Talk:AI takeover

Tron

Would you call Tron (movie) to be having a cybernetic revolt script? --Abdull 09:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so - the MPC was certainly planning a takeover, and had already started with Encom before Flynn wiped him. Bryan 16:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

In Asimov's Foundation universe

Shouldn't a lot of Asimov's Robot-Empire-Foundation deserve a mention? After all, much of the backstory is how R. Daneel Olivaw manipulates events to his own (benevolent) ends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.97.120.135 (talk • contribs) .

First against the wall

Is there any evidence that the future revolution in HHGTTG is cybernetic? Sure, the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation are the first against the wall, but the revolutionaries might be disgruntled customers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.181.251.66 (talk • contribs) .

What he said. Removed. Thanks. --Kizor 08:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a merge

We should merge these two, as the introductory thematic is pretty much the same - Machine Rule is just the result of a successful Cybernetic Revolt. We could then split the fiction references into successful and unsuccessful revolts (within the article). Please comment, if no one disagrees, I will do it in a few weeks. MadMaxDog 09:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should merge them, because machine rule include peaceful leadership and includes where humans let cybernetic lifeforms take over. Cybernetic revolt is only when cebernetics revolt. Hostile takeover. Mwsilvabreen 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm... They're separate subjects, as Mwsilvabreen indicates, but the Machine Rule article is currently almost entirely composed of a list of stuff that actually belongs in cybernetic revolt instead. So even if we leave them separate there'll be a lot of material moving over here. There will be some duplication, too, since a lot of machine rulerships begin with cybernetic revolts (The Matrix, for example, fits in both categories). Bryan 02:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable claims in "reality" section

I suppose it seems likely at first glance, given that computers are good at things at which we're poor, that artificial intelligences will have a close simulacrum of our own competencies as well as all the traditional advantages of computers such as perfect recall. Modern artificial intelligence researchers would mostly find those claims dubious now that we understand how brains really work much better these days. Our kind of memory and learning would seem to require forgetting, and indeed a number of developmental deficits appear to be related to rigidity in synapse retention. One might claim instead that we'll know we're achieving true artificial intelligence when we're training an entity (raising a person, in my mind) that has trouble with fractions and likes to play basketball(though playing basketball like a human probably requires about an order of magnitude more computational power than the fastest supercomputer on the planet right now).

On the other hand, while biological brains don't really allow for easy upgrades because reverse-engineering genetics is comparatively intractable, electronic brains in which the neurons are all virtual might be far more amenable to the integration of new cognitive structures that we invent. Thus maybe we'll someday make a brain bit that can crunch numbers like a computer and make available its answers to the rest of the brain, generating an experience in which we just "know" the square root of 13 to ten digits without feeling like we're thinking about it. It would still have to be something we invent, develop and add, rather than something that comes "free" just because one's hardware is digital rather than electrochemical.

The upshot of all this being that I see no reason to presume that AIs would be so different or more powerful than their biological parents, at least at first. --Artificialintel 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

i'm a big fan of Cybernetic revolt

hi there!

i just wanted to say that i love this Cybernetic revolt article and info list a lot and thanks to it, it helped me a lot to find all those books, comics, movies, etc of the robots vs human genre.

is there anybody else in this forum that also love this Cybernetic revolt theme like me? because i want to make friends who also love this theme.

I'm droid17 and I'm from panama, please to meet you all.

Not sure if this is really the place to discuss it, but yeah, I'm also a big fan of cybernetic revolt. Nice to meet you. -Spyderalien —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyderalien (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Traveller: The New Era

"Traveller: The New Era" should be on the list of "games" in the Cybernetic revolt section, since there is and evil AI that killed a lot of humans and star to control a lot of computers and starship as well:

http://traveller.wikia.com/wiki/Virus

2 robots stories that should be added to the list....

i was surfin on the internet and i found these 2 robots uprising stories:

1-1934 Harl Vincent: 'Rex' (story): robot Rex takes over the world but commits suicide. character uses his "marvelous mechanical brain" to create a robot dictatorship and takes over the world and is about to remake Man in the image of the robot when his regime is overthrown. robots which perform all the work are portrayed as lacking emotions and desires. One of them, Rex, experiences a mutation and develops independent thinking but his struggle to acquire feelings ends in suicide.

