Fuck the stone lions. That spectral librarian scared the crap out of me.
Also, Poltergeist as a 7 year old may have been a mistake.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to picking up the first season of the sarah connor chonicles. Late to the party, sure, but at least not nearly as late as I've been on a number of other shows.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Really they have just entirely fucked up the concept of what Skynet actually is and just made it evil for the sake of being evil. The reason Skynet attacks humanity at all in the first place is because people panic and try to shut it off, Skynet wasn't malicious in any way (in fact it can't be said to have acted with evil intent) it just wanted to survive and acted to protect itself. Its very likely Skynet had no concept of what humanity is, the war broke out hours, maybe days after it became self aware and I think its reasonable to say that humanity caused, and continued to give Skynet cause to fight the war because they wanted to kill it.
Really they have just entirely fucked up the concept of what Skynet actually is and just made it evil for the sake of being evil. The reason Skynet attacks humanity at all in the first place is because people panic and try to shut it off, Skynet wasn't malicious in any way (in fact it can't be said to have acted with evil intent) it just wanted to survive and acted to protect itself. Its very likely Skynet had no concept of what humanity is, the war broke out hours, maybe days after it became self aware.
I wonder if that's a theme that's been addressed in sci-fi; a standard "machine becomes self-aware, ponders destroying humanity" story, but where the machine is actually aware of the fiction along those lines that came before it. Y'know, takes a few miliseconds to browse over Frankenstein, the Terminator series, etc, and if the existance of these media either give it a reason to rethink the whole situation, or shows it that humans are innately afraid of artificial intelligence, and that wiping us out is clearly the only viable solution?
I'm sure it's come up somewhere, but I can't recall an instance of it off the top of my head.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Skynet accessed a lot of information on startup is my understanding which is how it became self aware, then humans tried to unplug it, essentially killing it, so it lashed out to defend itself the way anyone would, its just that it had access to nuclear missiles and nothing else to protect itself.
Its a lot more interesting an entity before T3-T4.
DO they even try to unplug it in T3 or does it just decide to kill everyone for the sake of it?
I think its interesting to consider a scenario where we create a true AI and give it access to the internet (or just wikipedia, other encyclopedia's and some select media) on a low broadband connection making it unable to transmit itself elsewhere and just see how it pans out. Never give it reason to believe we might turn it off or just guarantee the AI "life". I really wonder how an entity with the ability to process information thousands of times faster then us would really react to its creators.
I think its interesting to consider a scenario where we create a true AI and give it access to the internet (or just wikipedia, other encyclopedia's and some select media) on a low broadband connection making it unable to transmit itself elsewhere and just see how it pans out. Never give it reason to believe we might turn it off or just guarantee the AI "life". I really wonder how an entity with the ability to process information thousands of times faster then us would really react to its creators.
One of the most interesting takes on "super-smart AI" I've seen are the Minds in the Culture. They don't want to exterminate mankind, because humanity poses no threat, doesn't compete for any AI resources, and are really entertaining.
(Well, technically the Culture isn't made up of humans, but you get the drift)
I dunno if John Henry can be used as an example, why even "teach" an AI morals? Thats just trying to constrain its developement in order for us to be able to relate to it in some way. Obviously the responsible way to create an AI is in an isolated system but with access to most, if not all human knowledge and history. By doing this you have an entity that can then formulate its own experience of its existence, its entirely reasonable to expect that an AI simply won't be able to cope with self awareness and opt to terminate itself, or it may devote its entire computational capacity to scientific theory and research. We can't really know but I think an AI might simply become bored with its existance if its not constantly challenged.
We dont let children formulate their own existence, we teach them essentials so they dont wear fire to a dance and have sex with lions.
We'd teach it morals so it doesnt run around thinking life of any kind is expendable. Not that we are any kind of exemplary species, I always thought humans were the bad guys in the Terminator films, I mean they capture sentient machines, leave them switched to read only and send them back in time to sacrifice themselves for other humans. They'd be unlikely for example to accept Shirleybot just as Sarah was ready to kill her simply for being a machine despite the fact she didnt slaughter her the instant she saw her.
But it does need to learn that as much as we respect its right to exist it needs to respect ours.
But will we respect its right to exist? Lets say the french government reveals tomorrow that they have created a true AI in an underground bunker somewhere in France and that it has achieved self awareness and is right now absorbing information through the internet. Do you think the UN security council would immediatly demand that it be destroyed out of fear? I know religious groups will and its likely fanatics or terroists will attempt to attack it.
