Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Their are a lot of movies depicting the end of mankind from self aware computers but is it realistic to think that it could some day be our future. Maybe not so much computers wiping us out but machines that are self aware? Found this interesting article on the subject was curious what your thoughts were on it. One of the quotes from the article i thought was funny. Quote: If and when computers do become sentient, Simmons believes their human creators won't be that stupid: We will have engineered in basic safeguards. Of course we would never be so stupid
Indeed, they're preparing for it! http://skynet.md
All a load of total bullshit, a computer will do what it's told to do. No matter how fast it is. If someone engineers a computer with arms, legs and sensors, being self aware would not make it any better than the current androids. Even if it did have arms, legs and sensors it would need to be programmed to do something. It would not become "self aware" unless the programmer intended it to. As of yet, there is not even a principle for it. People have gone as far as emulating the 100s of billions of neurons and synapses in the brain but it takes weeks using 1 mega watt of power to emulate just 1 second. Also yet again, it is still simply following what the programmer told it to.
My own concern is that it will look at 4chan, then decide we need to be wiped out. I doubt self-awareness is even possible, we don't fully understand how our own brains work, how can we hope to emulate them?
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 13:15 My own concern is that it will look at 4chan, then decide we need to be wiped out. I doubt self-awareness is even possible, we don't fully understand how our own brains work, how can we hope to emulate them? Oh what aimbots do?
and what if there is a bug in the program that causes it?
jnz wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 09:00 All a load of total bullshit, a computer will do what it's told to do. No matter how fast it is. If someone engineers a computer with arms, legs and sensors, being self aware would not make it any better than the current androids. Even if it did have arms, legs and sensors it would need to be programmed to do something. It would not become "self aware" unless the programmer intended it to. As of yet, there is not even a principle for it. People have gone as far as emulating the 100s of billions of neurons and synapses in the brain but it takes weeks using 1 mega watt of power to emulate just 1 second. Also yet again, it is still simply following what the programmer told it to. Thats the smartest thing I have seen in these forums, thanks
IF IT WONT BE SKYNET, IT WILL BE THE CYLONS OR BOTH TEAMED UP WITH DARWIN AND THE PIXIES http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxQl7977BE
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 13:15 My own concern is that it will look at 4chan, then decide we need to be wiped out. That, or it'll just become an hero when it realizes that we're not even worth saving.
mrãçķz wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 13:52 CarrierII wrote on Thu, 16 July 2009 13:15 My own concern is that it will look at 4chan, then decide we need to be wiped out. I doubt self-awareness is even possible, we don't fully understand how our own brains work, how can we hope to emulate them? Oh what aimbots do? What aimbots do? Aimbots lock on to a bone in the engine... I can't imagine how that's anything close to emulating a neuron. Weirdo... But anyway, I'm with jnz on this one. Don't think that's possible.
Self Aware Robot, in robot terms that is lol http://www.danshope.com/news/showarticle.php?article_id=71
jnz is right. The insertion of "sentience inhibitors" to prevent self-awareness makes the assumption that the program can even be self-aware (which isn't possible) and this makes the whole idea silly. But science fiction has silly but wonderful ideas, which makes it enjoyable.
I don't think it's possible. I don't think we could ever understand just how we work ourselves, let alone imitate it with a computer.
If anyone here has played the game Mass Effect, the Geth are a good example of a computer becoming self-aware and becoming their own aggressive faction. For those of you who haven't, it's a simple concept to explain. They were originally humanoid-computers (not made by humans, but had a head, two arms and two legs) designed to serve their owners by doing chores and tasks. Little by little, they were upgraded in order to perform their tasks better. However, they eventually started to question their owners as to why they were created and what their purpose for life was. So, for fear of the Geth becoming problematic, they attempted to shutdown and dismantle them all. However, fearing for "lives" they fought back. Now, obviously using another fictional story to answer a question based off a fictional story wont really answer anything.. however it lessens the impact of what jnz said earlier. A machine can become self-aware rather easily, in concept. You just need to give it the ability to learn from its observations and actions and work accordingly. It doesn't have to be like a PC that does it either. Also, our technologies are definitely getting closer to accomplishing that task. Did anyone see the Natal project that Microsoft is working on for the Xbox 360? That Milo program is definitely our first steps into the realm of technological self-awareness. Milo may just have the forefront of being self-aware, but it's only a hop, skip and a jump away from achieving a fully self-aware program. Now, if you're asking if the machine will then turn on humanity and start a war, then that's a different story. A machine becomes self aware, you just need to treat it like any other life form that has feelings towards its own life. (Either that, or you don't make it at all.)
