Blade Runner may be true in 50 yrs
- Kalibur
-
Kalibur
- Member since: Aug. 17, 2004
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 03
- Blank Slate
We'll be speeding up our own demise. It doesn't matter much.
As a comparison, we'd be like the Neanderthals, while the advanced people are Homo-Sapiens.
PhilipAchapman@gmail.com Add me on MSN
I realise my use of the comma is pretentious as fuck, but it's habit.
Thanks to Mr. MuffDiver for the sig.
- SardonicSamurai
-
SardonicSamurai
- Member since: Sep. 15, 2005
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Supporter
- Level 18
- Animator
At 2/1/08 01:13 AM, JadeTheAssassin wrote:At 2/1/08 01:08 AM, SardonicSamurai wrote: Also, to the comment about computers telling the truth.As do the replicants when they're running away from Deckard, or how Rachael Rosen is when she's first getting administered the Voiggt-Kampf test in the book and movie. She may/may not know that she's an andy, but is revealed to be.
I read an article about a study, where scientists created a very basic AI to simulate simple organisms. They were programmed to require certain needs. The main thing was that the organisms had to fight for energy sources. (no, this isn't killer robots. they were "basic" organisms, only able to sense the energy and the other AI's)
The AI's could communicate on a very simple level. During the study, the AI would lie in order to get what they needed. They would confuse each other in attempts to receieve the energy for their own.
She still wants to live--all the andys want to be, and they will kill/lie/change their name/appearance in order to stay alive for the short 4 years they can exist. They don't want bounty hunters like Deckard cutting their lifespans--all they want to do is survive, or at least be as close to being human as possible, which would be to live a full life.
Basically, the AI knew that with out any form of power, their batteries would run out, thus "killing" them. They were programmed to "stay alive"
Even if they were programmed to give accurate communications (tell the truth), the need to live would still be in their programming. A more complex AI would recognize that it would have one of two choices:
1) Lie, and continue the process of its life
or
2) Communicate as programmed and lose it's energy source, thus killing itself.
The AI was programmed to live, and lying would kill itself, thus going against its programming. It is a lose lose situation. Eventually, the AI would have to choose one or the other, just like a human. At least that's what I'd think.
- JadeTheAssassin
-
JadeTheAssassin
- Member since: Apr. 5, 2004
- Offline.
-
- Send Private Message
- Browse All Posts (16,446)
- Block
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 10
- Artist
At 2/1/08 01:25 AM, SardonicSamurai wrote:
The AI was programmed to live, and lying would kill itself, thus going against its programming. It is a lose lose situation. Eventually, the AI would have to choose one or the other, just like a human. At least that's what I'd think.
Basically, if we take into account the Third Law of Robotics, which states that "# A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.", the first two being that a robot cannot kill a human, and that it must obey orders given by humans, that if the robot was lying, and going against a human's order to not lie, it would not be able to kill itself, if we were going with Asimov's laws.
If we're going by androids in Blade Runner, they can and are able to commit suicide by holding their breath, as part of their vagus nerve is either nonexistant in their build, or is not affected.
Wayyy too deep.
- TWO-THOUSAND-EIGHT
-
TWO-THOUSAND-EIGHT
- Member since: Jan. 1, 2008
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 01
- Blank Slate
The AI was programmed to live, and lying would kill itself, thus going against its programming. It is a lose lose situation. Eventually, the AI would have to choose one or the other, just like a human. At least that's what I'd think.
Gaff made a point on this in the movie, director's cut:
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
Which was explaining how the fight for a longer life is pointless, no matter if you are a replicant or not you will die anyways..
- SomeNick
-
SomeNick
- Member since: Aug. 28, 2005
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 15
- Blank Slate
At 2/1/08 01:34 AM, TWO-THOUSAND-EIGHT wrote:
Which was explaining how the fight for a longer life is pointless, no matter if you are a replicant or not you will die anyways..
You can always kill yourself right away, you know...
- Cyberdevil
-
Cyberdevil
- Member since: Jan. 17, 2004
- Offline.
-
- Send Private Message
- Browse All Posts (22,509)
- Block
-
- Forum Stats
- Supporter
- Level 50
- Writer
Well thatwouldn't be too bad if it was. I'm glad 1984 never turned into reality though . . . at least not at the specified date . . .
- BuddhaGeo
-
BuddhaGeo
- Member since: Jul. 18, 2007
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 19
- Melancholy
At 1/31/08 11:15 PM, CoryLehan wrote: We'll be constructing people. You could have a conversation or fall in love with someone built by a machine, with all their characteristics already defined by that machine. The color of their eyes. the shape of their nose, the color of their hair, the sound of their voice, all defined with a string of code. Even the mind could be modified to an extent.
How are humans different then? Aren't our eyes, shapes, voices, and hair colors also defined in our DNA code? How the hell would a totally artificial robot be different from us?
"Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship." -Buddah
- DoomyCheese
-
DoomyCheese
- Member since: Aug. 25, 2006
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 09
- Blank Slate
I watched Blade Runner the other night.
- TheThing
-
TheThing
- Member since: Nov. 27, 2005
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 36
- Writer
At 2/1/08 01:21 AM, SomeNick wrote: This brings me a new question: Is it possible that one day dead people might come back to life? If you somehow obtain or recreate their souls... Looks like we might be heading that way, one day, in the far, far future.
It's impossible to reanimate dead tissue. Once the cell's functions stop, it can't return to normal functioning. Even if whatever the cell needs to "come back to life" is reintroduced (probably oxygen, carbs and electronic signals), none of the cellular "organs" would have the ability to process any of the nutrients.
At 2/1/08 01:30 AM, JadeTheAssassin wrote: Basically, if we take into account the Third Law of Robotics,
But that's just some laws that an author put into a book. Those laws would have to be programmed into the robot (possible), but if you saw the movie iRobot, you would see how those laws would be biting us in the ass.
- idle
-
idle
- Member since: Sep. 26, 2004
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Moderator
- Level 29
- Blank Slate
At 1/31/08 11:15 PM, CoryLehan wrote: Stuff about genomes.
Funnily enough, I watched the Blade Runner Director's Cut last night and thought the same thing!
Actually no, thats lies. I did watch it last night, but all I could think about the whole time was "SWEET, only 11 more years until we have flying cars!"
- DemonicDuo
-
DemonicDuo
- Member since: Dec. 4, 2004
- Offline.
-
- Forum Stats
- Member
- Level 08
- Blank Slate
The world is not going to drastically change before our eyes. If anything they will use construction of people for military intelligence to fight our wars, or something. We aren't going to just be able to make people. We don't have the technology to do so. Its not like in 20 years we can go to a store and order up on what our children are going to look like.
anyway, for all we know the government is already capable of doing so
