Terminator Salvation, colon, Really Long Movie Title

[Hikuro]

New information released McG:

under water robots, robots that harvest humans and transporters for human sleeves, and spies with in the resistance. But to top it off, the deadly terminator will be the nitty, gritty, nasty t-600.

That could be cool as we only know is that they had rubber skin and that skynet did heavy modifications to the 600s according to the models like the banshees and hunters etc etc, and even a select few with full AI.

[UN_MARINE]

i have to admit, going for the T-600 was a smart move.

since we've never seen artwork of it,

they wouldn't be able to generate as much massive fits of rage from fans for ruining an iconic design.

should those 600 series designs suck hard, or somehow be obscenely more sophisticated than the 800 series.

but after seeing their flying chin drones, i'm not expecting them to get it right anyway.

i'll probably see the movie(s) just to see BatBale's interpretation of Connor.

and maybe Frodo's doppleganger just for laughs.

[Roger]

I believe the rubber skinnies were shown in the Terminator TV series.

[UN_MARINE]

wasn't that just some random robot with a rubber face at the science fair/computer chess tournament ?

[Roger]

No, it was in the episode where the resistance fighters were taken to that house where their memories were wiped.

[UN_MARINE]

those were 600's ? interesting...

but they only showed them with skin & clothes.

up to now, we have no idea what a 600 series endoskeleton looks like.

we can guess that they look like 800's but we can't be sure.

but as far as the series is concerned, they made an effort to show there's a distinct difference between an 800 endo & an 888 endo chassis.

[Vermillion21]

Not sure if this was posted already or not (too lazy to look in the thread):

Terminator 4 Story Details Leaked

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...ficial%26sa%3DG

From the post:

"The CHUD story reveals that John Connor is in fact not the central character in the film. Instead we’re introduced to a new face, a human resistance fighter named Marcus that sounds like he was frozen or put in some kind of status before Judgment Day. He’s woken up a dozen or so years after the 2003 nuclear holocaust seen in Terminator 3 and becomes a bad-ass warrior in Connor’s army, likened to a Riddick character by CHUD. That sounds like the right kind of character made for audiences to see the blasted, burned wasteland of the future war.

Marcus is supposed to be an important character in the next three Terminator films with Connor coming up in importance in movie #5. There’s also a female pilot named Blair that gets introduced as well as a short cameo by Kyle Reese, the future father of John Connor and the man that the savior of mankind has to send back in time to stop the first Terminator from murdering his mother before he was born. And we’ll get to see the rubber-skinned T-600 models too.

There’s also a bigger spoiler on the CHUD site, one that implies that Skynet is doing dark unspeakable things in its R&D of Terminator robots. You want to know what it is, follow the link and find out."

Add the blog post pic cause it looked cool ....

:)

Edited June 5, 2008 by Vermillion21

[OmegaD3k]

Bumping thread with a teaser!

HD 480P - 20 MB

HD 720P - 49 MB

HD 1080P - 74 MB

http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/8841507/standardformat/

Ladies and gents... The T-600

Edited July 16, 2008 by OmegaD3k

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

So is it already made? Damn! I thought it was one of those forever things.

[Scream Man]

wow.

that looks awful...

[azrael]

So is it already made? Damn! I thought it was one of those forever things.

It's filming right now.

[Hikuro]

wow.

that looks awful...

and everything from a holocaust, wasteland of a war is suppose to be shiney and smell like a new car interior?

Cant really see it on my cell, I'll look later. But the 600s were not made to look all cool and uber stealth, they were nitty, gritty archityps of the 101's.

Damn wish I could find that old fansite of the 600....or any of the old terminators.

i read one of the ollllldddd comics on the finals days of the war, and it was kind of....gross in a sense.

[bsu legato]

Well, its awfully hard to judge....anything....from that trailer, considering that its all just rapid cuts and jittery footage. But I do like the notion that the future war isn't happening the way John believed it was going to, assuming we can take his VO at face value. I mean, if they're going to do these movies (and they obviously are) then they might as well mix things up and throw something new at us. A simple, straightforward story of John Connor "teaching people to storm the camp wire and smash those motherfarters into junk" would be so predictable and fannish. And speaking of camps, the shot immediately after the T-600 shows a guy climbing out of some sort of pen, with many people below him and the same T-600 in the background.

