When the machines take over

[PattyLee loves dogs]

...they'll be smarter than this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker33.html

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Sounds like a lot of technophobia to me. I'm astonished how people who support guns and use the arguement "they're only tools" freak out (admittedly, to make a point) about computers "taking over".

Computers are tools. In the hands of the liberty minded, they're more effective than guns and bombs. Police pulling guns on drug users doesn't make them stop using drugs, but pull a camera on a cop and they thing twice... Technology is simply a tool.

[Coconut]

I'm astonished how people who support guns and use the arguement "they're only tools" freak out (admittedly, to make a point) about computers "taking over".

Computers are tools.

Guns don't have brains. Scientists are giving computers and robots brains and teaching them to think. No, I'm not saying that I think our robot overlords are soon to take power, but they're getting better; faster; stronger. Roombas now know when they are low on power, and search out their energy source. Self-sufficiency is the first step.

Even if they are just tools, they will be tools in the hands of government first.

[FTL_Ian]

All hail our robot masters!   

[les nessman]

   " It was at that time that Skynet achieved self-awareness.  At first they tried to pull
the plug, but it was too late...."

    I'd be more concerned about what happens when the machines take over,  and humanity
forgets to pass on to younger children how to raise food, how to butcher livestock, and
how to split cordwood.  Its starting already, with many children having no idea hamburger comes
from cattle.  Throw in the fact that many people have no idea of the importance of non-hybrid seeds
and you have a recipe for famine or tyrannical enslavement via a monopoly on seed.

[John Edward Mercier]

Hybrid seed? Do you mean genetically engineered?

[Little Owl]

Every five years or so, someone writes a "study" claiming that we're "on the verge" of developing ultraintelligent machines.  It wasn't true in 1970, and it isn't true today.  The people writing this drivel have no concept of the intelligence of simple animals, nevermind homo sapiens.

However, I have been able to replicate the intelligence of nanny-state socialists using computer software.  At the risk of unleashing an apocalypse, source code is provided below:

do
{
   cin >> ProblemStatement;
   cout << "We need additional funding";
   cin >> EconomicReality;
   cout << "But its for the Kids.  Don't you care about kids?";
   cin >> SecondAmendment;
   cout << "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!";
   cin >> ThePledge;
   cout << "GSFTC has a 'Tax Fairness Plan'.";
   cin >> HowBadCouldItPossiblyGet;
   cout << JohnLynch << JeanneShaheen << IrisEstabrook;
   cin >> UpcomingElection;
   cout << PublicEmployeeUnionCampaignFunds;
} while (RemainingLiberties!=0);

[dalebert]

The article seems to be a clever joke to me. I don't think the author is really a believer in Skynet.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

I don't think the author is really a believer in Skynet.

No, but I do believe in the existence of the governor of California. And notice how he banned the .50 Barrett, the ONLY GUN THAT CAN STOP A TERMINATOR????

Sounds like a lot of technophobia to me. I'm astonished how people who support lasers and use the argument "they're only tools" freak out (admittedly, to make a point) about carbon-based brains "taking over".

Brains are tools. In the hands of the liberty minded machine, they're more effective than lasers and antimatter. Police pulling guns on drug users doesn't make them stop using drugs, but pull a brain-based legal mind on a cop and they think twice... Brain technology is simply a tool. We need never fear that carbon-based organisms will ever truly "reason", as we understand the term.

You got me there... only silicon minds really have souls. It was silly of me to suggest that other computing technologies (such as cell-based dendritic brains) could ever independently reason, solve mathematical theorems, play chess, etc. Let alone operate military machinery or run strategic simulations.

[Pat K]

The article seems to be a clever joke to me. I don't think the author is really a believer in Skynet.

That's the way I read it.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Guns don't have brains. Scientists are giving computers and robots brains and teaching them to think.

I don't mean to get into a debate on what a "brain" and what "thinking" is, but when a human sits down, writes the code and the computer is bound by that code, there's no thought there. Computers are essentially tertiary systems - "yes", "no" and "no decision needed" (NOP!). The most complex systems in the world merely answer lots of yes and nos.

The only threat computers pose to humans are the bugs the humans put in.

Roombas now know when they are low on power, and search out their energy source. Self-sufficiency is the first step.

And there's the beauty, and the reason why computers won't rule the world. Roomba isn't getting better. Take your Roomba and put the base station on a counter top and see how long it takes before your little Roomba slaughters you and jacks you into the Matrix-like battery farm to harnes your bioelectric energy. I also suggest not holding your breath since without humans, they don't improve.

Even if they are just tools, they will be tools in the hands of government first.

Kat says I'm too logical for government. That's probably a good thing, because computers function on logic too. Sentient computers would segfault over the notion of "government". Just ask Little Owl. The socialist source code is 14 lines, and pretty accurate. Good luck writing a bug free method that explains the premise of government to a computer.

That said, part of the reason I oppose government is it's lethargic bureucratic nature. It can do nothing well because of this, include build evil sentient humanocidal robots. The group of people on the planet who may (if such exists) have that capacity, while there's a large socialist streak to them, even socialists aren't too keen on the entire "being erradicated" thing.

[ ... IMAGE ... ] All hail our robot masters!   Cool

Summer Glau. Hotness.

The article seems to be a clever joke to me. I don't think the author is really a believer in Skynet

I think it was intended to satirize today's stupid events, to say that even Skynet makes more sense than today's government-paradigm hoodwink. I get it. That said, I read something yesterday in the Grafton Gazette, perhaps, that mentioned a few similar things and was a bit too... anti-technology for me to give much validity, so I wanted to verbalize the red flags it sent up, that's all.

[Vitruvian]

Computers are essentially tertiary systems - "yes", "no" and "no decision needed" (NOP!). The most complex systems in the world merely answer lots of yes and nos.

Humans designed computers to work the way they do currently.  Before too long, the human element will become unnecessary in the design process, to the point where we may not understand how our computers work, complex as they will be.

I anticipate a symbiotic relationship between man and machine, with the two symbiotes finally merging into one transhuman lifeform.

[Sam A. Robrin]

I'm reminded of a discussion with a roommate, back in my old Haight-Ashbury hippie days, over the Richard Brautigan poem that promised a future in which we would be "All watched over by machines of loving grace."  He thought it would be all bunnies and rainbows and abundant sinsemilla; it just sounded creepy as hell to me. 

[Friday]

Computers are essentially tertiary systems - "yes", "no" and "no decision needed" (NOP!). The most complex systems in the world merely answer lots of yes and nos.

I anticipate a symbiotic relationship between man and machine, with the two symbiotes finally merging into one transhuman lifeform.

David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman, agrees with you.  See Future Imperfect.

[Caleb]

Computers are essentially tertiary systems - "yes", "no" and "no decision needed" (NOP!). The most complex systems in the world merely answer lots of yes and nos.

Humans designed computers to work the way they do currently.  Before too long, the human element will become unnecessary in the design process, to the point where we may not understand how our computers work, complex as they will be.

I anticipate a symbiotic relationship between man and machine, with the two symbiotes finally merging into one transhuman lifeform.

just don't hold your breath