Personally i think we have already been overthrown. I mean lets think about how much time each of us spends attached to a computer. If you would take all that time and put it toward research or something, we would prolly be disease free and living on Neptune or something.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Should we destroy all machines/computers now before it's too late?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SagaLore
Elite Member
Without computers, Accounting which would normally take weeks of paper work takes hours. Research that would takes days takes minutes. We spend more time on computers, therefore we accelerate the possiblity of becoming disease free and living on Neptune. Some of us just choose to waste our time looking at Pr0n or playing Casino games. 😉
This question, to my mind, is a rather profound one, with implications in every direction. It may even be, depending on data storage and time lines, that how you answer this question here become a part of the equasion.
But regardless, my experience is that not only are most 'people' not interested in a deep look into questions of this kind, but also, because they require a modicum of self-reflection to even consider, your question will elicit almost nothing but flip answers designed to insult you so as to extract some small measure of revenge for having disturbed their sleep.
It's a great question though but rather than suffer the same fate, I'll elide.
But regardless, my experience is that not only are most 'people' not interested in a deep look into questions of this kind, but also, because they require a modicum of self-reflection to even consider, your question will elicit almost nothing but flip answers designed to insult you so as to extract some small measure of revenge for having disturbed their sleep.
It's a great question though but rather than suffer the same fate, I'll elide.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
This assumes AI is possible.
I expect this will happen about the same time your laptop decides to hide the car keys on you.
I expect this will happen about the same time your laptop decides to hide the car keys on you.
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
haha mankind will at last find true brotherhood in his fight against the machines, right before the machines exterminate the carbon based units.
I like computers, robots. They don't kill like guns/bombs/nukes do. The only thing we have to fear is ourselves, why? because we have the ability to kill massively if the world doesn't agree to well. Japan was nuked for experimental purpose, and it worked but may also wipe us all out in the future if we are not careful how it is being used.
Segalore:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This question, to my mind, is a rather profound one, with implications in every direction. It may even be, depending on data storage and time lines, that how you answer this question here become a part of the equasion.
But regardless, my experience is that not only are most 'people' not interested in a deep look into questions of this kind, but also, because they require a modicum of self-reflection to even consider, your question will elicit almost nothing but flip answers designed to insult you so as to extract some small measure of revenge for having disturbed their sleep.
It's a great question though but rather than suffer the same fate, I'll elide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for taking 114 words to elide.
--------------------
I wanted every word to count.
It also gives me the opportunity to provide more examples of the flip.
I elided not on my reasons for eliding, I apparently gave 114 of those, but on the topic question itself. There is a difference.
-----------------
So did you ever finish the article by Kurzweil, Carb?
Hayabusarider, you might be interested in the articles here.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This question, to my mind, is a rather profound one, with implications in every direction. It may even be, depending on data storage and time lines, that how you answer this question here become a part of the equasion.
But regardless, my experience is that not only are most 'people' not interested in a deep look into questions of this kind, but also, because they require a modicum of self-reflection to even consider, your question will elicit almost nothing but flip answers designed to insult you so as to extract some small measure of revenge for having disturbed their sleep.
It's a great question though but rather than suffer the same fate, I'll elide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for taking 114 words to elide.
--------------------
I wanted every word to count.
It also gives me the opportunity to provide more examples of the flip.
I elided not on my reasons for eliding, I apparently gave 114 of those, but on the topic question itself. There is a difference.
-----------------
So did you ever finish the article by Kurzweil, Carb?
Hayabusarider, you might be interested in the articles here.
Having trouble myself, so hopefully even if artificial, it will prove better than mine.
What do you mean, not a member? What is thought? I had to play your statement a number of times looking for relevence based on past experiences with you and different possibioities. I'm massively parallel, apparently and built to do just that. Function and form may spring eternal.
What do you mean, not a member? What is thought? I had to play your statement a number of times looking for relevence based on past experiences with you and different possibioities. I'm massively parallel, apparently and built to do just that. Function and form may spring eternal.
Zebo
Elite Member
The generalizations a computer could never make but you can, trivialy, if your honest.
Finished?> The computer would realise this statment is a question as indicated by punctuation, but would'nt understand why I am asking it other than I don't understand the meaning of the word and I'm seeking clarification on the term. You (humans) on the other hand understand it's rehtorical. It's not really a question but more of a 'you must be kidding" statement to include failure to do so.
Never Started I sorry.> Computer would probably just add the 'm the the I making I'm so I think COULD interpret this statmentment to mean 'I never stated reading it, and I am sorry for not doing so' Started what? And why am I sorry? Sorry implies feeling, computer has none. Data does not cumpute.
Not a member here so I could'nt find the thread> Most humans would see this as I obviously used the wrong term since with 4000+ posts I am a memeber and most likely know I am, when taken in context with not being able to find the thread where you linked the site, Most would conclude I meant subcriber instead since I'm obviously a member. Computer would have no freken clue what I meant.
It's book mark now> I wonder if a computer will be able to put those words together book mark to bookmark then add "ed" to relise it's full term "bookmarked now" which a human can do at a glance. No it think the computer will take the literal interpretation and think I read or have a book about mark in my possesion.
Freejack2
Diamond Member
Wow, no one mentioned Asimov's 3 laws of robotics!
The Three Laws of Robotics are:
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 the 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.
I say dollars to dimes when robots are advanced enough to call them some form of AI they will have some form of these laws embedded in them.
The Three Laws of Robotics are:
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 the 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.
I say dollars to dimes when robots are advanced enough to call them some form of AI they will have some form of these laws embedded in them.
What stumped the computer, Carb, was that although the I have paid for a subscription, I am not a subscriber, so the intrepretation that you are a subscriber not able to find a link in forums didn't fit since I'm still in forums too. Hope that was machine logic clear.
Edit: Freejack I didn't allude to them because I'm eliding. Have no idea what Evademan was saying.
Edit: Freejack I didn't allude to them because I'm eliding. Have no idea what Evademan was saying.
WalMart1564
Banned
like in the episode of south park where cartmans trapper keeper takes over >?
kyle what are you doing kyle
kyle what are you doing kyle
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