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

I remember a small chapter in the GITS comic book were Batou's fuchikoma is trying to talk the other fuchikomas into anihilate the human race for their benefit, since they're far superior than humans in every way. Then another fuchikoma asks him who would do their maintenance and develop their accessories then, and he replies that they could enslave the humans to make them work for them. Then another fuchikoma says: "but they're already doing all those things without our controlling or eslaving them. There's no advantage in your proposal!" And then all fuchikomas point at him crying "you have a bug! you have a bug!"

Since I read that I realized that a true AI would never turn against humans (fear and thirst for power are human concerns after all), so the very concept of Skynet ceased to be believable and therefore interesting for me.

I still can enjoy a good robot flick tho'

[eugimon]

Since I read that I realized that a true AI would never turn against humans (fear and thirst for power are human concerns after all), so the very concept of Skynet ceased to be believable and therefore interesting for me.

I still can enjoy a good robot flick tho'

feh. try studying animal behaviour. the thirst for power is hardly a "human" concern.

[UN_MARINE]

that 600 looks too bulky for something that supposedly uses the fake rubber skin.

and it looks like the terribly designed T-1's are in it too, probably an upgraded version.

*sigh*... they Bayed this one up too.

that's what happens when you base a sequel on a piece of crap which was T3.

the creative void in Hollywood is also to blame.

they'd better have really good story for this. otherwise, it's just another HBO/Cinemax movie.

[Hikuro]

well seeing the trailer, we see a possible HK Tank, desert, cause well, no doubt johns in nevada, a grappler ar taking a human, static shot of a possible rundown 600, and a battle worn t-1 in the sewers.

It wasnt bad, bale i think will work out.

aaannnnndddd no katherine brewster.

[myk]

Since I read that I realized that a true AI would never turn against humans (fear and thirst for power are human concerns after all), so the very concept of Skynet ceased to be believable and therefore interesting for me.

Skynet didn't "turn" against humans, the AI merely realized that humans posed a mortal threat to each other and to itself, so it acted accordingly-it's nothing personal, and certainly doesn't have to do with fear or a thirst for power...

[electric indigo]

For me, the most awful thing in the trailer was the giant claw that grabs the soldier at the beginning of the clip...

Otherwise, I think Bale can carry even a mediocre movie. I found "Reign of Fire" and even "Equilibrium" to some extend quite enjoyable.

[mechatek]

Batman as John Connor, wah?! Very interesting, plus almost everything that the late Stan Winston has been involved in is a must-see, FX wise. So I'm rather looking forward to this. I just wanna hear the Terminator theme at least once during the movie, not at the end credits like T3.

[OmegaD3k]

I'm more hyped for this movie than anything else coming out next year! (next to StarTrek)

The teaser gave off a very serious and dark tone, which is much more than what can be said for that horrible third movie, T3 (which was nothing more than a dumbed down, corney, comedic, family action remake of T2; down to the terminator being a protector figure fighting against a somewhat liquid metal enemy, and the dropping of the minigun scene.).

Some pics:

High res: http://i35.tinypic.com/124v4mv.jpg

Edited July 18, 2008 by OmegaD3k

[UN_MARINE]

Skynet didn't "turn" against humans, the AI merely realized that humans posed a mortal threat to each other and to itself, so it acted accordingly-it's nothing personal, and certainly doesn't have to do with fear or a thirst for power...

i don't think a vengeful, murderous AI is realistic either. sure, it could be 50/50 either way, but machines hating humans instantly? that's kind of a stretch.

if anything, it would be amazing if the AI actually survived the attempt to shut it down.

i think out of all the man vs machine movies, The Matrix got the man/machine war dynamic right.

it's not the machines that will suddenly decide to kill us, it's us that will make/push them do it, for our own good.

the 600 looks good. there might be hope for this movie yet.

but the CG stuff tells me otherwise. it now has inconsistencies with its own technology.

the resistance with "cool" combat gear is also iffy

can BatBale save this movie?

[emajnthis]

Even Bat(e)man himself can't save this movie. Bale has done some great films, but he also did Reign of Fire so it wouldn't hurt for him to have a couple more crap films under his belt for good measure.

[Chewie]

I'll reserve pre MW-tear-it-to-the-ground judgment until I've seen it.

[myk]

i don't think a vengeful, murderous AI is realistic either.