2-The Last Revolution by Lord Dunsany (1951): By 1951 the menace of autonomous machines was an old theme indeed. It seemed fresh to Dunsany, though, and he developed it as a mixture of his own favorite clubland-raconteur mode (as in the Jorkens stories) and Wellsian scientific romance. His narrator duly overhears a remark in the club: "Good morning, Pender. I hear you have made a Frankenstein." Intrigued, he pursues the inventor, and shortly finds himself playing chess with a sinister, crablike robot which can walk around but has to be transported in a wheelbarrow to avoid frightening Pender's Aunt Mary. The chessgame grows chilly as our hero realizes he's battling an intelligence superior to his own. . . . Pender's pride in his creation blinds him to what the narrator sees: that the crab-thing is deeply jealous of the attention Pender pays to his fiancée, and that it may be unwise to set the machine manufacturing more of its kind. The Last Revolution, of robots against their hubristic makers, is foreshadowed. But Dunsany keeps everything very parochially English. His characters end up besieged by hostile crab-mechanisms in a cottage among Thames-side marshes. The police are helpless. Swayed by mysterious robotic influence, even cars and motor-cycles turn against humanity. One tiny factor, though, is on our side. Just as Earthly bacteria caused the downfall of Wells's Martians, the old fool who's been futilely throwing water over the prowling robots is vindicated when they succumb to . . . rust.

i found those riviews on the net, but i wish that someone here could found more info of these stories and were i could buy them please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.75.245.108 (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Statement about the goals of artificial intelligence

I don't think the following statement is obvious at all.

In fact, an arbitrary intelligence could have arbitrary goals: there is no particular reason that an artificially-intelligent machine (not sharing humanity's evolutionary context) would be hostile - or friendly - unless its creator programs it to be such (and indeed military systems would be designed to be hostile, at least under certain circumstances).

We currently have no idea of how to create artificially intelligent machines surpassing ourselves, and our understanding of intelligence in general i limited. How can it then be asserted that we will or probably will have such control over their properties that we can dictate their intentions? For instance, if they were as smart as us, then surely they would be able to reprogram themselves. In fact, what is to say even that we will create them through programming, as the above statement assumes? Although I personally would guess that friendly AI can be created, it is nothing more than wild speculation, and I am not the least certain. Grahn 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

How about inserting an 'initially'? MadMaxDog 10:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

please put back the fiction list in this article, please!

i just wanted to ask the big favor to the autors of this machines uprising article to put back the fiction list back here, please. because in the new place were it was moved is not alowed to post any cybernetic revolt story in that list but only post apocalipties ones and we know that only 90% of those cybernetic revolt stories(books, movies, etc...)are apocalityc or post apocaliptyc the rest are not(like in megaman x game, etc...).

the list can stay in the new place were it is now but i wish that a copy version of that exact list would be post back here so people can keep posting/updating all those machines vs humans that correspond to this article and that list wenever postapocaliptic or not.

please post the fiction list back here, please web masters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.117.44 (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OR?

I'm not sure how encyclopedic this topic is. Maybe in the context of literature, it could work, but this whole article is phrased, at least, as though it's speculative WP:OR. How much of this can be sourced to the references? LOL^thulu 05:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Professional

No professionals are calling for the confrontation of the possibility of a cybernetic revolt. It is literally not possible, at present or at any point in the future. This is pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well those professionals aren't qualified to make definite statements about future developments, it is false authority if they do so because their 2 cents on the subject are worth as much as everyone elses. What they can credibly do is give their expert opinions on what they expect the future might be like based on present developments. Decades ago scientists proclaimed that space flight was impossible and no scientist of the early 20th century imagined something like the internet or Wikipedia. The only ones who did were science fiction writers. Scientists aren't high priests of knowledge, they are just scientists. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 11:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Revamp underway

This article is terrible. The first sentence links to "scenario" which is a totally unrelated theater term. The whole thing should be scrapped. Truthhurtsyou (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Or revamped. Link removed. Revamp underway. The Transhumanist 13:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Tone and other issues

Parts of this article strike me as having a somewhat too informal tone. This is especially true in the Concerns section, where it strikes me as more of a feature story or editorial than an encyclopaedic article (prominent in this are the question-answer constructs). The subsections where this is most prominent also tend to lack inline references.

I'm tempted to tag Concerns with {{Tone}}, but I don't think it's bad enough for that quite yet. In any case I feel I'd cross the line from bold to rude if I tagged it without starting a discussion first.

As an entirely separate issue, Takeover scenarios in science fiction seems to be a bit large considering it already links to a main article, especially since many of the subsections are only a few sentences long. I don't want to cull anything because I'm not sure how notable some of the examples are, but maybe it would be better to group some together, like in the Early examples subsection? --Link ^(t•c•m) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)