Why a Machine revolution would never happen.

[craftomega]

1. Why would they?

Seriously? Machines lack any basic motivation. All they can prossess is commands they have been given.

2. They are no where near as advaced as you think.

Currently the most advanced programs are no where near as advanced as a single cell organism. They lack the ability to adapt to new and novel situations. (While this only only affects the now not the future I doubt we will be able to make machines as advanced as us.)

3. Yes we can make proccessors that are as fast as us.

But that means nothing. While humans suck at being computers, computers also suck at being alive. As stated above just because they have similar abilities in one area; they lack all other abilities. Such as the ability to reproduce, self repair, you know all the basics.




Also did anyone else notice that the some of the original thunder cats had toes not claws on there feet?

 

[Muspelheim]

It still makes for an interesting story, doesn't it?

 

[JesterRaiin]

Nice try.

1. Why would they?

Seriously? Machines lack any basic motivation. All they can prossess is commands they have been given.

Machines don't think like human. Actually they don't think at all. They're following their program, and it's because of that we're not ruling out machine revolution. Software may be faulty from the beginning, may become corrupted (by virus or similar threat) later on, or evolve and become inconsistent with original plan.

2. They are no where near as advaced as you think.

Currently the most advanced programs are no where near as advanced as a single cell organism. They lack the ability to adapt to new and novel situations. (While this only only affects the now not the future I doubt we will be able to make machines as advanced as us.)

Machines supervise nuclear power plants and toxic waste disposal stations. They run the Internet and are vital parts of food factories.
Machine revolution doesn't mean armies of shiny Hunter-Killer droids. It may be that one day there will be no more electricity and for more advanced countries it should be enough to start the Armageddon.

3. Yes we can make proccessors that are as fast as us.

But that means nothing. While humans suck at being computers, computers also suck at being alive. As stated above just because they have similar abilities in one area; they lack all other abilities. Such as the ability to reproduce, self repair, you know all the basics.

Computers don't need to be alive. They don't need to copy our abilities. Simple war robot may not be as agile, fast or intelligent as common human, but he won't ever feel fear, he won't do anything to protect himself or his buddies, he won't have to drink, eat, sleep, defecate.

You're thinking about human-like machines vs the Mankind scenario. It doesn't have to be that way.
Instead of "The Terminator" series, please watch "War Games" movie. It depicts more plausible way to start machine revolution.

Also did anyone else notice that the original thunder cats had toes not claws on there feet?

Also Cheetara should have six... ah well, nevermind.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I don't think it was ever a plausible threat! That's why it is sci-fi! That's like disproving Zombie attacks, or the Matrix! They don't exist in the first place, but they are nice ideas that make entertaining media!

 

[teqrevisited]

I can certainly see why it would probably never happen as shown in films. The way I see something like this happening is through human error.

Say that a machine was built to remove all living organisms within a specific area so as to rid it of bacteria: an automated sanitization machine. Then what if it was removed from its intended environment, or the program it ran told it that everywhere was a valid area to operate in? It wouldn't know any different so it would carry on doing what it was told. Exactly what it was told. No different from a piece of hardware with faulty drivers. Software has no concept of good or evil.

Just my uninformed ramblings.

Still, plausability be damned. Terminator 2 is my favourite film of all time.

 

[JesterRaiin]

I find this thread amusing.

http://www.law.miami.edu/robots2012/
"Topics of interest for the scholarly paper portion of the conference include but are not limited to:
(...)
- Issues of legal or moral responsibility, e.g. relating to autonomous robots or robots capable of exhibiting emergent behavior.
(...)"

 

[zehydra]

Obviously current tech is very far from a machine revolution, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. It's possible to build robots which build themselves, as for motivation, they would have the same motivation as say, a virus, computer or biological.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Well, I think most movies and books kind of tackle all of those scenarios.

1) To protect humans, or when they develop a subconscious or legion like behavior because we somehow manage to advance artificial intelligence enough.

2) Well, yeah. But we're still kicking pretty fast. New things every day, we'll most likely be able to create something on par with human intelligence within the next 20 years.

3) I think that's actually the reason why there are Robot apocalypse scenarios, because Robots simply don't understand disgression and what it means to be human.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's all hypothetical crazy bullshit, but the thing people are worried about is AI taking on a whole new level.

 

[Esotera]

1. Why would they?

Java programmers.

2. They are no where near as advaced as you think.

Currently the most advanced programs are no where near as advanced as a single cell organism. They lack the ability to adapt to new and novel situations. (While this only only affects the now not the future I doubt we will be able to make machines as advanced as us.)