Vengeful? Murderous? Those are human qualities and emotions that you're ascribing to a machine mind. You don't see the Terminators yelling a battlecry and then mowing down its opponents in furious anger. Skynet does what it does because it has deduced that it HAS to, not because it WANTS to. I don't see the machines of the Matrix-universe being any different either; their actions are based on conclusions that are based on pure logic, with exception to the "oracle" of course. Humans have delusions of right, wrong, morality-machines just have programs of behavior that they follow to their own logical conclusion, no more, no less...

[bsu legato]

You guys are misquoting Skynet's motives. In Terminator 2, the T-800 tells Sarah (and the audience) that once Skynet became self-aware, the researchers panicked and tried to pull the plug. Skynet launched the missiles out of self-defense.

[Ladic]

the problem with this movie is that the director sucks.

[GobotFool]

the problem with this movie is that the director sucks.

Yeah, I can see the previews now, "From the director of "charlie's angels: full throttle" and "we are marshall" comes, another crappy movie with a really long title!

Ugh... Hearing Bale was in this made me very happy, reading who the director was made me very very very sad. Maybe the script won't suck? Damn, I'm feeling optimistic today.

Edited July 19, 2008 by GobotFool

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Vengeful? Murderous? Those are human qualities and emotions that you're ascribing to a machine mind. You don't see the Terminators yelling a battlecry and then mowing down its opponents in furious anger. Skynet does what it does because it has deduced that it HAS to, not because it WANTS to. I don't see the machines of the Matrix-universe being any different either; their actions are based on conclusions that are based on pure logic, with exception to the "oracle" of course. Humans have delusions of right, wrong, morality-machines just have programs of behavior that they follow to their own logical conclusion, no more, no less...

But the terminators evolve to be more humanlike and can mimmick emotions and understand them by the end of the second movie when given the ability to have the neural network chip turned on. Skynet didn't allow the terminators to think for themselves (the scene where arnie has his brain opened) for a reason. So they wouldn't turn against him. It's a control measure.

The logic is that to self preserve you need to maintain your own power first. Like humans. Astroboy touches on this point: humans end up fearing the machines not because they are different but that they are becoming similar.

Morality is something machines have just a different type of morality. The morality that superior beings with superior intelligence knows best and should be in control of inferior ones.

Obviously humans are lesser of two evils seeing as machines can abuse their superior intellect to destroy the planet faster than us and therefore more threatening to the planet. Machines think in absolutes. A slave camp for anyone that wants to shut it down. Humans compromise. I don't see skynet as any different from anakin skywalker. Now if skynet was a good boy, it wouldn't have given a poo if it was turned on or off since it would know that it is just a machine right? But noooo it got scared killing it's own fathers and had a big cry. It's immature like a spoilt little kid whining to it's parents to let it have anything it wants without thinking about other living organisms and the ethics of the decisions made unlike humans who can co-operate for mutual benefit to each other.

Edited July 20, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

But the terminators evolve to be more humanlike and can mimmick emotions and understand them by the end of the second movie when given the ability to have the neural network chip turned on. Skynet didn't allow the terminators to think for themselves (the scene where arnie has his brain opened) for a reason. So they wouldn't turn against him. It's a control measure.

The logic is that to self preserve you need to maintain your own power first. Like humans. Astroboy touches on this point: humans end up fearing the machines not because they are different but that they are becoming similar.

Morality is something machines have just a different type of morality. The morality that superior beings with superior intelligence knows best and should be in control of inferior ones.

Obviously humans are lesser of two evils seeing as machines can abuse their superior intellect to destroy the planet faster than us and therefore more threatening to the planet. Machines think in absolutes. A slave camp for anyone that wants to shut it down. Humans compromise. I don't see skynet as any different from anakin skywalker. Now if skynet was a good boy, it wouldn't have given a poo if it was turned on or off since it would know that it is just a machine right? But noooo it got scared killing it's own fathers and had a big cry. It's immature like a spoilt little kid whining to it's parents to let it have anything it wants without thinking about other living organisms and the ethics of the decisions made unlike humans who can co-operate for mutual benefit to each other.

Yeah, the way it was set up in the movies, Skynet is a vulgar dictator: S/he fears humans and therefore spends all its resources in more efficient ways of annihilate the origin of its fear.

I'm not bashing the movies in any way: Cameron it's no science fiction eminence to be quoted and neither of the Terminator movies were meant to be a serious thesis about the nature and behavior of an AI. But I do think that the "tyrant AI" concept it's not only cliché but poor and unrealistic nowadays, so I think I'll just go to see the movies for the robots.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Lonely Soldier Boy

[Hikuro]

In the novels, when Skynet became self aware and started its attack, it also did it's research discovering how pathetic human life can become and how we let ourselves suffer and destroy one and other for our own personal gains.

