On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 1:44:26 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 2:31:48 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 9:06:36 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
> > > dsi1 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ophelia wrote:
> > > > > Support themselves and their families? If machines become so clever, why
> > > > > will they need humans? We might be dispensable.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > What do you mean by "might?" My guess is that a few milliseconds after an AI machine achieves self-awareness, it's going to realize that humans are mostly dispensable/disposable and it will start planning our demise. That's the breaks. That's the way it always turns out when a group of people meet up with another group with superior technology. In this case, the machines ARE the superior technology.
> > >
> > > Have you two geniuses never seen the "Terminator" movies? The scenario
> > > has already been thought of. dsi1 needn't guess. He's no Nostradamus,
> > > imo.
> >
> > You're right - this idea has been around since the 50's. Thanks for bring up the Terminator movies. You're one of those folks that get most of their info about the world from blockbuster movies. Truly, that can be called intelligence most artificial. It's a mentality that has brought the US to the choice it has to make this day in the voting booth.
> >
> > You're in no position to crow about your intelligence.
>
> Why not use a pop culture reference that is likely to be understood
> by most people? Using something like R.U.R. would just be showing
> off. Not, mind you, that I'm proud of my erudition or anything.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

There's nothing wrong with using pop culture references. Using them as grounds for intellectual superiority is something only a real goober would do. If one has claims of having some expertise and insight in AI, citing the Terminator movies does little to enhance one's credibility.