0
0
Playbahnosh said:
I believe more in quantum physics, than in some incomprehensible deity, who, for some utterly ridiculous reason, has first century human properties.
Quantum physics. The 'religion' of today's world.
You do realise that field is funded on evidence about as solid as the Bible, right?
 

Playbahnosh

New member
Dec 12, 2007
606
0
0
Mardrax said:
Playbahnosh said:
I believe more in quantum physics, than in some incomprehensible deity, who, for some utterly ridiculous reason, has first century human properties.
Quantum physics. The 'religion' of today's world.
You do realise that field is funded on evidence about as solid as the Bible, right?
I said I believe more, I'm not all for it. I do know, that quantum physics is just a fancy word for "Physics stuff we no barely anything about, but we like to theorize". But since the Bible is ancient astrology coated with philosophy all jumbled into short stories, and quantum physics is at least somewhat based on modern science, I like the latter more. Maybe two millennia later people will see quantum physics as we see the Bible now, that's why civilization is emergent. We question things, that's how we move forward. Quantum physics is basically the questioning of everything. :)
 

Gitsnik

New member
May 13, 2008
798
0
0
Playbahnosh said:
Based on what you said in your previous posts, I guess she has a point.
It's a ***** of a field. Interesting, mind boggling, and fun, but a real ***** of a field. Still, if you ever want to be in it, you might succeed where the rest have failed - you never know. If you do, I'll get to say that I was there at your beginning :D

Your last paragraph (post 65) should be edited. You like the latter more.
 

Playbahnosh

New member
Dec 12, 2007
606
0
0
Gitsnik said:
Playbahnosh said:
Based on what you said in your previous posts, I guess she has a point.
It's a ***** of a field. Interesting, mind boggling, and fun, but a real ***** of a field. Still, if you ever want to be in it, you might succeed where the rest have failed - you never know. If you do, I'll get to say that I was there at your beginning :D

Your last paragraph (post 65) should be edited. You like the latter more.
Ooops! Damn typos. I has them ^_^ Edited, thanks!

On topic, if I ever get into that AI stuff, and if and when I succeed, you'll be fist to know, I promise ;)
 

EMFCRACKSHOT

Not quite Cthulhu
May 25, 2009
2,973
0
0
as yet, robots are barely even capable of going up stairs so i think we are safe unless they can fly. Can they fly? I hope not because then we are totally screwed. But the future does not ly oin robots, it lies in genetically engineered super soldiers with oversized armour and and laser cannons grafted to their chests and big machine guns for arms fighting alongside legions of dark Jedi knights with lightsabers and force powers. Thats the kind of future i want to live in.
But it would be so cool if robots took over terminator style and totally wiped out humanity and the survivors would all be like lets go live on the moon and stuff and blow up the planet to get rid of the nasty robots. Then we coud go and kill all the aliens and make drinking cups from their skulls.
 

Ashbax

New member
Jan 7, 2009
1,773
0
0
mikecoulter said:
No, robots are still unable to program themselves, so as long as they're coded to a)not harm humans and b)not cause damage to certain objects. We'll be fine :) Unless of course they find a logical reason to manipulate their code, in which case, they would have the perfect AI. They could change their actions depending what seems like the most logical choice, which could include defending itself. Lets wait and see :)
yes, Have any of you ever heard of the three robot laws? they were invented years before proper robots actually came about, but becuase of these robots will never take over.

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 to 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.


Sure they were invented by a writer, but scientists are using them on the more advanced robots. *shrugs* its like I, robot. Oh wait, all the robots in that started killing everyone. Woops.
 

Gitsnik

New member
May 13, 2008
798
0
0
Ashbax said:
mikecoulter said:
No, robots are still unable to program themselves, so as long as they're coded to a)not harm humans and b)not cause damage to certain objects. We'll be fine :) Unless of course they find a logical reason to manipulate their code, in which case, they would have the perfect AI. They could change their actions depending what seems like the most logical choice, which could include defending itself. Lets wait and see :)
yes, Have any of you ever heard of the three robot laws? they were invented years before proper robots actually came about, but becuase of these robots will never take over.

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 to 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.


Sure they were invented by a writer, but scientists are using them on the more advanced robots. *shrugs* its like I, robot. Oh wait, all the robots in that started killing everyone. Woops.
We discussed that already. Asimov himself refined his "3 laws" further (adding a number of them as stated) after he created the original three.

And to make a note of the post you were quoting - we have code that rewrites itself (albeit crudely) - look at polymorphic virus'. They're something we don't see very often any more, but they were around a fair bit when people were working on things like TINY - and they were around for as much the technical feat as the spread. Screw spammers.