Slashdot Mirror
Terminator Salvation Opens Well, Scientists Not Impressed
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?
wouldnt nuclear attack kill the robotic network also, and people living in shelters would be safe from it
No, nuclear attack wouldn't kill the network. The Internet was designed to survive a nuclear attack. You might not have service at your home, but key systems will still remain connected. However, if nukes were detonated at a high altitude, it would generate an EMP that would destroy any electrical/electronic system that wasn't hardened. However, given the premise that Skynet is primarily a military system, it would be hardened with a lot of its main components underground, so it would still be running.
How many people do you know that regularly hang out in shelters capable of surviving a nuclear attack? A few thousand people scattered around the world don't make the most effective army.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
I thought Asimov's robots took over the world because the concluded the best way to follow the Three Laws was to stop humanity from acting stupid.
After all a robot won't be vulnerable to it, so hell: dump every nasty little bug out of every research lab into the biosphere. We could probably eliminate humanity (and every other furry thing with 2 or more legs) with what we have today.
However these humanity vs. machine fantasies are more about people's techno-phobia than about real-life.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Perhaps these scientists need a dose of reality. And the writers need a bit of separating capability :
1) AI researchers
robots taking over the world:
Yes, Ben Goertzel
No answer, prof. Anette (Peko) Hosoi (but : a T-1000 is likely)
Yes, Bob Mottram, but : not anywhere close to it. First humans will replace themselves slowly by intelligent machines, then humans will lose function (and intrest), then humans will die or get killed
Yes, John Weng, will happen soon in fact
No, Daniel H. Wilson, but RC terminators will be a reality real soon now
2) SF writers ...
robots taking over the world:
No, David Brin, why: uninteresting story
No, J. Storrs Hall, there's no reason
No, Vinge Vernor, equally likely as alien invasion, nuclear war america-russia,
If you actually read the article you will find it much more on the "yes" side of the point.
Also, all the strict "No" votes were by people whose business is fantasy. The more grounded in the real world, the more likely they are to say yes : the ones actually implementing working, useful AI sytems all said yes. The academics said unlikely and the science fiction writers said no.