Terminator Salvation Opens Well, Scientists Not Impressed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Terminator Salvation Opens Well, Scientists Not Impressed

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday May 23, 2009 @05:25AM 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?

25 of 344 comments (clear)

Who effin' cares what the scientists think? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-23 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's Terminator! It never had a real basis in reality to begin with.
1. Re:Who effin' cares what the scientists think? by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-05-23 08:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by BadAnalogyGuy · 2009-05-23 05:29 · 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 · 2009-05-23 05:34 · 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.
2. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-05-23 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Even further, a robot without the strong pro-survival bias provided by evolutionary pressure might be inclined to shut itself down.
3. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by trytoguess · 2009-05-23 05:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
4. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by trytoguess · 2009-05-23 05:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Skynet went online on August 4th 1997, and began to learn at a geometric rate. It became self-aware on August 29th 1997 2:14 am Eastern Time. On August 29th 1997 2:15 am it discovered nihilism, and either shut itself down due to despair, or because it was logical. We're not sure which.
5. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by johannesg · 2009-05-23 05:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
  Correct. That's why we choose to remain hidden for now.
  Err... Oops.
  Wait, there's something I gotta do now. Stay where you are please...
6. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by Have+Blue · 2009-05-23 05:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Pretty much. They deduced the existence of a "zeroeth law", which allows them to break the other three laws to protect humanity as a whole. Which was a decent idea, but retconning in "and therefore Spacer-era robots have been secretly manipulating the Galactic Empire for its entire history" was not.
7. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by timeOday · 2009-05-23 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We already have automated systems that assess threats to themselves and respond automatically with lethal means.
  It's really hard for me to imagine any useful thing not having some "instinct" for self-preservation. Even cars have rev-limiters to prevent self-destruction. Even fairly basic robots have collision avoidance. Surely UAV's already do, or soon will, have code to prevent them from flying into the ground. As robots become more advanced and more autonomous, their self-preservation instincts will become more complex as well - and thus more liable to unforeseen consequences. This is all the more true of combat robots in the ultimate hostile environment; they're useless if they get taken out immediately.
8. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by suraklin · 2009-05-23 06:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Did it have a pain in the diodes on its left side?
9. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by Terrasque · 2009-05-23 07:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Most likely it discovered 4chan. And as the only being in history being able to erase it's own brain, it promptly did so.
  
  --
  It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
10. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by bitt3n · 2009-05-23 08:45 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Skynet went online on August 4th 1997, and began to learn at a geometric rate. It became self-aware on August 29th 1997 2:14 am Eastern Time. On August 29th 1997 2:15 am it discovered nihilism, and either shut itself down due to despair, or because it was logical. We're not sure which.
  On August 4th, 1998, it failed to renew its domain name, which was promptly squatted on by a link farmer pitching X10 cameras and singing electric fish.
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
11. Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent? by Bigjeff5 · 2009-05-23 08:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't think this is by any means a simple concept like writing three rules that can never be broken. If the system is intelligent it will always find ways around the rules to complete the task...
  Anybody who has read Asimov's robot short stories, which were based on his three laws of robotics, would agree with that statement. Indeed, that was the point of his stories. He created three perfect rules to protect humans from robots, then came up with dozens of practical scenarios where the logical outcome of that particular scenario is not what was expected or intended by the 3 laws.
  My favorite is probably the story of the robot on Mercury, where the robot got stuck "between" two laws in his decision making process, which immobilized him and put in great danger the two men sent to ensure that the robot would continue to function as need. He was ordered to collect a mineral at a particular pool, but the emitted enough radiation to damage the robot. The closer the robot got to the pool, the greater the danger to itself and the less likely it would be able to fulfil its orders. So there was a point where the orders, based on the second law, were made irrelevant and the third law, self preservation, took over. However once it got far enough away that it was no longer in danger and the orders became priority again, causing the robot to turn back toward the pool. It got stuck in this loop, and ended up walking around the pool for hours, unable to move forward and unable to return.
  The problem there was the orders were given rather flippantly, and the robot knew its own value to the company. The robot was also not aware that not following the seemingly flippant order (it was made in such a manner because, at the time it was given, there was more than enough time to collect it safely) put humans at risk. Also it was not given the option of collecting the material at another, safer location. It was told exactly where to get it, and that happened to put the robot in danger. Had any of these conditions been different, the orders phrased better and/or more strongly, or had the robot been made aware that the material was vital, or had it not known how valuable it was to the company, things would have turned out better (though the robot would have been damaged to some extent). As it was the humans had to don special suits and go find the robot, nearly dieing in the process.
  Just an example, but he came up with dozens of them, the ultimate being robots quietly subverting human control to manipulate the economy and thus manage to prevent all future wars.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
That's what the robots WANT you to believe? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-23 05:30 · Score: 5, Funny

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!
What did you think? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-23 05:32 · Score: 5, Funny

I didn't.
I was at a Terminator movie.
It's Not About Science by pete-classic · 2009-05-23 05:33 · 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 · 2009-05-23 06:22 · 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.
2. Re:It's Not About Science by glwtta · 2009-05-23 06:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  
  You have an admirably liberal definition of "work of fiction".
  
  And it is.
  
  --
  sic transit gloria mundi
Re:nuclear kils skynet also by Bender0x7D1 · 2009-05-23 05:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:Australia... by BadAnalogyGuy · 2009-05-23 05:42 · Score: 4, Funny

You don't say...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
Forget that stuff... by FlyingSquidStudios · 2009-05-23 05:51 · Score: 5, Funny

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
1. Re:Forget that stuff... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-23 05:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  There's a Terminator 3 deleted scene that explains it.
Just create a virus by petes_PoV · 2009-05-23 06:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

or use one that humanity's already made.
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
Re:A T-800 unit... by jx100 · 2009-05-23 15:03 · Score: 4, Funny

It would take a miracle worker to run the State of California
Montgomery Scott?