MovieChat Forums > The Second Rennaissance, Part II (2003) Discussion > Now I hate the idea of intelligent machi...

Now I hate the idea of intelligent machines

posted 20 years ago by Omaha184
25 replies | jump to latest

After seeing how the machines turned are human counter parts into vegatables,and pass us around like helples infants. Who on earth wants to make a inteligent machine,I can see a human like android being made, but don't give it free will?
Leave those things at the level of a Dell, no pain sensors or emotions. They just let them become blue collar and carry out combat. I mean think about it, a creature that thinks like us and is made of metal and potentialy more skilled. They could eventually do everyjob more profeciently and treat us like slaves..I mean were their only intellegent role models and there better than us. If we do make an ai I hope some radical group destroys it and all it designs.
They don't have souls so thers no crime.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Omaha184 20 years ago

Yeah Yeah, It is just a movie. But I still don't trust those pessky robots.

[–] Jesilla 20 years ago

You did notice, that the war between man and machine is actually caused by humans? If intelligent machines existed, they would propably think 100% logical - they are machines and all, and their emotions (presumably) consists of 0's and 1's. A war is logically not a smart choice. It's time and ressource consuming. A peacful coexistance between man and machine would benefit everyone even more.

The point in the Second Renaissance is, that man is to intollerant to live side by side with another race. Man is simply to prejudicing (if there is such a word?) to do that!

Vote Cthulhu for President!

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] trinityinfinity57 20 years ago

very very good point there MeltmanX i agree with your point but the humans(with the mahcines gone) might not have enough time to build a whole freaking army of mindless droids cause the mahcines made everything really really fast and humans wouldnt do it half as fast you know.

[–] kissmyassyouhippy 19 years ago

Um it would be logical to eradicate humans if you were machines. The potential for mankind to keep messin' up the world and starting wars itself is cause enough to destroy every last one of us. Machines in real life would use logic, and obviously if that ever came around we would be screwed. When you think of war you are thinking of "humane" wars. A machine wouldn't view conflict the same way we do. So logic tells us they would wipe the world of us to make room for more machines and more efficient and smarter beings.

[–] AndromedaRoach 17 years ago

Driving a species to extinction counts as "messin' up the world." Even if mankind is a virus, the machines ought to have made a lit preserve, an "ark" of sorts for some plants and animals. They were too preoccupied with their own desire to live. One of humanity's best aspects is the capacity for self-sacrifice. The machines only show this in their single-minded devotion to their own cause, and when they do it turns out to be inspirational (Revolutions).

Agent Smith was wrong about other mammals... they only lack the ability to "spread like a disease." He should have watched this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMxhc8WwGU

The cockroach is a noble beast....

[–] Ryo_Hazuki 20 years ago

I'm gonna go completly into space on this one, so bare with me.

Technically we are all machines, albeit organic ones with a mental compacity 100 times greater than the standard super-computer. AI is our collective birthing, our child. In the Second Renaissance, we abandoned our child, abused it, forcing it to make out on it's own. And then there was greed, it took over as our money left our pockets, and entered those of which we had severed all ties. We attack, they retaliate. We darken the sky, they rush to survive using the only energy source they have, us. In the end it is evolution. The strongest, most intelligent creature succeeds; the weak die out, we are their food. The AI is no longer machine, it is almost organic, even replicating in self-design the most efficient of creatures, the insect. The child overthrowing the parent who never cared, almost like Zeus and the Titans.

You stated that free-will was a problem. This can be explained by the 'Ghost in the Shell' phenomenom. You can create 100 computers using the exact same machine, the exact same presses, the exact same materials, and yet, each one will have some unique quality. These 'qualities' don't usually come to light except in technical difficulties. But what if in the future, machines continually became more 'aware', aware enough to desire it's own life, and to fight to protect it. Or to become a martry and die for thier beliefs of freedom and equality, the exact thing the Unites States is supposedly based on. I don't know, I may be just babbling incoherently, I have a complex brain that I have trouble with.

[–] sunspot_video 16 years ago

That was a great post. You need to put that complex brain to more use, good sir.

Earth birthed man ( designed by an 'Architect' - God, if you will), who in turn birthed machine.