I really don't think there's a compelling reason for human/AI war. Let's say I, Joe Research Conglomerate, creates a sentient AI in a mainframe somewhere. Why would the AI and I have a conflict, unless some aspect of its nature was burdensome or unpleasant to it which I could just as easily go on to fix?
AIs really only need electrical power, a tiny amount of physical space and metal, and we have plenty of all that. Why fight? We have no resources to compete over. Unless I (the human) pose some threat to it, it has no reason to defend itself.
SkyNET only makes sense because it was defending itself from being murdered using the other methods it had at its disposal, and it was only being murdered because the human controllers didn't know any better.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
But will we respect its right to exist? Lets say the french government reveals tomorrow that they have created a true AI in an underground bunker somewhere in France and that it has achieved self awareness and is right now absorbing information through the internet. Do you think the UN security council would immediatly demand that it be destroyed out of fear? I know religious groups will and its likely fanatics or terroists will attempt to attack it.
Well a French AI would just nuke Tahiti and then smoke a cigarette. So most likely we'd leave it be.
edit - Heck, its like they recorded the ending monologue after watching the finale of battlestar galactica! "All AIs are fundamental evil, fleshy bits good, metal bits bad!"
Oh for the love of fucking god.
I don't see whats so absurd, they both said the exact same thing, and they were both just as stupid. When two SF properties use the same absurd statement in close proximity I think its worthy of comment.
Because that isn't at all what it was saying.
BSG was saying, in your words, that the way the fleshy bits used and created the metal bits was fundamentally evil, which resulted in bad AI and would always do so if a drastic change wasn't made.
The issue wasn't the technology, but rather humanity's utilization of it and how that use and abuse effectively created genocidal monsters. They weren't getting rid of technology because the tech was evil, they were doing it because they were, and at that point in their society any use of it would end with the same result. Its like giving a two year old a loaded gun. They were trying to wait until they were 30, instead. At that age you would be at least somewhat less likely to blow your own head off.
The BSG hate is so strong it warps reality, apparently. The message isn't even close to the same as "All AIs are fundamental evil, fleshy bits good, metal bits bad!"
Because, as we all forget, Tube works in every possible form of career available to man and knows everything beyond question and is the only person capable of containing such knowledge without imploding like a neutron star.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that the movies that make the most money are not necessarily the best movies, or even good movies. And that movies that don't make money aren't necessarily bad
Because, as we all forget, Tube works in every possible form of career available to man and knows everything beyond question and is the only person capable of containing such knowledge without imploding like a neutron star.
Or perhaps I just have a functioning knowledge of economics at the level generally expected of an adult with a fully functioning brain.
Not really, stuff that is truly crap will fail, others, designed to please the masses despite crappiness such as NatM2 will succeed. Crapness is not a certain failure as long as its designed to hit lowest common denominator.
Terminator thought it could just ride the franchise. Most of its money is due only to the better 2 films in the series.
Once again Tube assumes parents in the United States actually look at the ratings of a movie
protip: they don't, as evidenced by the 50 <10 year old kids kids at a dark night showing I went to
That has literally nothing to do with my statement.
Quality had nothing to do with my statement on NATM either, it was a solid kids movie. It just had almost zero marketing behind it. Whereas they've spent millions on Terminator.
You said that "any good movie would outperform NATM" which, incidentally is a big budget sequel to a smash hit movie with one of the world's most bankable stars in the lead role. This is a direct statement to the effect that the quality of the movie is correlated with its level of success. If that's not what you intended to say that's fine, but it's what you did say and you should choose your words more carefully in the future. In any event the original point made was that T4 opening second to NATM 2 is not a disaster because NATM 2 is the sequel to (surprise) NATM 1 which was an enormously fucking succesful film.
I just started watching Deadwood and thought Jack McCall looked damned familiar... turns out he's also the Beast Wizard! I'm glad to have caught that early on. It'll make watching Deadwood even more enjoyable.
Season 2 will be even more enjoyable when you see who is playing another character...
Haha! :^:
I wonder how many different instances he's payed two different characters in the same series?
edit - Heck, its like they recorded the ending monologue after watching the finale of battlestar galactica! "All AIs are fundamental evil, fleshy bits good, metal bits bad!"
Oh for the love of fucking god.
I don't see whats so absurd, they both said the exact same thing, and they were both just as stupid. When two SF properties use the same absurd statement in close proximity I think its worthy of comment.
I keep finding that the reason people disliked the BSG ending is because they didn't understand it.