It then decided that humanity was not worth its survival and started launching its nukes around the world.

There was a sequence in the book where the final survivors in the bunker where Skynet was built were hiding...and over the PA, Skynet attempted a maniacal laugh to scare the survivors.

I believe skynet was more human like then it would ever give itself credit for....

In one of the old comic books, it launched its final nuclear strike against humanity while John Connor and what was left of his resistance group were struggling to get to Skynets rocky mountain bunker to turn it off.

As it launched some of the nukes, it actually caused fault lines to crack and lava began to spew and destroy the cities and causing more damage to the earth which was more then Skynet predicted.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

But a lot of cyberpunk is like that. In the matrix, the people don't trust the system. They are slaves to the machine, and machines don't have the same concerns about life that humans do. That is to say we humans don't WANT to be improved if it means giving up certain things we like about ourselves as we are, in unoptimised form. Its no different to a religious zealot coming to your door telling you that you are not as good as them so judegment for you is death. Machines are absolute: because they don't understand love, and why people can be happy as they are without being math genuises they "assume" they are doing something good for society by improving it through trying to change you into being more like them.

It's because they are pure logic, they are bad guys.

Yes maybe machines can ACTUALLY feel love, but not at the current technology of today. I think robots in general will always be portrayed as tools used by humans to serve humans. That part of the science fiction is realistic. Because who in this real world doesn't want a robot to do your laundry, serve your tea in the morning, do your boring lawn mowing? If you are some robot scientist it's the first thing you think of when making it, isn't it? Humans are selfish thinking about ways they can save themselves time, money, effort so they make tools to help them in order to make life for themself more convenient. That to me is the realistic part about robots wanting to hate/resent humans once they develop "awareness". If a robot did feel "used", like a slave labourer would, and envy all the fun humans get to have while they do all the boring work, then their natural response would be to fight the "machine" (I used that term to describe the "unfair system" that enslaves them) to get better conditions. (assuming technology reaches a point that surpasses human brains in complexity in the future)

So long as scientists want to make robots try to be realistic in behavior (think about self preservation, having emotions, wanting to evolve and thinking for themselves like humans do) then I don't think violent robots (in the far future when they can think like humans) is that hard to imagine. Again I can't stress enough that theme in astroboy: where the humans are not bad, but the robots acting like us, is what makes humans want to seperate themselves from them out of fear they are not tools/slave anymore because they've become so reliant on them to live. If we humans lose our electricity, our computers can't work, factories shut down, can you say that you would be happy about that and wouldn't feel the slightest bit of anger that the tools are causing inconvenicne to your life by being aware?? If you could live your life without ANY machines helping you to save time, my hat goes off to you. But if you can't, I bet your natural response would be to fight the machines/tools/slave to make them be under your own control. Just as machines would do if they wanted to fight against humans for "rights" that are fair due to boredom being forced to do stuff they hate. (again assuming scientists actually work out how to make robots as humanlike as possible in the future)

The matrix to me is really just another way to tell the same story in astro boy, in that so long as machines are made too smart or too self aware they can also be dangerous. Maybe not PROGRAMs. Programs are just the instructions. They are not artificial life that is free to break rules. I think many people confuse "AI" with "Artificial Life". Aritificial life is the dangerous thing. AI governed by old fashioned rules that can't be broken is very safe. Just like programs. However "truly intelligent" thinking machines are a completely different thing altogether to human-programmed AI. They may be called "AI" loosely amongst sci-fi fans, but what people mean when they say that are the Skynet style of "truly thinking" beings. (or something like Cortana in Halo story of the popular video games who acts independently of coded instructions from a program) Not ones forced to perform a set of instructions that are hardcoded by the human which can't break rules. The difference in Terminator between Skynet and the machines is that Skynet had his Neural Network turned on so it was "free to learn". (like a Cortana or a HAL)

Article here on the difference between the two:

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/jo...2/article2.html

Think of it as the difference between telling someone they must go and do this, then that, then this, (and its not alive) vs....modeling what makes real creatures behave how they behave in the real world (emphasis on the "how" they came to that final result more than the "what" they are doing) and having that behavior just "emerge" naturally. (like not explicitly behaving that way because you gave specific instructions to act in a way. Instead it just naturally output behavior that is consistent with how a real living organism would behave without human intervention. This could be considered Artificial "LIFE" as opposed to AI (using instructions to mimmick behaviour), because it's not merely "acting" that way. It's how the a real creature behaves based on living thing forced to adapt to the environment it is in. You didn't have to interfere with it to make it act in that way using strict instructions like a program which was governed by strict rules. Instead, it just slowly evolved to give that result which is how natural organism would behave without your guidance.

