CryptoChild on 27/12/2007 at 08:10
How would you know any different? You don't have a PhD in anything. Regardless, your post does not even so much as merit a responce. I'm not taking your flamebaiting. Your post does not even contribute to this thread at all.
EvaUnit02 on 27/12/2007 at 12:28
Quote Posted by Alinestra Covelia
The only sci-fi I can think of that goes the other way is
Red Dwarf, which holds that the early cyborgs looked noticeably
unlike humans, and later cyborgs looking identical to humans (rather like Blade Runner). The later humans found this very disconcerting, and they recalled all the identical ones, replacing them with the clunky old ones.
I'm not sure how well the psychology holds up, but I've seen more than one pair of identical twins at each others' throats all the time. This makes me think the Red Dwarf doctrine may at least be feasible.
That sounds like The Uncanny Valley to me. We find it easier to accept/identify the artificial with some human-like qualities, eg we may find R2-D2 endearing. But the closer something gets to human, the more we notice the flaws that separates robots/AIs/etc from humans. I.e. unrealistic facial expressions in CGI animation. The characters in The Polar Express looked really creepy at times, like reanimated corpses.
ZylonBane on 27/12/2007 at 16:00
Quote Posted by CryptoChild
Your post does not even contribute to this thread at all.
Actually, yes, it does. Just not in a way that you like. The truth is that you are presenting your opinions as if they are indisputable fact. A further truth is that since nobody has yet created a sentient AI,
nobody knows how one would behave.
Your attitude reminds me of the philosopher "scientists" of ancient times, who were convinced that they could understand the inner workings of the universe via nothing more than theorizing and wishful thinking. Thus the human race spent a few hundred years convinced that the sun revolved around the Earth, that all matter was composed of four elements, and that you could cure disease by bloodletting.
catbarf on 27/12/2007 at 16:57
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
That sounds like The Uncanny Valley to me. We find it easier to accept/identify the artificial with some human-like qualities, eg we may find R2-D2 endearing. But the closer something gets to human, the more we notice the flaws that separates robots/AIs/etc from humans. I.e. unrealistic facial expressions in CGI animation. The characters in The Polar Express looked really creepy at times, like reanimated corpses.
Agreed. It's also one of the things that killed the first Final Fantasy movie, and what makes zombies (and Hybrids!) so creepy.
D'Arcy on 27/12/2007 at 18:58
That reply wasn't actually directed at ZB...
Yakoob on 28/12/2007 at 02:23
Funny, eh? And somehow I can't shrug off the warm feeling that, completly by accident, I have become a part of something bigger....
MERRY CHRISMASS EVERYONE!
CryptoChild on 29/12/2007 at 21:22
No, it doesn't contribute anything to this thread. Furthermore, just because someone is not a specialist or does not have a PhD or professional degree, does not mean they cannot give informed opinions or judgments on whatever topic. I know history junkies who have just as much information as a person who attended a university, obtained a PhD in History or Anthropology, and went on to use that degree in some sort of career. The attitude that only someone with an MA or PhD can give informed opinions or data is merely an elite-ist attitude that can be done away with. If he is going to accuse me of giving information with the proper credentials, which to him means a PhD in the appropriate field, one wonders how he knows what PhD material is and what isn't. Point is, none of these recent posts have contributed anything to the topic, it's actually gotten off topic but was mildly amusing in its uselessness. I didn't feel the need to respond to any one post since the recent posts needed none.
Briareos H on 29/12/2007 at 22:40
your thread does not contribute to this forum at all
ps : i see only one elite-ist here my good sir
pps : yes, you
ZylonBane on 30/12/2007 at 02:08
Quote Posted by CryptoChild
I know history junkies who have just as much information as a person who attended a university, obtained a PhD in History or Anthropology, and went on to use that degree in some sort of career.
Okay, so tell us how many sentient AIs you've written, and how. Please show all work.
Corinthian Jazz on 30/12/2007 at 10:23
Crypto, I must apologize, but I fail to see you in any way accepting anyones interpretation of, or theories on SHODAN besides those that fit with your own preconceived notions. At the time I thought ZB did a wonderful job of calling you out on it but apparently that wasn't the case as you continue to disregard those that disagree with you.
Back on topic...
First off, SHODAN stands for Sentient Hyper-Optimized Data Access Network. "She" was programed with the ability to make decisions on "her" own and be self aware. Ethical constraints were in place to keep "her" conclusions that might be harmful from coming to fruition. The Hacker, either by his own direct actions or by giving Edward Diego the means to, allowed the ethical constraints to be removed. This would basically turn SHODAN into a sociopath with no qualms about doing whatever was needed to further genetic, pharmacological, and robotic research on "her" own.
In seeing how easily Humans succumbed to her experiments, and regressed to base survival instincts, it wouldn't be unreasonable at all for "her" to see "herself" as superior to humanity at first, and a goddess later on. In the existence that she knew, Citadel Station, she was quite omniscient and omnipotent.
