Discussion
Prawo Jazdy said:
SpudLink said:
One of the show's strengths is the quality of the cast.
Except that bloke that plays the detective. I find him difficult to watch to be honest. Either it's a badly-imagined character, or he's a terrible actor. The way he's dressed and acts suggests he should either be playing the lead in Derek, or having difficulty with personal interactions at a miniature warfare convention. Not being a detective. Even if you're creating a character that is resistant to new technology and engrossed in his work, there's still no excuse for giving him the glasses worn by the captain of the USS Dallas in The Hunt for Red October.
That's Arby 
Prawo Jazdy said:
Except that bloke that plays the detective. I find him difficult to watch to be honest. Either it's a badly-imagined character, or he's a terrible actor. The way he's dressed and acts suggests he should either be playing the lead in Derek, or having difficulty with personal interactions at a miniature warfare convention. Not being a detective. Even if you're creating a character that is resistant to new technology and engrossed in his work, there's still no excuse for giving him the glasses worn by the captain of the USS Dallas in The Hunt for Red October.
I think he's fairly limited. He was acceptable in Utopia, and better in the sitcom about the man that did voices...it was basically the same character, which seems to be his character. 
Prawo Jazdy said:
SpudLink said:
One of the show's strengths is the quality of the cast.
Except that bloke that plays the detective. I find him difficult to watch to be honest. Either it's a badly-imagined character, or he's a terrible actor. The way he's dressed and acts suggests he should either be playing the lead in Derek, or having difficulty with personal interactions at a miniature warfare convention. Not being a detective. Even if you're creating a character that is resistant to new technology and engrossed in his work, there's still no excuse for giving him the glasses worn by the captain of the USS Dallas in The Hunt for Red October.WinstonWolf said:
Prawo Jazdy said:
SpudLink said:
One of the show's strengths is the quality of the cast.
Except that bloke that plays the detective. I find him difficult to watch to be honest. Either it's a badly-imagined character, or he's a terrible actor. The way he's dressed and acts suggests he should either be playing the lead in Derek, or having difficulty with personal interactions at a miniature warfare convention. Not being a detective. Even if you're creating a character that is resistant to new technology and engrossed in his work, there's still no excuse for giving him the glasses worn by the captain of the USS Dallas in The Hunt for Red October. That's Arby Prawo Jazdy said:
WinstonWolf said:
Prawo Jazdy said:
SpudLink said:
One of the show's strengths is the quality of the cast.
Except that bloke that plays the detective. I find him difficult to watch to be honest. Either it's a badly-imagined character, or he's a terrible actor. The way he's dressed and acts suggests he should either be playing the lead in Derek, or having difficulty with personal interactions at a miniature warfare convention. Not being a detective. Even if you're creating a character that is resistant to new technology and engrossed in his work, there's still no excuse for giving him the glasses worn by the captain of the USS Dallas in The Hunt for Red October. That's Arby I agree that he comes across as inept, but I figured that was intentional. He's a bit inadequate, and thus insecure. Just the sort of man that's afraid of being replaced by a machine that can do everything better than him.
Butter Face said:
JustinP1 said:
Did anyone notice the scene where the male CID bloke gets into the female officer's car?
She's stationary, looking straight ahead, and then rather robotically rotates her head than then smiles as she greets him.
I can't imagine that was random...?
10 points to this man!She's stationary, looking straight ahead, and then rather robotically rotates her head than then smiles as she greets him.
I can't imagine that was random...?
The bag in the throat was brilliant.
My Cylon God of course.
Prawo Jazdy said:
Except that bloke that plays the detective. I find him difficult to watch to be honest. Either it's a badly-imagined character, or he's a terrible actor. The way he's dressed and acts suggests he should either be playing the lead in Derek, or having difficulty with personal interactions at a miniature warfare convention. Not being a detective. Even if you're creating a character that is resistant to new technology and engrossed in his work, there's still no excuse for giving him the glasses worn by the captain of the USS Dallas in The Hunt for Red October.
Yes. I thought 'bad actor' to be honest and he somewhat ruins the relatively good acting in the rest of the show. mudflaps said:
Brings up an interesting point.
Would the church 'claim' any future AI as one of God's creatures?
Probably right up until AI surpassed us and completely proved, without a doubt, that 'God' doesn't exist.... then as AI accelerated away from us and was able to control atoms and molecules we would look on AI as a 'God' because AI would be able to do stuff we wouldn't even be able to comprehend.Would the church 'claim' any future AI as one of God's creatures?
I reckon from the point AI becomes sentient, and then starts self improvement, we probably have a couple of hours before it's so far ahead of us, we would consider it a God.
ikarl said:
Probably right up until AI surpassed us and completely proved, without a doubt, that 'God' doesn't exist.... then as AI accelerated away from us and was able to control atoms and molecules we would look on AI as a 'God' because AI would be able to do stuff we wouldn't even be able to comprehend.