It doesn't lessen the impact of what jnz said in the least. I find it to be a load of smokin' bull. So the Geth started to question their owners? That's a cop out. They questioned only because the question was coded in to be asked. It can do only what it is programmed to do; like react to your actions in that Milo demo. Don't be fooled by Milo...all you have to do is remove your sensor belt and you can kick at the TV all you want, Kung Fu man will just stand there lookin' at your balls. It can learn such as sensing your body movements and choosing a optimal code to execute back in return. But if no instructions are present, it cannot react. This is what any advancement in such technology may bring in the future: optimizing and expanding the level and type of operations that can be performed. It will need untold amounts of programming and/or human input (Global Hawk and Predator are primitive examples). Even if you were to teach A-Z of all known knowledge and code in as many scenarios as possible, it still cannot think on it's own. You can walk up to it and ask it to give you a blowjob. Now if your question is programmed in and variables are in place to allow it to respond with a positive or negative response, then you most likely will be getting your blowjob. If not, it will just stand there sniffin' at your smelly balls and you would need to try again later. If a killer machine-gun-mounted robot is built with heat seeking sensors that is programmed to automatically fire on targets that emit heat, then it will do just that. It will not make a conscious decision to fire but it will only carry out the actions that are programmed for it (i.e, auto engage weapon at heat emitting targets). How can a massive processing unit such as Skynet suddenly become self-aware, form it's own goals and motives, and manage all controllable assets and resources to complete it's newfound objectives? It's inconceivable and IMPOSSIBLE. We will definitely come to Terminator level type robots; fully programmed machines devoid of reason. Infact, I can bet we can make them completely human-like with vast algorithms; but they will still not be self-aware. You think the massive hunter-killer tank in Terminator 2 was going around on it's own? In the movie, it is assumed to be so. But in reality, the tank is merely on it's programmed patrol route armed with heat sensing weaponry that kill whenever organic heat emitting material (such as human bodies) are detected. Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peqEf5enXJs Go to 0:54 on the video and watch carefully. You think that machine is making a conscious decision to fire? Will it EVER be capable of making such a decision? No. If you look closely, all heat seeking sensors/radars are mounted on it's rotating top turret along with the floodlights (according to the artists who worked on that model). The sensors detect humans and based on that data, the programming allows the execution of the firing of the the twin plasma cannons. No conscious decision is being made by the hunter-killer to kill, though in the movie it is assumed to be so. THIS is what I think we humans will be capable of achieving and the technology is being developed in DARPA's laboratories. It is our natural course of doing things. But it's simply wishful thinking that they "somehow" will progress to Cylon/Skynet level self-awareness. NOTE: This post a longer version of jnz's post.