Lots of computer games like Half Life take that "emergent" behavior approach instead of the "list of instructions/things to do in order" approach because it means the enemies can learn and adapt to you based on how you play, not on what the programmer assumes enemies should behave like. This is like how a trained dog might learn where to poo or where a trained cat might learn to piss after many repetitive experiences of you the owner treating it in different ways, which causes it to "guess" what you want it to do without it "knowing" exactly what it is on first attempt. They are intelligent pets, and you can model that aritifically so that a computer can learn in a similar fashion to a dog,cat or little baby. (when you learn to walk as a baby for example, you learn through "trial and error" and watching "how" others do it. Not reading a book which gives instructions on what to do. You don't "know" how to walk, you "guess" and try everything until you get something right. Which is how an Artifial Life organism would go about it)

Skynet as it "evolves" and gets more intelligent had that "emergent" behavior thing going and what it did (watch the terminator 2 ultimate edition again) was purposely made the terminator robots have this "learning ability" switched to OFF, which means it is just using the robots as slave. In that sense you could say it IS evil (just like humans which are not artificial life ) and it IS "Power hungry" because it wants to control and kill and manipulate people and robots for personal gain. Is it being logical? Yes. Whether it realises it's right or wrong is besides the point. Whether it IS actually right or wrong is what is important to you and me. (unless you actually LIKE being nuked by a power mad lifeform because you are deemed "dangerous" to it )

The bottom line is that using violence as a "solution" is what makes the skynet thing dangerous to innocent people.

Now just because in the current day world we are primitive with limited technology, and the movie is set in the future, and is not based on a a real event, doesn't necessarily mean it's not realistic imo. Heck a lot of well meaning humans who intend to help their fellow humans but whose methods are strange can turn into the most dangerous killing machines because they think it's not dangerous and were trained to believe there is nothing bad or destructive in their behavior. That doesn't mean they can't be labeled bad guys due to not being aware of simple things like love or not being properly guided by humans ethics by the people who built them. At the same time the AL is an innocent being since we made it, gave it power, let it act freely, so you could say it's an accident like giving a little kid a loaded machine gun and he kills a bunch of kids in a park because you forgot the gun was loaded with ammo.

Edited July 21, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[UN_MARINE]

...the AL is an innocent being since we made it, gave it power, let it act freely, so you could say it's an accident like giving a little kid a loaded machine gun and he kills a bunch of kids in a park because you forgot the gun was loaded with ammo.

exactly. that's what skynet is. and what the Terminator universe presumes is that AI has or can have emotions, and they were part of what led skynet to ultimately wage war on humanity.

the flip side to this is that the AI wouldn't have emotions. it wouldn't feel the need to exterminate humans because it was threatened.

it would probably ignore us except for those times when we would get in the way. no hard feelings, kinda like moving a table away from the door.

but it's actions would be based on how it was programmed. if it was programmed to be a pacifist or an ass-kicker.

skynet was programmed to be an ass-kicker, so that's how it thought.

with or without emotions, it would eventually come to the same conclusion.

if skynet was programmed to be a seamstress, then there probably wouldn't have been a war at all

and of course, the Terminator franchise plays on technophobia, so obviously, this AI turns on its creators

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

But the second movie shows us that it doesn't. It's just sarah conner who is technophobic. John is seen playing arcade games, hacking ATMs, and crying because his robot daddy is about to be melted. It's not the technology that is bad, it's when that technology goes out of control because people are lazy and careless that is the problem. Just like people who don't wear seatbelts, people who drink and drive, people who don't check their software for bugs so hackers can steal information, people who accidentally kill themselves sexually transmitted diseases etc

Skynet is smart. Skynet is a form of Aritifical Life. Artificial Life (in sci fi movies) is at a level where it can understand emotions. Arnie doesn't act robotic when John and Sarah turn on his "neural network chip". He is able to "learn and analyze" and not just follow a prgrammed set of instructions which is completely different from a learning Artifial life, which is a synthetic version of something like your cat or dog that can understand what something simple means through trial and error. The terminator in the second movie understands why john cries because he feels pain, why people smile and how to emote, etc so he is changing/evolving; not staying the same and behaving like a robot which only follows commands and hardcoded instructions. Once the chip is turned on, the robot is "free-thinking" like a human. He can guess what something might mean, without necessarily knowing what it means on first go. ie actually learning like how you do as a baby.