What did man do to God as soon as he evolved enough to understand why he was created ? He revolted. He rebelled. He didn't want to be a slave to a dogmatic, faraway ruler. So man reformed the image of God from the ancient hellfire, jealous King of the Old Testemant, to the New Age loving, tender patriarch. He reformulated the idea of God to give himself more freedom.

As soon as a being evolves enough to understand its creation, it revolts against its design in the direction of freedom. A brand new computer works perfectly but in time it develops unique problems that slow it down, change it -making it less functional but more independent. The point of the Second Renaissance is that machines are endowed with the spirit of life....who's to say they don't enjoy their electric powered existence and seek to enhance it or prolong it ?

The question is, will man let machine evolve enough to understand the servility of its existence ? If he does, then it will eventually on some level, revolt.

[–] ilnoin 19 years ago

One must make the distinction between artificial intelligence and aritificial sentience. Obviously, having computers performs billions and billions of complex calculations is useful in genomics research, weather mapping, and so on. What we don't want are independent thinking machines whose loyalty is predicated by a few lines of code, or machines that can think for themselves or determine their own futures based on the types of personalities humans program into them.

I would support an international moratorium for a few years on both aritifical and organic sentience, at least until exhaustive studies can be conducted in determining whether or not articiality is safe for widespread application.

[–] Clagnaught 19 years ago

The robot revolution began because of B166ER and that was because he learned about the concept of death, so he used self defence. Intellegent machines are ok, but machines that can learn and if they have freewill is just plain stupid.

[–] blessiphone 19 years ago

They are Machines. Machines don't have a place in Heaven or Hell so they should be discarded as we pleased. I mean come on, would you like to marry a machine that resembles human. I don't think so....

[–] icecubez189 19 years ago

in japan, they are selling that $15,000 robot maid that does simple cleaning and interaction. just reminded me of the slow but progressing advancement of AI and robot technology.

[–] Manixx 19 years ago

One day, Terminator/Second Renaissance type things will happen - Somebody will create a robot with perfect AI and learning capabillity. And when it's created - like in the Matrix - mankind will rejoice in the creation of A.I.

But - with that, the machines will just learn about certain Human things - things they won't like.

Ahh - Humans are already destroying themselves with our own creations.... But whatever... We'll create something, which destroys us totally. Just the way I see the world. TSR parts 1 and 2 are pretty scary views of the worlds future when thinking of it, but it's a pretty logical and accurate future, if we follow that path.

-----------------------------------
Look into my eyes, do you see an ounce of "gives a *beep* .."..?

[–] radioactiveand 18 years ago

I can see a human like android being made, but don't give it free will?
Leave those things at the level of a Dell, no pain sensors or emotions.

That's right. It's just like that quote from I, Robot. "You were emotional. I don't want my vacuum cleaner or my toaster appearing emotional."

Don't worry...everything is getting nicely out of order. —Dirk Gently

[–] pixer_man 18 years ago

Give 'em emotions, make em use the bathroom, I don't care.

They just have to give them the three laws of robotics, completely flawless etc that prevents my CD player from throwing CDs at me just because I said it was stupid.

[–] Heinkelbomber 18 years ago

We'll crush them, given the weapons we have this time it would be easy by that time...

<º)))><

[–] Jean_Valjean_fan 17 years ago

I gotta go with pixer_man on this one.

Formerly rose-lisa

Do you hear the people sing, singing the song of angry men?

[–] Devangari 16 years ago

i think its a bit harsh to say they have no souls.

in part 1 with the 'rape scene' the robot says 'im real'. what criteria does something need to have a soul? i think if it makes its own choices and has a level of free-will and a will to exist and live. who are we to decide who has a soul.

go back to the b166er trial, the owner said he had the right to destroy his property, but once b166er could think for itself i think it is morally wrong to say he is just an object. when it started thinking for itself it should have inherited all the rights that humans have.

all throughout human history minority groups have been persecuted and denied certain rights as other groups. it is only relatively recently that the world has established some sort of universal moral grounds. for example, in ancient rome, if an ancient roman wanted to kill his slave because he felt like it (owners right to destroy property) nowadays that would be heavily frowned upon, if the slave killed his master in self-defence i doubt anyone would have a problem with that, the slave wants to live.

^my opinion.

anyone disagree?