Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

[mightymic]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

Yeah it can be really long to code all this but remember that we are always develloping new technologies so we don't really know what lies ahead.

[XxXMetalheadXxX]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

I don't think that robots could take over the earth but I always believed in the fact that if the human specie have to come to an extection, it will be because of us. I mean it will be ourself that will have created something that will kill us all like some kind of weapon that we don't control.

I agree with mightymic on everything he's saying, I think it will be our own fault if we go extinct because it's our fault already that there is so little amount of trees left. Even if we got so far into 100 years our trees might be all gone because of land development. We screwed up I think on alot of things however, I don't think our existence would end by some kind of..."Super Robot" of some sort. I'm sure it would be very hard to make a "Super Robot" but im sure it could possibly happen in the future. There's so many national armed forces that are all over the world and could possibly join together and stopped a robot if it ever happend. But like I said it would take a long time and be very hard to make one but who knows what could happen in the future. Things are being created everyday, that's just my opinion.
-XxXmetalheadXxX

[danthemano]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

I only read the first post, but i would have to say:unlikely.

In general, we are pretty far from creating true artificial intelligence. some machines can do simple tasks automatically and everything, but there wont come machines that will have such greater intelligence than us.

Sure computer may be smarter than us and can do math problems faster, but they don't have any type of political/ leadership ambition.

We're mostly able to control the functions of our machines, or at least point them in the right direction.

And if machines were to try to take over the world they would be the bad guys.
everyone knows bad guys come last..

[Master TAnK Evans]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

machine uprising? we have armor peircing bullets one shot almost anywhere would hit some kind of software and the thing is disabled....we can peirce too many types of armor why do we care? we also have EMP why is anybody worried

1. we can destroy them very easily if it happens
2. the "mad scientist" would need...way too much money for all that

so... we never need to worry about it lol trust me

[Russ_on_a_bus]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

Man vs Machine? I think that Machines might be able to win, but it wouldn't be in the sence of a tradition doomsday device or a super death machine. Instead it would be some freak computer code or virus that enters the internet. You know how an email can travel across the planet within a couple of seconds, well if the code/virus was programmed well enough it could sneak into the world computers in a couple of weeks. From there it could start corrupting the computers in a couple of weeks eventually causing it to shut down. However most of the governments computers have firewall to so it down, but personal computers aren't as well protected. Therefore a large majority of computers in the world will shut down and it will be a huge hassle for everyone. If the goverments computers were to shut down then society will be hit with a major blow and millions of businesses will go bankrupt, countries defenses will be down,etc. Here is an example say if the computers at the stock exachange(New York) were to shut down, then over 3 trillion dollars would instanly be lost and thats a lot of money.

But don't worry its just a theroy I just made up
By the way where's the spell check?

[Corbin Wells]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

We'd have to be pretty stupid to let a machine rule us. But I highly doubt it. Machines as a group are much more vulnerable than people:
Heat
Viruses
The ability to think like a human or any other intelligent creature
Aside from all of those things considered, the best computer is the human mind.

[kid_merkury]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

We'd have to be pretty stupid to let a machine rule us. But I highly doubt it. Machines as a group are much more vulnerable than people:
Heat
Viruses
The ability to think like a human or any other intelligent creature
Aside from all of those things considered, the best computer is the human mind.

the points you made almost seem like they could be an advantage even. those are human weak points, but also with machines, to an extent and on a much much high level. so wouldnt that seem like an advantage? a machine can withstand more heat than a human can. as for viruses, i could go explain how those are eradicated in the human body (macrophages, b and t cells, wbcells, etc) but what if a similar system were to be used?......idk....it seems really really far fetched, but not so far fetched taht the idea is astronomical..

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

wb, bump.

Corbin Wells provides no point with Heat and Viruses.

Human mind can't do crap. It's the most flawful piece of junk matter in this universe. Uh, I guess in CT, you're supposed to go into a lengthy explanation of why you would think such a thing... but I don't really have a clear cut explanation.

[x After Dawn x]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

Machines can't think, and won't. They're basically programs with set commands and actions.

You ask, "what about machines that can think?" I don't think mankind will ever build any because of the threat of takeover, if that's the answer you want.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

They're basically programs with set commands and actions.

In essence we humans are too, just saying. It's just that we have a more diverse variety of commands and actions than the said machines do for the time being.

[kid_merkury]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

ty midday ^^

but going off, the human body (mind, more specifically) is so complex. They say the average human only uses about 24% of it in a lifetime (i forget where i heard that, i should probs get better sources xD). So making a machine to think like humans? You have two options:

a.) Build it to think EXACTLY like a human does, including decision making skills, analytical skills, even possibly emotions (legit, the more i type this, the more ridiculous it sounds), but essentially, not efficient. If my source was correct, and we build machines like humans, wouldnt that make the machine only around 24% efficient? (remember, this is being modeled as the average human, according to the stat i mentioned earlier)

b.) Build a machine that surpasses the efficiency of humans, that is capable of all i mentioned in part A, as well as more. I feel like this option is where people might see a possibilty of a "mutiny-esque" type ordeal happening, but again, to build something of this magnitude, with this much power....the amount of work, time, etc to do this would take a lifetime..so I'd pick "a"?....idk


-Merky

[someweakplayer]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

What i think is that it is impossible to create something smarter than yourself. So if the robots do manage to ''Attack'', then it is near impossible for them to outsmart ourselves.

[devonin]

Re: Mankind vs. Machine....kind.

They say the average human only uses about 24% of it in a lifetime (i forget where i heard that, i should probs get better sources xD)

The usual factoid I hear is "humans only use 10% of their brain" which is at worst a complete fabrication and at best a hopeless misunderstanding. The only way I could think of that being accurate would be to add at a time to the end of the original statement, as in not all portions of your brain are active at any given moment.

What i think is that it is impossible to create something smarter than yourself.

Do you apply that principle only to intelligence? Or would you generally expand that to be "It is impossible to create something with characteristics you don't have" because I can think of a few pretty glaring oppositions to the more general extension of what you're saying.

Further, whether that is possible or not depends on how you choose to define intelligence. We can and do create things with vastly faster computational and analytical speeds than we can match, and have done so for years. I don't see how one could find it impossible to create (Assuming we develop the ability to create an artificial intelligence) an artificial intelligence that is at -least- smarter than a large number of people, if not necessarily the designer.

Remember, if it can't be smarter than its creator, and its creator is say...Stephen Hawking, it is still plenty more intelligent than the vast majority of people.