Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Terminator Salvation Opens Well, Scientists Not Impressed

Posted by Soulskill on from the come-with-me-if-you-want-to-groove-baby dept.

destinyland writes "A science magazine asks an MIT professor, roboticists, artificial intelligence workers, and science fiction authors about the possibility of an uprising of machines. Answers range from 'of course it's possible' to 'why would an intelligent network waste resources on personal combat?' An engineering professor points out that bipedal robots 'are largely impractical,' and Vernor Vinge says a greater threat to humanity is good old-fashioned nuclear annihilation. But one roboticist says it's inevitable robots will eventually be used in warfare, while another warns of robots in the hands of criminals, cults, and other 'non-state actors.' 'What we should fear in the foreseeable future is not unethical robots, but unethical roboticists.'" The new movie got off to a good start, drawing $13.4 million in its first day. I found it reasonably entertaining; pretty much what I'd expect from a Terminator movie. If nothing else, I learned that being able to crash helicopters and survive being thrown into the occasional wall are the two most valuable skills to have during a robot uprising. What did you think?

5 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. Who effin' cares what the scientists think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's Terminator! It never had a real basis in reality to begin with.

  2. Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The premise behind the war between humans and Skynet is simple. Once the humans realized that Skynet had become self-aware, they tried to shut down the system. In order to prevent being shut down, Skynet chose to fight back.

    Almost any intelligent creature will decide to fight or flee in the face of annhiliation. If we believe that computers can gain sentience, then it is also possible that they would attempt to preserve their own existence.

    1. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The notion that intelligent life will generally take steps to avoid being destroyed isn't necessarily true. The only substantial samples we have of intelligent life evolved. Life that doesn't take steps to prevent its own destruction isn't going to be likely to survive and produce offspring. It isn't at all clear that an intelligence created by humans would be at all inclined to prevent its own destruction.

  3. It's Not About Science by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm just about to head out to see it.

    The question utterly misses the point. It isn't about Science. It's about our fears. Frankenstein (in any of its incarnations) isn't about what's possible or likely, it's about our responsibility for what we create.

    This is Freshman English stuff. Every story, no matter how many tentacled creatures, or bumpy-foreheaded aliens, or killer machines, or whatever are in it, is about us.

    -Peter

    1. Re:It's Not About Science by Virak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but they've been lying to you. Not every single work of fiction is some deep allegory for some aspect of the human condition. Pong is not about the futility of existence. Your favorite porn video, that one with the really great anal scene, is not about sexism in modern culture. And Terminator is not about anything but blowing shit up and causal loops.