Starbuck wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 02:05 It doesn't lessen the impact of what jnz said in the least. I find it to be a load of smokin' bull. So the Geth started to question their owners? That's a cop out. They questioned only because the question was coded in to be asked. It can do only what it is programmed to do; like react to your actions in that Milo demo. Don't be fooled by Milo...all you have to do is remove your sensor belt and you can kick at the TV all you want, Kung Fu man will just stand there lookin' at your balls. It can learn such as sensing your body movements and choosing a optimal code to execute back in return. But if no instructions are present, it cannot react. This is what any advancement in such technology may bring in the future: optimizing and expanding the level and type of operations that can be performed. It will need untold amounts of programming and/or human input (Global Hawk and Predator are primitive examples). Even if you were to teach A-Z of all known knowledge and code in as many scenarios as possible, it still cannot think on it's own. You can walk up to it and ask it to give you a blowjob. Now if your question is programmed in and variables are in place to allow it to respond with a positive or negative response, then you most likely will be getting your blowjob. If not, it will just stand there sniffin' at your smelly balls and you would need to try again later. If a killer machine-gun-mounted robot is built with heat seeking sensors that is programmed to automatically fire on targets that emit heat, then it will do just that. It will not make a conscious decision to fire but it will only carry out the actions that are programmed for it (i.e, auto engage weapon at heat emitting targets). How can a massive processing unit such as Skynet suddenly become self-aware, form it's own goals and motives, and manage all controllable assets and resources to complete it's newfound objectives? It's inconceivable and IMPOSSIBLE. We will definitely come to Terminator level type robots; fully programmed machines devoid of reason. Infact, I can bet we can make them completely human-like with vast algorithms; but they will still not be self-aware. You think the massive hunter-killer tank in Terminator 2 was going around on it's own? In the movie, it is assumed to be so. But in reality, the tank is merely on it's programmed patrol route armed with heat sensing weaponry that kill whenever organic heat emitting material (such as human bodies) are detected. Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peqEf5enXJs Go to 0:54 on the video and watch carefully. You think that machine is making a conscious decision to fire? Will it EVER be capable of making such a decision? No. If you look closely, all heat seeking sensors/radars are mounted on it's rotating top turret along with the floodlights (according to the artists who worked on that model). The sensors detect humans and based on that data, the programming allows the execution of the firing of the the twin plasma cannons. No conscious decision is being made by the hunter-killer to kill, though in the movie it is assumed to be so. THIS is what I think we humans will be capable of achieving and the technology is being developed in DARPA's laboratories. It is our natural course of doing things. But it's simply wishful thinking that they "somehow" will progress to Cylon/Skynet level self-awareness. NOTE: This post a longer version of jnz's post. And we have a winner. Any programmer will tell you it's not possible. A computer will only do EXACTLY what you tell it to and nothing more.
and when you tell it to be self-aware?
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 05:09 If anyone here has played the game Mass Effect, the Geth are a good example of a computer becoming self-aware and becoming their own aggressive faction. For those of you who haven't, it's a simple concept to explain. They were originally humanoid-computers (not made by humans, but had a head, two arms and two legs) designed to serve their owners by doing chores and tasks. Little by little, they were upgraded in order to perform their tasks better. However, they eventually started to question their owners as to why they were created and what their purpose for life was. So, for fear of the Geth becoming problematic, they attempted to shutdown and dismantle them all. However, fearing for "lives" they fought back. Now, obviously using another fictional story to answer a question based off a fictional story wont really answer anything.. however it lessens the impact of what jnz said earlier. A machine can become self-aware rather easily, in concept. You just need to give it the ability to learn from its observations and actions and work accordingly. It doesn't have to be like a PC that does it either. Also, our technologies are definitely getting closer to accomplishing that task. Did anyone see the Natal project that Microsoft is working on for the Xbox 360? That Milo program is definitely our first steps into the realm of technological self-awareness. Milo may just have the forefront of being self-aware, but it's only a hop, skip and a jump away from achieving a fully self-aware program. Now, if you're asking if the machine will then turn on humanity and start a war, then that's a different story. A machine becomes self aware, you just need to treat it like any other life form that has feelings towards its own life. (Either that, or you don't make it at all.) "However, they eventually started to question their owners as to why they were created and what their purpose for life was" This is the exact line I've been debunking in my post. It's possible to emulate self awareness, such as a robot wanting to learn more for example. Just not actually achieve self awareness. Also don't forget, it is extremely difficult to even emulate a very simple conversation. There are many many web bots out there that attempt it, all they do is pick out key words and attempt to reply. Not like out own train of thought. There is one bot, however, that is on the right track. It learns and upgrades itself from the responses and questions of other people. It asks them what "this" means, and saves the answer to a database. This gives it a good shot at AI, but it's still far from human.
jnz wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 07:00 This gives it a good shot at AI, but it's still far from human. it doesnt have to be human, just intelligent. just saying.
so say we all. wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 13:02 jnz wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 07:00 This gives it a good shot at AI, but it's still far from human. it doesnt have to be human, just intelligent. just saying. Not really, by "human", I did mean self aware.
Skynet was just the example but their have been countless other movies of machines destroying mankind. Maybe they are just doing what their programmed to do. So what if the machine evolves to starting thinking on its own? Take for example the following article. Imagine this same type of coding in say a police robot. What if it determines your worth killing and not saving. They still may not be self aware but in the end your still dead. http://www.danshope.com/news/showarticle.php?article_id=90 from the article Quote: A new robot, dubbed "Starfish" because of its size and shape, has the unusual ability -- in the mechanical world, that is -- of fixing itself. The Starfish is programmed to recognize its parts, but not how they're arranged or meant to be used. It figures that out for itself, using trial and error Just imagine similar programming put into humanoid robots. Given any situation it figures out the best outcome. nopol10 wrote on Fri, 17 July 2009 06:44 jnz is right. The insertion of "sentience inhibitors" to prevent self-awareness makes the assumption that the program can even be self-aware (which isn't possible) and this makes the whole idea silly. But science fiction has silly but wonderful ideas, which makes it enjoyable. We wrote about going in space before it was ever conceived as possible. Their are lots of sci-fi stories like this example of something thought up before it was ever became reality. Not all sci-fi is silly ideas
Computers can only do what they are told to do, and only do what they are told to do. Sentience is weird, it's not one algorithm, it's not even hundreds. It simply is. Even if you tell a computer to become self-aware, on a level it isn't, because it's been told to be self-aware, a computer cannot "make up its own mind", even if it's programmed to "think", everything it does is predictable. (Oh, and any robot apocalypse will be met with en masse EMPing)
CarrierII wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 07:24 Computers can only do what they are told to do, and only do what they are told to do. Sentience is weird, it's not one algorithm, it's not even hundreds. It simply is. Even if you tell a computer to become self-aware, on a level it isn't, because it's been told to be self-aware, a computer cannot "make up its own mind", even if it's programmed to "think", everything it does is predictable. That's why I always enjoyed Asimov's versions of computers gaining sentience. I can't remember the name of the short story in particular, but I'll find it and post it here. Anyway, he's much more believeable about it.
I agree, I've read some Asimov, highly enjoyable.
A computer will only do what its programmed to do. And if it's programmed to not do what it's programmed to do, then what happens? lolparadox. :V Also, @ Starbuck: I said Milo may just be a "front" to self-awareness. Meaning that it gives off the illusion that he is self aware. But I also said that a true self-aware program is only a hop, skip and a jump away. Yes a computer can become self aware if it's programmed to do so. However, a computer doesn't have to be programmed by a sentient being in order to perform that program. You can program a computer to program itself through various means. Arm and leg attachments have nothing to do with it.. Think of it this way: when we are born, what do we know to do other than basic instinct? If a computer was programmed to follow key minor tasks but also be programmed to have the ability to learn the same way a newborn baby can, then you've just created a synthetic sentient being. (Think of it like a Star Wars droid.) If it's given the ability to learn like a human, then it will because that's how it's programmed. However, like I said, relating it to Skynet is a different story. Just because they would be synthetic, doesn't make them want to commit genocide.
...except a newborn baby takes in and processes terabytes of data every second. The brain automatically can reconise diffrent objects we look at, as well at distance and colour. We also do the same with hearing, IE: I can tell the diffrent between the sound of a car and the sound of a factory. There has yet to be a reliable method to do either programatically. Although that's not impossible, just extremely difficult. We also have yet to program a computer to learn properly and actually understand the meaning of a word.
I don't think you have a correct grasp on the technology we have at our disposal.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 00:00 I don't think you have a correct grasp on the technology we have at our disposal. Last time I tried to move 1Gb it took over 30 seconds, heh that's not even close to 1000gb. Where'd we get the funding to use a supercluster like CERN's to make this project?
1. What does moving large file sizes have to do with anything? Aren't you just storing information? And who says that information has to be large? Remember when I was talking about Milo? He can recognize colors, sounds, ect.. and reply back to you based on what he's reading. (You can draw a picture, scan it into the game, and he will know what you drew (if its legible, obviously), know the colors used, and be able to converse to you about it.) That's all on an entertainment system. So you don't think that the government doesn't have the technology to make something better than a form of entertainment? 2. What you have in your home computer is barely the smallest fraction of technological power that we, as humans, possess at this point in time. 3. Who says it has to use a digital format that we are currently using or are used to? Why can't it be something that hasn't been shown to the public yet? Something you couldn't begin to think was possible until you saw how simple it was?
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 00:14 1. What does moving large file sizes have to do with anything? Aren't you just storing information? And who says that information has to be large? If my computer is receiving all that data, where is it going to go? R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 00:14 Remember when I was talking about Milo? He can recognize colors, sounds, ect.. and reply back to you based on what he's reading. (You can draw a picture, scan it into the game, and he will know what you drew (if its legible, obviously), know the colors used, and be able to converse to you about it.) That's all on an entertainment system. So you don't think that the government doesn't have the technology to make something better than a form of entertainment? This milo thing sounds like a simple bot with automated responses. Sure it can find simple shapes drawn on a piece of paper. The thing itself doesn't actually know what it's looking at. It's just comparing pixel locations to some sort of database. The same sort of technique used for sound. R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 00:14 2. What you have in your home computer is barely the smallest fraction of technological power that we, as humans, possess at this point in time. How do you know this? You don't, because there isn't a silly conspiracy that the government has built a matchbox sized computer with 100 teraflops of computing power. Find me one that is faster than anything on the current market with a budget less than £10K. Again, can't do these silly projects without funding. It would be hard to get any type of funding for this type of project. R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 00:14 3. Who says it has to use a digital format that we are currently using or are used to? Why can't it be something that hasn't been shown to the public yet? Something you couldn't begin to think was possible until you saw how simple it was? It would be all over the news and youtube, since they can't do their job without money. EDIT and again, there is no conspiracy.
jnz wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 16:34 Find me one that is faster than anything on the current market with a budget less than £10K. Find you one? I'll find you one-hundred.
jnz wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 00:34 Find me one that is faster than anything on the current market with a budget less than £10K. Again, can't do these silly projects without funding. It would be hard to get any type of funding for this type of project. yet if you were to ask that same question 20 years ago you couldn't find a desktop computer for under 10k. Today we can store in a chip in your watch that took a whole room to fill several years ago. Who knows what the future holds. Computer programming is becoming more and more sophisticated. Computers may never become self aware in the true sense that we are. Whose to say someone can program one to think on its own through programming and come to the conclusion that mankind shouldn't be allowed to exist.
jnz wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 16:34 How do you know this? You don't, because there isn't a silly conspiracy that the government has built a matchbox sized computer with 100 teraflops of computing power. I just noticed this. I don't know about matchbox sized, but the supercomputers on that list range from about 50 to about 1500 terraflops, so it's not crazy to think about.
I think we have all forgotten about the Cyberman! They have human brains wired up to their steel bodies, so self-awareness is sort of present already and not much programming has to be done...apparently. I find this more believable than SkyNet.
Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 01:16 jnz wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 16:34 Find me one that is faster than anything on the current market with a budget less than £10K. Find you one? I'll find you one-hundred. They are all clusters. Also in the range of millions of pounds each, much more than £10K.
jnz wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 23:06 Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 01:16 jnz wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 16:34 Find me one that is faster than anything on the current market with a budget less than £10K. Find you one? I'll find you one-hundred. They are all clusters. Also in the range of millions of pounds each, much more than £10K. Ah. I misunderstood what you said. You meant find something faster, that is also under 10k. I thought you meant find something faster than a 10k market computer. My bad.
DarkKnight wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 19:18 jnz wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 00:34 Find me one that is faster than anything on the current market with a budget less than £10K. Again, can't do these silly projects without funding. It would be hard to get any type of funding for this type of project. yet if you were to ask that same question 20 years ago you couldn't find a desktop computer for under 10k. Errrrm.. The majority of IBM desktops released during the 1980s (don't forget your directly acessing 1989) were well under $10,000
cnc95fan wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 05:41 DarkKnight wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 19:18 jnz wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 00:34 Find me one that is faster than anything on the current market with a budget less than £10K. Again, can't do these silly projects without funding. It would be hard to get any type of funding for this type of project. yet if you were to ask that same question 20 years ago you couldn't find a desktop computer for under 10k. Errrrm.. The majority of IBM desktops released during the 1980s (don't forget your directly acessing 1989) were well under $10,000 I know i miss typed. I meant 50 years ago. http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/recording/computer1.html My thought is still the same. You can't take what we have today, combine it with no imagination and say we will never achieve anything greater than what we already have as the poster was suggesting. Look at how far we've come in such little time. Whose to tell what will happy over the next few years.