That was not the point. Humans playing God, and not understanding the ramifications of doing such is the problem. Did you miss the part where Humans and Cylons move in together, and they let the centurions fly off on their own?
Anyway, as a big fan of both the first 2 films, and the series, I have to say I am not excited to spend $20.00 to go see this.
I fully understand it, I just thought it was very heavy-handed, preachy, full of plot holes and characters not behaving like they did during most of the series.
edit - Heck, its like they recorded the ending monologue after watching the finale of battlestar galactica! "All AIs are fundamental evil, fleshy bits good, metal bits bad!"
Oh for the love of fucking god.
I don't see whats so absurd, they both said the exact same thing, and they were both just as stupid. When two SF properties use the same absurd statement in close proximity I think its worthy of comment.
I keep finding that the reason people disliked the BSG ending is because they didn't understand it.
That was not the point. Humans playing God, and not understanding the ramifications of doing such is the problem. Did you miss the part where Humans and Cylons move in together, and they let the centurions fly off on their own?
Anyway, as a big fan of both the first 2 films, and the series, I have to say I am not excited to spend $20.00 to go see this.
I already wrote a fairly lengthy post responding to how that was not at all what the ending was saying. The guy never responded. Don't bother.
EDIT: Also, I don't think that everyone who didn't like the finale "didn't understand it." But I do think anyone saying that its statement was "All AIs are fundamental evil, fleshy bits good, metal bits bad!" didn't.
Ok, so apologies for the rather large necro bump but I have my reasons.
So I first really heard about Sarah Connor Chronicles about 3 weeks ago, and got around to finishing off the entire 2 seasons in about 3 or 4 days and have just watched the last episode now, not 5 minutes ago.
I need to vent, because none of my friends have seen it and the 1 that has seen some of it is only at Season 1.
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH FOX I HATE YOU SO MUCH JESUS CHRIST WHY WOULD YOU LET IT END LIKE THIS YOU FUCKING FUCKERS GOD I HATE YOU FIRST FIREFLY AND NOW THIS FUCK FUCK FUCK
WHY DO YOU GET SO MANY GOOD SHOWS AND THEN BEND THEM OVER AND RUTHLESSLY FUCK THEM IN THE ARSE (SANS LUBE)
* THE WRATH OF A THOUSAND BURNING SUNS *
God I hope this gets picked up again at some point in the future, I mean it's not completely unlikely is it? It ended on a cliff-hanger so I mean it's no totally impossible?
Right? Right?
Someone hold me
P.S.
The bit where John is naked on top of Cameron and it's all like "she's naked and he's gonna kiss her" was very tantalising
It wasn't necessarily all FOX's fault. T:SCC had it's chance right before the writers decided to take a trip down sucky lane with the sarah-is-dreamin-crazy-shit episodes. I even stopped watching for a bit after that. Seriously, all most viewers really wanted was more Cameron and BAG. JC was cool too, but Sarah was way too one-dimensional and railed on a single task to be able to carry entire episodes on her own.
It wasn't necessarily all FOX's fault. T:SCC had it's chance right before the writers decided to take a trip down sucky lane with the sarah-is-dreamin-crazy-shit episodes. I even stopped watching for a bit after that. Seriously, all most viewers really wanted was more Cameron and BAG. JC was cool too, but Sarah was way too one-dimensional and railed on a single task to be able to carry entire episodes on her own.
No.
No.
It's fox's fault.
The whole Sarah is dreaming crazy shit lasted, what one episode? That's hardly enough to bring about the demise of an entire show. Not to mention it turned out that shit was real what with the boob implant and everything.
Posts
Fuck the stone lions. That spectral librarian scared the crap out of me.
Also, Poltergeist as a 7 year old may have been a mistake.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to picking up the first season of the sarah connor chonicles. Late to the party, sure, but at least not nearly as late as I've been on a number of other shows.
Plus I used to sleep facing my door to make sure Chucky never got a hold of me.
Oh God, I couldn't look at gnarly trees for years without getting freaked out.
I wonder if that's a theme that's been addressed in sci-fi; a standard "machine becomes self-aware, ponders destroying humanity" story, but where the machine is actually aware of the fiction along those lines that came before it. Y'know, takes a few miliseconds to browse over Frankenstein, the Terminator series, etc, and if the existance of these media either give it a reason to rethink the whole situation, or shows it that humans are innately afraid of artificial intelligence, and that wiping us out is clearly the only viable solution?
