Talk:1968: Robot Future - Revision history

172.69.44.137 at 19:47, 30 August 2022

2022-08-30T19:47:57Z

ProphetZarquon: Ava ❤️ human

2018-03-19T15:55:10Z

Ava ❤️ human

Kynde at 12:11, 19 March 2018

2018-03-19T12:11:47Z

Kynde at 12:10, 19 March 2018

2018-03-19T12:10:16Z

Hkmaly at 22:04, 17 March 2018

2018-03-17T22:04:20Z

ProphetZarquon: +Matrix, move Machina

2018-03-17T17:35:28Z

+Matrix, move Machina

Seebert at 16:18, 17 March 2018

2018-03-17T16:18:26Z

ProphetZarquon: Thanks!

2018-03-17T16:11:03Z

Thanks!

108.162.216.208 at 13:28, 17 March 2018

2018-03-17T13:28:26Z

Herobrine at 13:07, 17 March 2018

2018-03-17T13:07:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 30 August 2022
Line 18:		Line 18:
	We think that combat drones are not autonomous, but we already have civilian drones that are, and not only that, Intel has quite the "drone-based-fireworks" show based on an AI botnet that shows such swarms of drones can work together. Given the tendency of military secrets surrounding new technology, do you really believe the same technology has not already been deployed on the battlefield? Such a botent of hunter-killer octocopters would leave no witnesses behind.[[User:Seebert\|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert\|talk]]) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)		We think that combat drones are not autonomous, but we already have civilian drones that are, and not only that, Intel has quite the "drone-based-fireworks" show based on an AI botnet that shows such swarms of drones can work together. Given the tendency of military secrets surrounding new technology, do you really believe the same technology has not already been deployed on the battlefield? Such a botent of hunter-killer octocopters would leave no witnesses behind.[[User:Seebert\|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert\|talk]]) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
	:Rely on "no witnesses" for untested technology? I don't think there was any target worth it recently. So I do believe the technology was not yet deployed. However, it likely is already prepared. It just waits for moment when the potential backslash from it's use somehow getting out would be worth the target which was destroyed. Something like second bin Ladin. Or Kim Jong-un. Or, well ... second Snowden. Not the first one, as that one already shared everything he had. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)		:Rely on "no witnesses" for untested technology? I don't think there was any target worth it recently. So I do believe the technology was not yet deployed. However, it likely is already prepared. It just waits for moment when the potential backslash from it's use somehow getting out would be worth the target which was destroyed. Something like second bin Ladin. Or Kim Jong-un. Or, well ... second Snowden. Not the first one, as that one already shared everything he had. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	From what I've heard, the first autonomous UCAVs were deployed in either 2021 or 2022. Sources are a bit shaky, especially with how much misinformation goes around regarding the war in Ukraine. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.44.137\|172.69.44.137]] 19:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 I swapped The Matrix for Ex Machina, in the early section about AI destroying/overthrowing humanity, & added a line farther down noting that Ex Machina's Ava (much like the human-directed killbots Randall is concerned about) did her job only too well; Specifically, talking her way out of the box. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 :So she did not do like this one: [[1450: AI-Box Experiment]] ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 I'm sad it was not about [[799: Stephen Hawking|Stehpen]] today... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
+:Instead of a tribute today, all I saw was a short, violent dystopian film. But this is quite an important matter, look at the video. Certantly more important... But still, can't wait for the tribute. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 13:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
-Instead of a tribute today, all I saw was a short, violent dystopian film. But this is quite an important matter, look at the video. Certantly more important... But still, can't wait for the tribute. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 13:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
+::Thanks, I did not see it at first, but it is really a scary thought. We do not need [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanorobotics#Nanorobot_race Nanobots] to eradicate the people with the wrong opinions, when we have killer bots instead. I'm sure I have a lot of those wrong opinions and they are probably out on Facebook...--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
-:Thanks, I did not see it at first, but it is really a scary thought. We do not need [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanorobotics#Nanorobot_race Nanobots] to eradicate the people with the wrong opinions, when we have killer bots instead. I'm sure I have a lot of those wrong opinions and they are probably out on Facebook...--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
+:If memory serves, Hawking is cited with similar concern about AI technology, and its potential to out think humans exponentially (not just a buzz word, but actually exponentially). However he did advocate for needs that aren't met in the immediate, not the theoretical future. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208|108.162.216.208]] 13:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
+::Thanks for reminding us. I have added something about the coincidence that one of Hawking's concerns was the main theme of the first comic after his death. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 We think that combat drones are not autonomous, but we already have civilian drones that are, and not only that, Intel has quite the "drone-based-fireworks" show based on an AI botnet that shows such swarms of drones can work together.  Given the tendency of military secrets surrounding new technology, do you really believe the same technology has not already been deployed on the battlefield?  Such a botent of hunter-killer octocopters would leave no witnesses behind.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 :Rely on "no witnesses" for untested technology? I don't think there was any target worth it recently. So I do believe the technology was not yet deployed. However, it likely is already prepared. It just waits for moment when the potential backslash from it's use somehow getting out would be worth the target which was destroyed. Something like second bin Ladin. Or Kim Jong-un. Or, well ... second Snowden. Not the first one, as that one already shared everything he had. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Instead of a tribute today, all I saw was a short, violent dystopian film. But this is quite an important matter, look at the video. Certantly more important... But still, can't wait for the tribute. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 13:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
-:Thanks, I did not see it at first, but it is really a scary thought. We do not need Nanobots to eradicate the people with the wrong opinions. I'm sure I have a lot of those and they are probably on Facebook...--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
+:Thanks, I did not see it at first, but it is really a scary thought. We do not need [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanorobotics#Nanorobot_race Nanobots] to eradicate the people with the wrong opinions, when we have killer bots instead. I'm sure I have a lot of those wrong opinions and they are probably out on Facebook...--[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 If memory serves, Hawking is cited with similar concern about AI technology, and its potential to out think humans exponentially (not just a buzz word, but actually exponentially). However he did advocate for needs that aren't met in the immediate, not the theoretical future. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208|108.162.216.208]] 13:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 I swapped The Matrix for Ex Machina, in the early section about AI destroying/overthrowing humanity, & added a line farther down noting that Ex Machina's Ava (much like the human-directed killbots Randall is concerned about) did her job only too well; Specifically, talking her way out of the box. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 I'm sad it was not about [[799: Stephen Hawking|Stehpen]] today... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 Instead of a tribute today, all I saw was a short, violent dystopian film. But this is quite an important matter, look at the video. Certantly more important... But still, can't wait for the tribute. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 13:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 If memory serves, Hawking is cited with similar concern about AI technology, and its potential to out think humans exponentially (not just a buzz word, but actually exponentially). However he did advocate for needs that aren't met in the immediate, not the theoretical future. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208|108.162.216.208]] 13:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 We think that combat drones are not autonomous, but we already have civilian drones that are, and not only that, Intel has quite the "drone-based-fireworks" show based on an AI botnet that shows such swarms of drones can work together.  Given the tendency of military secrets surrounding new technology, do you really believe the same technology has not already been deployed on the battlefield?  Such a botent of hunter-killer octocopters would leave no witnesses behind.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 :Rely on "no witnesses" for untested technology? I don't think there was any target worth it recently. So I do believe the technology was not yet deployed. However, it likely is already prepared. It just waits for moment when the potential backslash from it's use somehow getting out would be worth the target which was destroyed. Something like second bin Ladin. Or Kim Jong-un. Or, well ... second Snowden. Not the first one, as that one already shared everything he had. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:04, 17 March 2018
Line 15:		Line 15:

	We think that combat drones are not autonomous, but we already have civilian drones that are, and not only that, Intel has quite the "drone-based-fireworks" show based on an AI botnet that shows such swarms of drones can work together. Given the tendency of military secrets surrounding new technology, do you really believe the same technology has not already been deployed on the battlefield? Such a botent of hunter-killer octocopters would leave no witnesses behind.[[User:Seebert\|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert\|talk]]) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)		We think that combat drones are not autonomous, but we already have civilian drones that are, and not only that, Intel has quite the "drone-based-fireworks" show based on an AI botnet that shows such swarms of drones can work together. Given the tendency of military secrets surrounding new technology, do you really believe the same technology has not already been deployed on the battlefield? Such a botent of hunter-killer octocopters would leave no witnesses behind.[[User:Seebert\|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert\|talk]]) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Rely on "no witnesses" for untested technology? I don't think there was any target worth it recently. So I do believe the technology was not yet deployed. However, it likely is already prepared. It just waits for moment when the potential backslash from it's use somehow getting out would be worth the target which was destroyed. Something like second bin Ladin. Or Kim Jong-un. Or, well ... second Snowden. Not the first one, as that one already shared everything he had. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 22:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ::Please sign your comments ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 :This reads so much better now. Thanks everyone! [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 I'm sad it was not about [[799: Stephen Hawking|Stehpen]] today... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 17 March 2018
Line 11:		Line 11:

	If memory serves, Hawking is cited with similar concern about AI technology, and its potential to out think humans exponentially (not just a buzz word, but actually exponentially). However he did advocate for needs that aren't met in the immediate, not the theoretical future. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208\|108.162.216.208]] 13:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)		If memory serves, Hawking is cited with similar concern about AI technology, and its potential to out think humans exponentially (not just a buzz word, but actually exponentially). However he did advocate for needs that aren't met in the immediate, not the theoretical future. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208\|108.162.216.208]] 13:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	We think that combat drones are not autonomous, but we already have civilian drones that are, and not only that, Intel has quite the "drone-based-fireworks" show based on an AI botnet that shows such swarms of drones can work together. Given the tendency of military secrets surrounding new technology, do you really believe the same technology has not already been deployed on the battlefield? Such a botent of hunter-killer octocopters would leave no witnesses behind.[[User:Seebert\|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert\|talk]]) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:28, 17 March 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Instead of a tribute today, all I saw was a short, violent dystopian film. But this is quite an important matter, look at the video. Certantly more important... But still, can't wait for the tribute. [[User:Herobrine\|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine\|talk]]) 13:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)		Instead of a tribute today, all I saw was a short, violent dystopian film. But this is quite an important matter, look at the video. Certantly more important... But still, can't wait for the tribute. [[User:Herobrine\|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine\|talk]]) 13:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	If memory serves, Hawking is cited with similar concern about AI technology, and it's potential to out think humans exponentially (not just a buzz word, but actually exponentially). However he did advocate for needs that aren't met in the immediate, not the theoretical future. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208\|108.162.216.208]] 13:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 17 March 2018
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I'm sad it was not about [[799: Stephen Hawking\|Stehpen]] today... --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)		I'm sad it was not about [[799: Stephen Hawking\|Stehpen]] today... --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	Instead of a tribute today, all I saw was a short, violent dystopian film. But this is quite an important matter, look at the video. Certantly more important... But still, can't wait for the tribute. [[User:Herobrine\|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine\|talk]]) 13:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)