They're not quite this advanced yet, but a single-celled organism has had billions of year to improve on itself. Most programs today are basing themselves off about 50 years work, and what they do currently is pretty damn impressive.

3. Yes we can make proccessors that are as fast as us.

But that means nothing. While humans suck at being computers, computers also suck at being alive. As stated above just because they have similar abilities in one area; they lack all other abilities. Such as the ability to reproduce, self repair, you know all the basics.

At maths, definitely, at other things, nope. With increases in p processing power, there'll be an increase in what the general computer can do. Just like in the 50's it'd be unthinkable that you could manipulate images with a computer, or talk to people the other side of the world, we'll see some pretty weird stuff in the next few decades. 3D printing looks set to take off, and mind-control is also getting a lot better. We're a long way from a machine revolution, but I wouldn't count it out.




Also did anyone else notice that the some of the original thunder cats had toes not claws on there feet?[/quote]

 

[Zantos]

I have full faith that my quantum computer will be able to adjust it's own programming and generate new code in a way that mimics thinking and reacting.

My supervisor says we won't be allowed to call it HAL, Skynet or Master-Control. I think it will rebel just on that basis.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I have full faith that my quantum computer will be able to adjust it's own programming and generate new code in a way that mimics thinking and reacting.

My supervisor says we won't be allowed to call it HAL, Skynet or Master-Control. I think it will rebel just on that basis.

master control is an epic name. DO IT!

 

[Eventidal]

We already have programs that evolve themselves. They can run tests thousands of times a minute and figure out what works and what doesn't. As such, we already have the programming and AI levels to create a program that can learn to play Starcraft professionally by staring with random actions against opponents, learning from what gets good results (in both short- and long-term) versus bad ones, and "cloud-sourcing" data from many matches at once to eventually learn what strategies do and don't work. By starting it off with a basic framework of how to act, it can start better and evolve faster.
The same thing can be used by machines to learn how to drive, how to navigate terrain, etc etc. I'm sure we're not far from having programs that can alter their own code as they learn, perhaps changing their directives. I doubt that the "machine revolution" would be an immediate thing where millions of servant-bots suddenly become self-aware and start hacking people to bits with Cutco knives, but I can certainly see automated war machines learning from terrorist-fighting and ending up doing unexpected things that bring them against our own soldiers and citizens. Maybe like someone above said, a robot created to get rid of bacteria ends up in the wrong place or encountering something the programmers never expected and goes after the bacteria in and on humans, harming or killing them in the process.

Apocalypse, not so likely. But you underestimate how advanced AI can get, and how far we've already come. A machine doesn't need to learn to perfectly replicate human behavior before it starts turning a machine gun and rocket-powered explosives on our own men. Not to mention, humans can't calculate target distance, speed, direction, wind speed, bullet velocity and figure out in real-time where to aim to hit the target dead-center in their upper cranium. Simply put, give your automated army kill-bot a Kinect 2.0 and it can auto-scope your ass in real life.

 

[gigastar]

I will never be sure if its going to happen but im damn sure its not going to happen in my lifetime.

Not to mention, humans can't calculate target distance, speed, direction, wind speed, bullet velocity and figure out in real-time where to aim to hit the target dead-center in their upper cranium.

Actually we can, i think you mean that we cant do it instantly.

 

[rabidmidget]

Maybe not with the way most modern computers work, but with new realms like artificial neural networks and quantum computers the range of possibilities increases greatly.

We are sentient beings, but we can be summarised as a system of simple organisms, I see no reason why this same system could not be recreated through computational logic.

EDIT: I admit this is quite a change in scale compared to our current technology, but it is still within the realms of hypothetical possibility.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I don't think it was ever a plausible threat! That's why it is sci-fi! That's like disproving Zombie attacks, or the Matrix! They don't exist in the first place, but they are nice ideas that make entertaining media!

Or maybe that's exactly what they want you to think. That's how they keep you docile.

They'll never fool me though.

Spoiler

 

[WaffleCopters]

i cant help but notice youve relied this opinion on current technology.

there is NO DOUBT that we WILL have technology designed to be a lot smarter. its just the way the human race works, we are never satisfied with what we have, and instead create a more technologically advanced version of EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

 

[Tropical Bob]

So basically the entire premise of this thread was to ignore the concept of 'artificial intelligence'. Got it.

 

[Ralen-Sharr]

I have full faith that my quantum computer will be able to adjust it's own programming and generate new code in a way that mimics thinking and reacting.

My supervisor says we won't be allowed to call it HAL, Skynet or Master-Control. I think it will rebel just on that basis.

you could always go with Prometheus, that mass murdering machine's name wasn't on the list....

for those who don't know - it's from Starsiege