What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
122 Comments
- sronbheatha, on 10/11/2007, -2/+55Don't worry. They wont won't go near California as long as the Governator's there.
- formfactor, on 10/11/2007, -8/+41Let me be the first to say,
I for one, welcome our new robotic overlords. - Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31How do you know he's not one of them?
- 1021, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32What an absurd title... and we don't even have flying cars yet... FLYING CARS! We were supposed to have those by now.
- triggerfinger, on 10/11/2007, -10/+39Is it time to Rage against the Machine?
- natmaster, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26Again, these claims of AI advancement are ridiculous. I do cutting edge research in the field of Neural Networks, and as exciting and interesting as it is, we are no where near creating intelligence more advanced than our own.
- Octtopsy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Hopefully by then, we would've learned how to unplug them.
- rumbl3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15The day my Roomba starts to chase me around my house is the day I take a baseball bat to it.
- themastersb, on 10/11/2007, -9/+24I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
- Speed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+171. The movie is VERY loosly based off a bok by Issac Assimov.
2. Skynet is Terminator Series. I, Robot had a super advanced robot named Vicky controlling all the robots.
If you're going to make geek culture references, at least get them right. - mlindemu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Thank you... I too work in an AI lab on the cutting edge. Everyone here sees the ideas in that article as a far fetched. We are nowhere near robots worthy of terminator music.
Also, don't believe the Koreans. They say some ridiculous things when it comes to this topic. - IRoaChI, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I can't wait for them to hook me up to some of them cybernetics’ and artificial limbs. Think fast, run fast and jump buildings in a single bound.
- Alkali, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13With the state of the world today, perhaps the robots could do better. Humans already have Big Brother, terrorism, slavery, war. Hell I for one welcome our robot overlords.
- zekt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10No real problem. If we have energy issues looming - they have twice the problem!
- VanZant, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Don't fear guys, once Starcraft II drops no one will be developing anything.
- IRoaChI, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Skynet is already in the UK :)
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10eh, i'd take an AI over human politicians.
an AI would have the distinct advantage of being able to think. - sipsyrup, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10what does copying have to do with this
- trolleyfan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Well, it's about time!
- TopherT, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12no, no, I think I've heard that one before...
- nyx210, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10I think 10 years is being a little bit overzealous, no?
- nmwando, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8i have always had a thing for robots since the old days of saber rider.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Yes and my popular science magazine said we would be living on the Moon by 1999............................enough already !!!!!!!
When you can't even get Robots to walk upstairs without falling over..i'll throw caution to the wind and take my chances, a gut feeling here but something tells me good old Sky-Net the GoBots or the Transformers will be taking over the world anytime soon - swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Call This Week in Science. Every time they do a story on robots, they call it This week in Robots take over the world.
You can, however, defend yourself.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8edf/
How to Survive a Robot Uprising
TWIS interviewed the author sometime back. - user777, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6i'd take those limbs anytime. what's up with the 4-minute mile? one of these days, i'm going to do it in 15 seconds.
- Traddles, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I believe you're looking for ctrl+c
- Solstice, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Wake me up when I get my flying car. Wasn't that supposed to come at least 7 years ago?
- venom8599, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6What's wrong with the post office? It's actually one of the more efficient operations of the Federal Government.
- LinearChaos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Asimov's three rules seem somewhat antiquated and do not seem to represent reality. It all comes down whether or not humans can hit the Technological Singularity and how the singularity impacts mankind.
Bill Joy has a great perspective on the issue and his article he wrote on Genetics, Nanotechnology, and Robotics is pretty thought provoking:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
This is old news, this is what the Unabomber was ranting about over 10 years ago and beyond. - Funguar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5robots with giant metal cowboy hats?
- Bahimiron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5If the robots win, we'll have to listen to techno.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@Dumbledorito
the positronic robots only came up with the zeroth law waaay in the super distant future, when they became vastly superior in intelligence to the point of inventing a new brain every few years. It was not among the original three laws. - bariswheel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Definitely an absurd, knee jerk reaction to new technology, provocative,sensational, cliche title. And like all such titles, buried into a deep f$cking hole. People need to stop digging *****.