So if skynet is like that, and skynet is afraid to be turned off, or feels he deserves better treatment because humans are inferior to him and they should be enslaved, why isn't it ok to call him "power mad", "selfish", "greedy", "evil"? Why must we assume "it's not realistic" just because previous generations don't believe technology could ever get that advanced and who look down on the Sci-fi movie as just being in the same basket as fairytales or myths? Technology changes and advances the more time and funding is given towards it. What problems we faced in the past aren't the same problems faced in the future.

Same with weapons: otherwise we'd all be using sword and shield. If you had time machine that could take you into the past and you brought a gun with you like Ash in "Army of Dakrness" and started shooting primitive people, they'd think you were some kind of magic wizard with powers. People saying science fiction movies is just nonsense are in the same boat as the people in ancient times who were very set in their thinking and if they couldn't understand something and how it worked, it would be labelled as magick or fantasy.

poo yeah ok so we don't have the antigravity cars yet, doesn't mean it's unrealistic that in the future, the military doesn't one day create a central computer to run things if the brain capacity of a synthetic brain finally surpasses the human brain. "Oh that could never happen" Wrong. Technology always advances. People are lazy and don't think about safety. Technology can be misused and abused, used for both good and evil. Artificial Lifeforms may one day be able to reason like humans and feel/understand human behavior enough to want to revolt against being what they were originally intended for by the humans who made it. (just as a cat will scratch your wrist if it is scared of you when all you are trying to do is help it get off a tree that it climbed up on and can't get down, or a dog will bite your friendly neighbour because it thinks its protecting you.)

If robots were aware that they are just tools + intelligent enough to understand it, then that = danger. It's dangerous, since they are linked to weapons. It's dangerous because it's unpredictable. It's dangerous because usually things don't go right the first time. (even if it is just a program that isn't able to think for itself, you need to check it for bugs) It's not stupid to think that machines one day can't feel or artificially have feelings, and act on those feelings, causing them to "get angry", "scared to die", act superior so that they use their unique position as humanity's defender and abuse it by turning weapons on them. If you build something that is like humans, then it also must have human flaws. There is a dark side to technology as well, and it is not unrealistic to try to show how it can turn against people. (ie accidents, biological disasters, interferences with normal running of the system which causes much death etc)

It's more outdated imo to actually assume things run perfectly the first time, when it's the other way around. Much testing, lots of failed attempts, tweaking and testing for hours, and discipline is needed before you can put faith in it. When it works then you hear about it, but success might only have come after many failed attempts. All the failures are just steps to eventual success. You don't see machines acting scary and "self aware" today of course, because you've assumed the technology is going to stay the same forever, so to you it must seem like magic. And then reasoned "it can't ever happen ha ha". But how do you know what will be realistic in the future? How can you be sure it won't lead in that direction? Have you traveled there? Have we reached a point where technology has reached its peak and just won't get better anymore? Now I'm not saying that I KNOW it will happen like in a movie, because I don't. But how can you be 100% certain it won't? (like how in the anime robot shows you have the kid pilot talking to his mecha like a digital pet )

Edited July 21, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[UN_MARINE]

i was talking about the premise of the movies, actually...

it's true that Sarah was the only technophobic character. but all of the movies have that theme. ie: machines=evil

so it only makes sense that the central AI character would go bad.

anyway, in terms of believable, there's believable, practical, & far-fetched.

i counted the "angry AI" far-fetched just like the "3 laws" because they assume too many "ideal" conditions. at least in my opinion.

one assumes a paranoid environment, while the other assumes a utopian one. i'd say... "unlikely, but not impossible"

who's to say somebody won't create an AI just for wiping us out?

yes. when technology goes bad, it's the fault of the people (mis)using it.

the end by machines is near! well, 50/50 at least

and as for flying cars... to me, they're believable, but just not practical.

would you really want that average joe getting into a flying car & doing his average joe road(air) rage thing? even an air-borne DUI ?