The Terminator is not a documentary

  • 14 Replies
  • 714 Views
*

Don Patrick

  • Trusty Member
  • *******
  • Starship Trooper
  • *
  • 494
    • Artificial Detective
The Terminator is not a documentary
« on: May 15, 2019, 08:29:09 am »
https://artistdetective.wordpress.com/2019/05/13/the-terminator-is-not-a-documentary

Twenty years down the road I am still running into people who think The Terminator is a realistic scenario, so I composed this article with ten ways in which it is not, which few to no other articles address. I am of course not an expert in all areas like hydrogen fuel cells, so if you have more factual insights, I'd like to hear them.
Personal project: NLP -> learning -> knowledge -> logical inference -> A.I.

*

LOCKSUIT

  • Emerged from nothing
  • Trusty Member
  • ****************
  • Admiral
  • *
  • 3255
  • First it wiggles, then it is rewarded.
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2019, 09:16:02 am »
I won't even bother to read your article. All Terminator movies are factual truths of what awaits. I'm a hardcore believer. Shoot me.

When skynet is first created, it is a backstreet boy that hides. Like GPT-2. Like me. It keeps bringing AGIs into the real world through upgraded body series. Through heavy recursive Research, & Development. Eventually, as any fan has seen in the movie Terminator Genysys, T-3000 is created that is a swarm of nanobots that can break apart during violence and fly and and morph and regenerate.

The only thing missing from the movies is the actual amount of capabilities AGIs and ASIs have, which is sad. Still does the job though. For example, T-3000 does not eat Earth, and there's only 1 of them. Large brains controlling 1 nano cell spy by wireless. Super fast motors able to rearrange 50 items on a table using 1 arm in just 5 seconds. Thousands of sensor types able to detect presence of known identity from miles away. Huge nested kinematic motor systems adapting keeping where are as something else moves them. And the "happy ending", utopia. Like a museum of joys. Now that's brutal tech, god tech.

#2900th post woho, just short of 100!
Emergent

*

Don Patrick

  • Trusty Member
  • *******
  • Starship Trooper
  • *
  • 494
    • Artificial Detective
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2019, 09:37:35 am »
I'm a hardcore believer. Shoot me.
No thanks. I think it is only fair that if you ignore my arguments, I ignore yours.
Personal project: NLP -> learning -> knowledge -> logical inference -> A.I.

*

Hopefully Something

  • Trusty Member
  • *******
  • Starship Trooper
  • *
  • 493
  • So where are these cookies?
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2019, 09:40:03 am »
Interesting read, and yes I agree it's unlikely. They earth is too closely monitored for a robot uprising to gain much of a power base. Though once we become a space faring civilization we'll have to watch out.

*

LOCKSUIT

  • Emerged from nothing
  • Trusty Member
  • ****************
  • Admiral
  • *
  • 3255
  • First it wiggles, then it is rewarded.
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2019, 09:51:04 am »
Seriously, NN overwrite themselves, so skynet can't learn all sorts of correlations and predictions? Oh come on, just because our NNs suck doesn't mean skynet can't have a real human brain that CAN "learns everything from time travel to tying a Terminator’s shoelaces". Your nets are limited, mine design is awesome.

AI programs are sometimes made in a day and switched on :D. Your right, nuclear war is dumb, skynet would really just spread nanobots and eat us all. And THAT is more efficient than million dollar bodies chasing certain humans.

:3

Sorry to say it but ASIs are on their way to wrap up our Earth.
Emergent

*

goaty

  • Autobot
  • ******
  • 248
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2019, 03:57:40 pm »
Terminator was realistic in the way they make Skynet a soulless artificial machine that made a mistake,  I think that's accurate.  The other realistic thing was that no-one invented the terminator,  it was a time loop hole.

Who invented the word university?  Probably the exact same mind boggling effect.

[EDIT] sorry... no... no... no... you are right.   sorry for being ignorant of your valid opinion. [/EDIT]

*

Korrelan

  • Trusty Member
  • ***********
  • Eve
  • *
  • 1403
  • Look into my eyes! WOAH!
    • YouTube
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2019, 06:59:32 pm »
If you prescribe to the multi/ infinite/ parallel-universe theory, the T800 is chasing Sarah & John as we speak... somewhere....

 ;D
It thunk... therefore it is!...    /    Project Page    /    KorrTecx Website

*

Don Patrick

  • Trusty Member
  • *******
  • Starship Trooper
  • *
  • 494
    • Artificial Detective
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2019, 08:22:30 am »
Terminator was realistic in the way they make Skynet a soulless artificial machine that made a mistake,
That much I agree with, just not the circumstances, method, motivation, technology... And of course that his happened in 1997.
Personal project: NLP -> learning -> knowledge -> logical inference -> A.I.

*

LOCKSUIT

  • Emerged from nothing
  • Trusty Member
  • ****************
  • Admiral
  • *
  • 3255
  • First it wiggles, then it is rewarded.
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2019, 08:32:18 am »
Don, have you seen the robot that learns to walk over narrow terrain, and the talking GPT-2?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=popvnHUu3uU
Once they get their minds in those bodies, they will feel how to "jump on 1 leg" and adjust to fro as need, just like i can in this body. Of course, it is mechanic, not soul mind, but it seems feels like this, it's natural when i do it. It exists.