If anyone comes up with a way of allowing an artificially constructed machine to do something that is completely random, let alone be self aware. "I'll be over here".
Indeed, even if you use random numbers as the basis for decision making, the number of possible decisions or combinations of decisions is still actually limited (taking into account that a large number of the combinations will be nonsensical) and therefore any machine's function is limited, even if it's programmed to try and expand its own ability.
You don't need self-aware, really. You just need it to reach a conclusion unfavorable to humanity, and that isn't all that crazy.
Lets just say it, the worls getting lazy so they need robots, and droids to do the work for us!
not possible ai in actual stage can make only one operation.
marcin205 wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 06:15 not possible ai in actual stage can make only one operation. One operation = Destroy mankind
marcin205 wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 04:15 not possible ai in actual stage can make only one operation. What makes you say that?
Well, I was watching the History Channel the other day. It was something about 7 ways the earth could end, and scientists seem to think machines could kill us all :\
I think we're safe from apocalypse because if there's one thing humanity is good at, it's half-assing stuff, and giving up. Therefore I think this will be as far as we will get in robot/machine development: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3rxTdMaAr4
Dover wrote on Mon, 27 July 2009 14:30 marcin205 wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 04:15 not possible ai in actual stage can make only one operation. What makes you say that? chat bots ,supercomputers,well military robots they can make shot without operator cuz ai can shot evrything include own units. @dark you watch too much movies..btw im think atomic rocket silos dont have any internet network and military firewalls can pwn all intruders
marcin205 wrote on Fri, 31 July 2009 13:39 Dover wrote on Mon, 27 July 2009 14:30 marcin205 wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 04:15 not possible ai in actual stage can make only one operation. What makes you say that? chat bots ,supercomputers,well military robots they can make shot without operator cuz ai can shot evrything include own units. Uh, what?
well u.s.a military robots have trouble with recognise targets they shot evrything include own units,they will tested.dunno maybe they better now
marcin205 wrote on Sat, 01 August 2009 05:27 well u.s.a military robots have trouble with recognise targets they shot evrything include own units,they will tested.dunno maybe they better now So your logic is "It isn't possible now, therefore it isn't possible ever"? What the fuck...
the only way to do this is combining electronic circuits with living nervous tissues imo.
marcin205 wrote on Fri, 31 July 2009 15:39 Dover wrote on Mon, 27 July 2009 14:30 marcin205 wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 04:15 not possible ai in actual stage can make only one operation. What makes you say that? @dark you watch too much movies..btw im think atomic rocket silos dont have any internet network and military firewalls can pwn all intruders I don't think its that far fetched an idea that we can create robots to wipe out mankind and their would be someone evil enough to program them for that purpose. You can just look at history to find those who if they had this technology would have done just that. as far as them doing it on their own I wouldnt be so naive to say its never a possibility.
well dont need ai mankind can selfkill:stealth material,atomic bomb,military robots,nanotechnology and more.well im think is not possible human brain is too complicated cant put this into chip.
If it is possible to harness our own minds into a chip, it will take many centuries. We don't have to worry about homicidal robots sneaking up our asses for a long time.
Glock~ wrote on Tue, 04 August 2009 23:14 We don't have to worry about homicidal robots sneaking up our asses for a long time. LOL
Glock~ wrote on Tue, 04 August 2009 22:14 If it is possible to harness our own minds into a chip, it will take many centuries. We don't have to worry about homicidal robots sneaking up our asses for a long time. how do you figure? how long has it taken us to get where we are now from the first micro chip? If anything this technology is increasing .
Quote: In this accessible, comprehensive text, George Luger captures the essence of artificial intelligence—solving the complex problems that arise wherever computer technology is applied. Ideal for an undergraduate course in AI, the Sixth Edition presents the fundamental concepts of the discipline first then goes into detail with the practical information necessary to implement the algorithms and strategies discussed. Students learn how to use a number of different software tools and techniques to address the many challenges faced by today's computer scientists. G. Luger Artificial Intelligence