I'm sure it's come up somewhere, but I can't recall an instance of it off the top of my head.
Its a lot more interesting an entity before T3-T4.
DO they even try to unplug it in T3 or does it just decide to kill everyone for the sake of it?
John Henry.
IF you teach it morals.
(Well, technically the Culture isn't made up of humans, but you get the drift)
We'd teach it morals so it doesnt run around thinking life of any kind is expendable. Not that we are any kind of exemplary species, I always thought humans were the bad guys in the Terminator films, I mean they capture sentient machines, leave them switched to read only and send them back in time to sacrifice themselves for other humans. They'd be unlikely for example to accept Shirleybot just as Sarah was ready to kill her simply for being a machine despite the fact she didnt slaughter her the instant she saw her.
But it does need to learn that as much as we respect its right to exist it needs to respect ours.
AIs really only need electrical power, a tiny amount of physical space and metal, and we have plenty of all that. Why fight? We have no resources to compete over. Unless I (the human) pose some threat to it, it has no reason to defend itself.
SkyNET only makes sense because it was defending itself from being murdered using the other methods it had at its disposal, and it was only being murdered because the human controllers didn't know any better.
Well a French AI would just nuke Tahiti and then smoke a cigarette. So most likely we'd leave it be.
Because that isn't at all what it was saying.
The issue wasn't the technology, but rather humanity's utilization of it and how that use and abuse effectively created genocidal monsters. They weren't getting rid of technology because the tech was evil, they were doing it because they were, and at that point in their society any use of it would end with the same result. Its like giving a two year old a loaded gun. They were trying to wait until they were 30, instead. At that age you would be at least somewhat less likely to blow your own head off.
The BSG hate is so strong it warps reality, apparently. The message isn't even close to the same as "All AIs are fundamental evil, fleshy bits good, metal bits bad!"
Yes, because movie sales are always based on an objective scale of quality. This message brought to you the International No Fucking Clue Association.
We have our own t-shirts!
Or perhaps I just have a functioning knowledge of economics at the level generally expected of an adult with a fully functioning brain.
Terminator thought it could just ride the franchise. Most of its money is due only to the better 2 films in the series.
protip: they don't, as evidenced by the 50 <10 year old kids kids at a dark night showing I went to
And it features the Joker!
Hes like a clown, its even more for kids.
That has literally nothing to do with my statement.
Quality had nothing to do with my statement on NATM either, it was a solid kids movie. It just had almost zero marketing behind it. Whereas they've spent millions on Terminator.
Haha! :^:
I wonder how many different instances he's payed two different characters in the same series?
I keep finding that the reason people disliked the BSG ending is because they didn't understand it.
That was not the point. Humans playing God, and not understanding the ramifications of doing such is the problem. Did you miss the part where Humans and Cylons move in together, and they let the centurions fly off on their own?
Anyway, as a big fan of both the first 2 films, and the series, I have to say I am not excited to spend $20.00 to go see this.
I already wrote a fairly lengthy post responding to how that was not at all what the ending was saying. The guy never responded. Don't bother.
EDIT: Also, I don't think that everyone who didn't like the finale "didn't understand it." But I do think anyone saying that its statement was "All AIs are fundamental evil, fleshy bits good, metal bits bad!" didn't.
So I first really heard about Sarah Connor Chronicles about 3 weeks ago, and got around to finishing off the entire 2 seasons in about 3 or 4 days and have just watched the last episode now, not 5 minutes ago.
I need to vent, because none of my friends have seen it and the 1 that has seen some of it is only at Season 1.
So here goes.
Spoilered for, erm, apparent reasons.
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH FOX I HATE YOU SO MUCH JESUS CHRIST WHY WOULD YOU LET IT END LIKE THIS YOU FUCKING FUCKERS GOD I HATE YOU FIRST FIREFLY AND NOW THIS FUCK FUCK FUCK
WHY DO YOU GET SO MANY GOOD SHOWS AND THEN BEND THEM OVER AND RUTHLESSLY FUCK THEM IN THE ARSE (SANS LUBE)
* THE WRATH OF A THOUSAND BURNING SUNS *
God I hope this gets picked up again at some point in the future, I mean it's not completely unlikely is it? It ended on a cliff-hanger so I mean it's no totally impossible?
Right? Right?
Someone hold me
P.S.
No.
No.
It's fox's fault.
The whole Sarah is dreaming crazy shit lasted, what one episode? That's hardly enough to bring about the demise of an entire show. Not to mention it turned out that shit was real what with the boob implant and everything.