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?
It's Terminator! It never had a real basis in reality to begin with.
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.
Did anyone verify that these so-called scientists aren't actually time traveling cyborgs sent to spread disinformation and lead us into a false security? I bet not!
I didn't.
I was at a Terminator movie.
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
we all know what happens it you put new species which did not co-evolve into an ecosystem. They dont need to be intelligent to do harm.
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.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/terminator_salvation/
Consensus: With storytelling as robotic as the film's iconic villains, Terminator Salvation offers plenty of great effects but lacks the heart of the original films.
I find it odd that a movie about giant killer robots (without hearts) would lack heart but I digress.
Here's some quotes from critics who didn't like it:
"Message to Hollywood: Stop with the time-travel stuff."
"I wish Bale had lashed out against the writers rather than the cinematographer."
"The artistry is top notch, but they've lost track of why the original Terminators were cyborgs and not robots, as they are here."
This isn't the intellectual or thinking person's science-fiction film like The Man From Earth.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/
This is a Hollywood action movie.
Terminator Salvation is to science-fiction movies as Dodgeball was to sports movies...a joke, and maybe even a parody. I've saw T4 last night. I was dismayed by how far the franchise has fallen.
According to all the trades I have been reading, that's a disapointing start, opening lower than T3. They lowered T4s expected weekend total because of it in fact from 80 million (in line with Star Trek) down to roughly 60-65.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
I still want to know why Skynet gave its main fighting robot the ability to speak English, then programmed it to have an Austrian accent.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
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
In T2 it is stated that they have a power source that lasts 120 years. This basically means nuclear. T3 states that the 850 uses two hydrogen fuel cells, although even if they were 100% efficient they would not be able to generate enough power if that's 'really' what they were, so it's likely that the writers meant a hydrogen fusion reactor. Obviously Skynet made some impressive developments in fusion after it went online. Not really surprising for something 'learning at a geometric rate'.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This argument is silly. It's fiction. To follow the story line of any fiction, there's a leap of faith that must be taken for the factual basis of the fiction's "universe".
Too much is given to the skynet's "Self Aware". It was a system that was able to adjust it's behavior for self preservation. Somewhere in there, anyone who had a clue would have understood that governments change power, and sometimes the power that takes control isn't necessarily the "right" one. The basis of the whole Terminator "universe" is that a very well written set of programs were given an insane amount of power. When that power was to be taken away, obviously any person or any group who attempted to take that power away would be an enemy.
As for the bipedal aspect, why not. What are the choices for locomotion? For surface travel there is track, wheel, or walking. For air travel there is propeller, jet, rocket, or some mysterious anti-gravity thrust.
On the surface, track and wheel have limitations of 2d movement. They can't exactly step over things very easily. That includes stairs, dead bodies, etc. Walking motion gets over these limitations. For walking, the question would be, how many legs are required. One leg doesn't exactly get you very far, unless you like a funny pogo stick movement, which doesn't hold a stable position very well. Two legs we are very familiar with. Three legs or more legs, while providing a more stable platform, are not required and therefore require less production overhead. In other words, if you can build something that walks on two legs, but you were to decide to build something that walks on four legs, you're doubling your manufacturing effort to accomplish a single unit.
As for air travel, more resources are required. It takes more energy to make something hover indefinitely than it does to have it stand in place. I would have no answer for any mysterious anti-gravity thrust. Maybe it just works, or maybe (just maybe) it requires fuel to accomplish the same task.
Now, for the invention of humanoid appearing robots, that's a leap of faith for the fictional universe. Any design decisions are something we have to believe was decided to make the universe plausible.
So, shut up with the science, and enjoy the damned movie. :)
It's not just me saying this. I've been on the losing side of the same argument. I may argue physics. I love space physics errors. You have to love the old movies (like, 1950's era) where a rocket flying through space had a flame behind it, but the flame was rising up, away from relative down. Exactly which way is down in space? There isn't one. :) I'll argue it, and take the leap of faith that the thrust worked, and the space ship would fly to it's destination. woosh.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Today, your computer can be turned against you. Not in a Stallmanesque fantasy about some lack of programming freedom, but in a very serious sense by people unrestrained by law enforcement of any sort. In the US and Western Europe as have service providers that, when confronted with information clearly indicating someone is using the Internet to attack and destroy, turns not only a blind eye but encourages their customer by shielding them from any possible contact or consequence.
The result is that your computer cannot be trusted. And don't bother thinking of any of that anti-Microsoft ranting. Would you leave a Linux system connected to the Internet with telnet accessible and a root password of "password"? Why not, it was done in the 1980's? Could it be because your computer can be turned against you by people that wish you, your possessions and your resources harm?
Trust me, by shielding bad actors on the Internet we are growing a faction that believes they are immune from laws and cannot be touched by any consequences. In large measure, this is a correct belief but one that is very, very dangerous for the rest of the planet.
If there was a robot (bipedal or not) that could destroy a city block in a few minutes and no force available to police could possibly stop it, do you think there might be some people that would desire to hack into it? And to set it on its way of destruction? Of course there are such people, and given the opportunity to do so would gleefully do it. Without a moment's thought as to the consequences believing they are immune through layers of proxies and Tor nodes.
Forget AI run amuck and chasing down humanity. Fear the irresponsible folks that worship destruction for destruction's sake.
THe destructive power of a nuclear generated EMP is HIGHLY overrated and mostly inconsequential compared to the fact that you are initiating a nuclear chain reaction. Its a low grade side effect at best, no one would deploy a nuclear weapon with its sole intent of generating the EMP blast.
Good-bye
If we're going to pick about how likely future developments are, I think "How do they manage the not-insignificant feat of time travel?" would count as a bigger peeve...
T3 didn't get that reaction from you?
T3 was a steaming pile of crap. The only Terminator stuff worth paying attention is the first, second, and I might even include small bits of the TV show if I'm feeling generous. But thats mostly because Summer Glau and Shirley Manson.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
'Non-state actors' should be feared more than states? Give me a break. States have killed more than two hundred million of their own subjects in the last two hundred years. I'm pretty sure that non-state criminals and cults have a fair way to go before approaching that tally.
The Soviets designed and built a class of extremely high-yield devices (50-100Mt) explicitly to detonate as high-altitude airbursts to create massive EMP and disrupt communications and control networks.
A 5 Mt city-cracker is more about the blast/heat effects, but a 100 Mt device makes a HUGE EMP.
They made the neutron-reflective tamper out of fissionable material. Dirty and inefficient as hell, but it sure 'nuff boosted yield.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
It would take a miracle worker to run the State of California
Montgomery Scott?