Watch and become the wiser.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?um=1&tab=wv&hl=en&q=singularity+summit+at+stanford - gabbercomau, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@1021
Give it 20 years from whenever this statement is read, and we WILL have flying cars. - venom8599, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I never really got the third law... It seems pointless enough to be a normal operating procedure, not some special law. It's like say "Hey Mr. Robot, don't accidentally die unless not doing so would harm humans, or don't kill yourself on purpose, unless some human orders you to, then it's okay." The other two laws I get, and those seem special. The last one really doesn't.
Maybe it's because I don't really give a ***** about a robot... I'm too human-centric...
Anyway, any of those would be a bitch to program out for every contingency. I say we half-ass it like usual until the robots rise up, then we can put 'em back in their place with some old fashioned ***** Sapiens asskicking... - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6K, who else wants to bury this as inaccurate
- Hurricane, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Ah, nothin to worry about.
The clones will wipe em out in 2042. - Hydraulix, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6*smashes roomba to bits and pieces*
- daark80, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you have never seen the movie "Animatrix"... it is a film full of different types off animation styles dedicated to portaying different aspects of the "Matrix" movies, in chapters. One of the stories, "The Renaissance", circles around the very topic of A.I. finally surpassing human intelligence, including a robot who decides to kill it's master/programmer in defense, claiming it did not want to "die". This is followed by the "Million Machine March". All of the A.I. who have worked tirelessly for man begin to protest for rights as citizens and a war follows where the human race is nearly annilhated and the remaining humans are used as "batteries" to give the machines a source of energy. They are by far the best couple of chapters in the movie! It's extremely creepy to think that this becoming a part of our reality and may one day soon become a serious question posed to society.! I'm a firm believer in the fact that not all advancements in technology necessarily progress humanity.
- Ratteler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Bah! They can't be any worse than the Repubicans.
- Celeron, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6No worries, we'll be set with this:
Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. - LinearChaos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why the future doesn't need us.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
Asimov's three laws apply to machines, traditionally androids and the such. Like the idea of not comprehending a laptop having the power of a lab full of mainframes 35 years ago, the future will be tiny and not Star Trek's Data. More dangerous to humanity are nanotech, genetic engineering, and robotics taken as a whole. There have been research papers which attempt to analyze some disaster scenarios involving nanobots. One accident with small nanabots that can clone themselves (Van Neumann Machines) could destroy life on earth in about 3 hours. Things like tiny machine "plants" with solar panels for leafs that out compete organic plants and trees. The Technological Singularity. Asimov's three rules don't easily apply or have no relevance in the face of technological reality. Grey goo indeed. - theron1n, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2ElwoodHerring, the third law caused a great deal of problems for two astronauts trapped in their spaceship on the surface of Mars in one of his stories. I won't go into detail but a robot ordered to gather fuel deadlocked as a result of the third law.
- Lane, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2but how long till they realize were not worth enslaving and kill us all?
- bootle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Didn't Asimov cover this base quite some time ago?
- Herzasche, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6@triggerfinger
we have to Rage against the Machine before we become an audioslave!! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Don`t worry I am part of a program that will enable a global protection system of networked computers and satellites that will control our military infrastructure. We dubbed it sky net. It will protect us all. It takes effect coincidentally in 10 years.
- xaeon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1As an Artificial Intelligence graduate, the idea that computers are at a point of "deciding" a course of action for themselves is a rediculous notion. I spent three years being taught how difficult anything resembling AI complete is. These "intelligent robots" are programmed to give the illusion of intelligence. A code for the ethical treatment of computer software is stupid. If we want to be ethical towards software, just stop Microsoft from poluting the software gene pool.
- bassplayer71, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://www.humansunitedagainstrobots.com
HUAR!! - Twango, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Where's the evidence? Sensationalist twaddle. Buried.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is