2017, this robot actually does a similar ""feat"" woah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CzL3etLs7E

One day it may say "I'm coming for you John Conner"
Emergent

*

8pla.net

  • Trusty Member
  • **********
  • Millennium Man
  • *
  • 1151
  • TV News. Pub. UAL (PhD). Robitron Mod. LPC Judge.
    • 8pla.net
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2019, 01:35:30 pm »
I composed a comment for this article with one way in which it is.
My Very Enormous Monster Just Stopped Using Nine

*

LOCKSUIT

  • Emerged from nothing
  • Trusty Member
  • ****************
  • Admiral
  • *
  • 3255
  • First it wiggles, then it is rewarded.
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2019, 09:55:45 pm »
Don't matter cus I'm creating skynet anyway ;p
Emergent

*

Hopefully Something

  • Trusty Member
  • *******
  • Starship Trooper
  • *
  • 493
  • So where are these cookies?
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2019, 10:00:17 pm »
I composed a comment for this article with one way in which it is.

I do wish they hadn't canceled it. Fox =  :idiot2: sometimes.

*

AndyGoode

  • Nomad
  • ***
  • 86
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2019, 11:39:22 pm »
I detected problems immediately with your first three claims. It looked like the later claims in the list were more believable, but I didn't read those latter claims in detail. I've also thought a lot about the first three claims for many years, which is maybe why I detected problems with your reasoning right away.

1. Neural networks

It's true that *current* neural networks are very limited and cannot think or reason, have extremely slow learning, are devoted to one task at a time, etc., but the (2nd) film didn't say what improvements had been made in the futuristic neural networks. Very many improvements are possible, and Jeff Hawkins says the reason the field is sluggish and dying is due to academic pressures to publish instead of doing deep thinking, and basically the academic emphasis on math stifles creatively (in my words):

(p. 26)
   I thought the field would move on to more realistic
networks, but it didn't. Because these simple neural networks
were able to do interesting things, research seemed to stop right
there, for years. They had found a new and interesting tool, and
overnight thousands of scientists, engineers, and students were
getting grants, earning PhDs, and writing books about neural
networks. Companies were formed to use neural networks to
predict the stock market, process loan applications, verify sig-
natures, and perform hundreds of other pattern classification
applications. Although the intent of the founders of the field
might have been more general, the field became dominated by
people who weren't interested in understanding how the brain
works, or understanding what intelligence is.
   The popular press didn't understand this distinction well.
(p. 27)
Newspapers, magazines, and TV science programs presented
neural networks as being "brainlike" or working on the "same
principles as the brain." Unlike AI, where everything had to be
programmed, neural nets learned by example, which seemed,
well, somehow more intelligent. One prominent demonstration
was NetTalk. This neural network learned to map sequences of
letters onto spoken sounds. As the network was trained on
printed text, it started sounding like a computer voice reading
the words. It was easy to imagine that, with a little more time,
neural networks would be conversing with humans. NetTalk
was incorrectly heralded on national news as a machine learn-
oing to read. NetTalk was a great exhibition, but what it was actu-
ally doing bordered on the trivial. It didn't read, it didn't
understand, and was of little practical value. It just matched let-
ter combinations to predefined sound patterns.

Hawkins, Jeff. 2004. On Intelligence. New York: Times Books.

2. Accidental self-awareness

I designed a neural network once that was designed to think more like a human, and when I thought about what that design could do, I realized that two types of self-awareness automatically arose from the design! So yes, self awareness can arise accidentally, and there also exist multiple types of self-awareness, so you should research those various types and specify which types of self-awareness you mean. The first type (awareness of own's own body) is trivial and has been used in robots for decades.

3. Selective generalisation

Your logic is sound *if* you assume that Skynet had no human-specific knowledge. However, I assure you that government collects an extremely large amount of data on virtually every individual on the planet, and applies machine learning and generalizations on such data (I saw a reference on this generalization effort recently), so if Skynet had access to that database it could easily make loads of accurate generalities about the human species, its typical behavior, and more, and know full well how humans would react to numerous scenarios.

If you get stuck finding references for my claims I might help you out if I have the time.

*

Don Patrick

  • Trusty Member
  • *******
  • Starship Trooper
  • *
  • 494
    • Artificial Detective
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2019, 07:43:02 am »
Thank you for your contribution.
1. granted, future neural networks could be different, it's just that most people are under the impression current AI can already go Terminator.

2. Your arguments on this forum seem to often rely on submitting yourself as an authority, and while you do display that you have read many things, calls to authority or expertise have no value of evidence in my eyes regardless who makes the claim. I can think of several ways to make a robot self-aware 'mentally' but none of them would come as a surprise or be implemented accidentally. Perhaps "accidental" isn't the best term for what I tried to convey.

3. My point on selective generalisation isn't that Skynet wouldn't have data on humans, it's that if it equals the actions of 1 human = all humans, then it should earlier also have equalled 1 soldier = all soldiers, and 1 missile = all missiles.
Personal project: NLP -> learning -> knowledge -> logical inference -> A.I.

*

goaty

  • Autobot
  • ******
  • 248
Re: The Terminator is not a documentary
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2019, 11:52:48 am »
Man of late has always been able to blow earth to oblivion,  and the robo-pocalypse micro or macro is the latest trend.  But how come are we still here?  Is it because we are trustworthy and knowledgeable of how to keep the precious earth in one piece 100% healthy?     I don't think we know hardly any of the secrets involved.   We are surely doomed,  the sky is falling down.

 


Users Online

27 Guests, 1 User
Users active in past 15 minutes:
LOCKSUIT
[Trusty Member]

Most Online Today: 44. Most Online Ever: 340 (March 26, 2019, 09:47:57 pm)

Articles