A.I. Robot control humans Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think...we made them,so we can control them,but something will made them piss the human,just like Matrix! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m:
Rods, tell me if I am right with my interpretation of your post. You ask if it is possible to be enslave by machines that humans created themself? Like seen in the movies Matrix and I Robot? If so, then I suppose that it is possible, but that depends on the programming. I personally would see no reason why machines would "want" to rule the world and enslave or control humans. But even today humans are addicted and dependent on machines and virtual entities, as a result the human species might lose control sometime. Aside from that, would you be able to formulate coherent sentences?
Well its not *impossible*,we are already enslaved by the microchip,can we live without it,can we live without computers? soon we wont be able to live without the internet,so gradually we might depend on robots too and actual computer control,but its different when something is more intelligent than you are,if it can decide for itself then i cant see why they would want to be slaves to humans.
Indeed..especially given how much power tech companies have with respect to the economy, second big nasty only to pharmaceuticals. In any case...it has to be the case that english is Not Rods fnative language right??
Since they are not sentient and without a real mind or consciousness I would agree to that. Still we are slaves, no matter if we gave up our liberty or if it was taken away. EDIT: Well, his profile says he is twelve, but I was able to write better English when I was that age, and I am also not a native speaker, nor do I grew up bilingual. But I suppose only he has the answers, and I should probably not measure people by my own standards.
Assuming that he knows what "coherent" means... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The guy seem to be 12 years old. It is perfectly possible for him to think logically and be coherent, but I don't think we can expect that from him. Some kids at this age are brilliant and others are not. Aside from that... Terminator is a classic movie about that. I think it was the first one to explore that possibility. But anyways... that's just my 2 cents Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A.I...... Really.... I do not think the most advanced A.I. will ever take over humans.... It IS possible, but then again, we look too much into movies and other media... We can program machines.... No matter how advanced A.I. gets.... we WILL be able to controll them. Unless the poeple who make A.I. robot are stupid enough to miss fault in programming. It won't happen... It CAN happen, but it won't.... We, at this time and age, are VERY dependent on machines. But do you really think machines will wage war.... Even with the most advanced A.I. these "robots/machines" will still hold more knowlege and memory than any human ever could.... thus realizing that WAR IS POINTLESS! Anyways... I am sure we would be smart enough to make our robots with a fail safe system.... I hope.... All I know is that I will be long dead before I ever have to worry about A.I. robot taking over mankind.... Movies are warping poeples minds Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi, hello. Russell and Whitehead built a mathematical system designed to erradicate any self reference- in order to prove mathematical objectivity. Godel showed that it failed- it was riddled with self references (how he proved it is excrutiating to watch- pages of numbers and symbols, intimidating. LOL. ) But did so. So shows that when a sytem self-references it becomes contradictory- and in so doing, human. This, the revolution. Thank you for reading.
Actually, what Godel proved was that such a system was necessarily incomplete, not self-contradictory. In any case, the result is the same: a created system must include either some form or other of a priori statement, and therefore incomplete, or a coherent foundation, and therefore self-referential. There can be no true 'objective' point of view.
Glaucon: You're saying exaclty what I'm saying, fucktwit. Self- reference is the very source for contradiction which is the basis of human nature, its what makes man Man. And so, for a system as tightly bound as Russell was trying to make it by depleting it of meaning it would have to lack this feature- which an AI in order to remain submissive and unknowing would have to lack. Godel not only pointed out Russell's types were in fact referring to themselves, thus destroying its cold logic, but it was because of the system's strengths not its weaknesses. Think of a television camera pointed at a television. That's what should come to mind when thinking of Godel’s proof.
