Editing Talk:1968: Robot Future
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I swapped The Matrix for Ex Machina, in the early section about AI destroying/overthrowing humanity, & added a line farther down noting that Ex Machina's Ava (much like the human-directed killbots Randall is concerned about) did her job only too well; Specifically, talking her way out of the box. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | I swapped The Matrix for Ex Machina, in the early section about AI destroying/overthrowing humanity, & added a line farther down noting that Ex Machina's Ava (much like the human-directed killbots Randall is concerned about) did her job only too well; Specifically, talking her way out of the box. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
I'm sad it was not about [[799: Stephen Hawking|Stehpen]] today... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | I'm sad it was not about [[799: Stephen Hawking|Stehpen]] today... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | Instead of a tribute today, all I saw was a short, violent dystopian film. But this is quite an important matter, look at the video. Certantly more important... But still, can't wait for the tribute. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 13:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | |
− | + | ||
− | + | If memory serves, Hawking is cited with similar concern about AI technology, and its potential to out think humans exponentially (not just a buzz word, but actually exponentially). However he did advocate for needs that aren't met in the immediate, not the theoretical future. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208|108.162.216.208]] 13:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | |
We think that combat drones are not autonomous, but we already have civilian drones that are, and not only that, Intel has quite the "drone-based-fireworks" show based on an AI botnet that shows such swarms of drones can work together. Given the tendency of military secrets surrounding new technology, do you really believe the same technology has not already been deployed on the battlefield? Such a botent of hunter-killer octocopters would leave no witnesses behind.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | We think that combat drones are not autonomous, but we already have civilian drones that are, and not only that, Intel has quite the "drone-based-fireworks" show based on an AI botnet that shows such swarms of drones can work together. Given the tendency of military secrets surrounding new technology, do you really believe the same technology has not already been deployed on the battlefield? Such a botent of hunter-killer octocopters would leave no witnesses behind.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
:Rely on "no witnesses" for untested technology? I don't think there was any target worth it recently. So I do believe the technology was not yet deployed. However, it likely is already prepared. It just waits for moment when the potential backslash from it's use somehow getting out would be worth the target which was destroyed. Something like second bin Ladin. Or Kim Jong-un. Or, well ... second Snowden. Not the first one, as that one already shared everything he had. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | :Rely on "no witnesses" for untested technology? I don't think there was any target worth it recently. So I do believe the technology was not yet deployed. However, it likely is already prepared. It just waits for moment when the potential backslash from it's use somehow getting out would be worth the target which was destroyed. Something like second bin Ladin. Or Kim Jong-un. Or, well ... second Snowden. Not the first one, as that one already shared everything he had. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− |