I reckon from the point AI becomes sentient, and then starts self improvement, we probably have a couple of hours before it's so far ahead of us, we would consider it a God.
Sorry I think you've been reading too many hokey internet websites (I probably know exactly which one) and watching too many bad sci-fi movies. I reckon from the point AI becomes sentient, and then starts self improvement, we probably have a couple of hours before it's so far ahead of us, we would consider it a God.
Computers don't work like that. A sentient AI might be able to self improve but only within a defined limit and set of parameters. How would it acquire more data or get access to more processing power for a start? More importantly what about the increased power\energy requirements that would require. It will be in a totally controlled and isolated environment.
Even if someone hooked it up to the internet, how would it know how to interpret all that data in a meaningful way? Humans have the most efficient "cpu" ever discovered and it still takes us years to learn how to interpret all the data we receive. We also require external help, other people teach us how to interpret data, how would a sentient AI "teach" itself. Would you be able to carry out brain surgery or build a new computer processor just by reading about it on the internet? If allowed AND given the resources, yes it may develop to a point where it might eventually surpass us but this will take many years and unless you gave it complete control of the physical processes which allowed it to just keep adding more storage, processing power and energy to itself (very doubtful) that learning process would always be restricted by what we allowed it to have access to in terms of physical resources. Getting smarter requires a lot more than just the ability to think faster.
So while I certainly enjoy the books and movies about this stuff, the idea of AI becoming sentient then developing God-like powers or running amok within a few hours is pure sci-fi fantasy.
mudflaps said:
JustinP1 said:
I'd like to dedicate this moment to my Film Studies lecturer, and God.
My Cylon God of course.
Brings up an interesting point.My Cylon God of course.
Would the church 'claim' any future AI as one of God's creatures?
Still enjoying it though, it just makes the plot a bit predictable. Like a police detective who is secretly an android being employed to hunt down rogue androids...!
Guvernator said:
ikarl said:
Probably right up until AI surpassed us and completely proved, without a doubt, that 'God' doesn't exist.... then as AI accelerated away from us and was able to control atoms and molecules we would look on AI as a 'God' because AI would be able to do stuff we wouldn't even be able to comprehend.
I reckon from the point AI becomes sentient, and then starts self improvement, we probably have a couple of hours before it's so far ahead of us, we would consider it a God.
Sorry I think you've been reading too many hokey internet websites (I probably know exactly which one) and watching too many bad sci-fi movies. I reckon from the point AI becomes sentient, and then starts self improvement, we probably have a couple of hours before it's so far ahead of us, we would consider it a God.
Computers don't work like that. A sentient AI might be able to self improve but only within a defined limit and set of parameters. How would it acquire more data or get access to more processing power for a start? More importantly what about the increased power\energy requirements that would require. It will be in a totally controlled and isolated environment.
Even if someone hooked it up to the internet, how would it know how to interpret all that data in a meaningful way? Humans have the most efficient "cpu" ever discovered and it still takes us years to learn how to interpret all the data we receive. We also require external help, other people teach us how to interpret data, how would a sentient AI "teach" itself. Would you be able to carry out brain surgery or build a new computer processor just by reading about it on the internet? If allowed AND given the resources, yes it may develop to a point where it might eventually surpass us but this will take many years and unless you gave it complete control of the physical processes which allowed it to just keep adding more storage, processing power and energy to itself (very doubtful) that learning process would always be restricted by what we allowed it to have access to in terms of physical resources. Getting smarter requires a lot more than just the ability to think faster.
So while I certainly enjoy the books and movies about this stuff, the idea of AI becoming sentient then developing God-like powers or running amok within a few hours is pure sci-fi fantasy.
I'm not an expert and don't profess to be one, but looking at the progress of computers now compared to 20 or 30 years ago the bounds are impressive. Pure computing ability has multiplied many times, computers have got smaller, faster and more energy efficient. I also believe there's something called 'Moore's Law'(?) which has been pretty consistant over the years and progress has been pretty much on track with that.
If a computer was tasked with improving itself and had free reign to do so, do you not think it would be possible for it to grow and improve? Could it learn? Could it learn how to understand (like a human brain)?
ikarl said:
If a computer was tasked with improving itself and had free reign to do so, do you not think it would be possible for it to grow and improve? Could it learn? Could it learn how to understand (like a human brain)?
Someone did an experiment a few years ago. The largest supercomputer in the world can provide an almost passable version of part of our brain.It's not so much the raw computing power but the structure.
Then you've got practicability. Would AI really have 'free reign'? Would they go and mine the silica themselves and build their own factory to produce their new chips?
There's also the fallacy in anthropomorphising our innate behaviour into a machine.
We innately value our life, along with our instinct to want to reproduce. When we have terminal disease, most take displeasurable drugs in order to simply stave off the inevitable. Some, when they no longer value their life, choose to end it.
Why should a machine feel the same way? What would make them want to take over the world anyway?
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 8th July 13:53
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff