Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.nyc.pipeline.com!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!atl.com!news
From: johnf@atl.com (John Flynn)
Subject: Re: Terminator
Message-ID: <1995Jun7.174737.7904@atl.com>
Sender: news@atl.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: atl.com
Organization: ADI
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.2
References: <stick-0306951605060001@user59.lightside.com> <1995Jun6.181530.28300@atl.com> <Pine.ULT.3.91.950606165415.12037A-100000@rac10.wam.umd.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 17:47:37 GMT
Lines: 63

In article 
<Pine.ULT.3.91.950606165415.12037A-100000@rac10.wam.umd.edu>, 
keithw@wam.umd.edu says...
>
>> >I heard that by killing off half of a fairly sizable 'net, you can
>> >actually induce "creativity" and "self-awareness"... Great! All we 
need
>> >now is a real world Terminator 2 situation. Personally I think that
>> >research in NN technology should be stopped by the govt. or at 
least
>> >severe restrictions should be placed on it.
>> >
>> >Viva real brains
>> 
>> You're a wacko.  It's the research in nanomachinery that will lead 
to a 
>> "liquid-metal man."  We need to prohibit *that* research.  
Terminator 1 
>> is the NN guy - we can handle him.  
>
>BTW, T2 is already within our grasp from the physical standpoint.  As 
>with all artificial intelligence ventures, the programming is the hard 
>part.  If any of you follow comp.robotics, then you know what I'm 
talking 

Actually I think it's a serious mistake, and a typical one made by
programmers, to think that the hurdle in "ai" (or any math-intensive 
application for that matter) is programming.  It's the math behind the 
programming that needs to mature.

>about.  Otherwise...
>...cubes, with worm screw gears connecting them and computerchips 
inside 
>them can create a collective whole (multicellular organism for you 
alife 
>freaks).  The cubes slide over each other making the robot a 
>shape-shifter.  What does this seriously have in common with T2 you 
ask.  
>Well, we had the technology to make any one cube microns across over a 
>decade ago.  If you had millions of cubes in one robot, it could very 
>well act as a fluid instead of a grossly overproportioned rubik's 
cube.  
>These shape-shifting robots are EXTREMELY strong.  One the size of a 
>showbox can be used to jack up an army tank.  The strength derives 
from 
>the wormscrew connections between the cubes.  As we all know, 
wormscrews 
>yield amazing power.

I think you mean force, not power...that's crucial to a T2 type thing.

>
>So there you go, we've already got the man, we need the brain, and I 
>personally DON'T think that such research should be stopped at all.  
Give 
>me a break!

Please, I was just being facetious!  I guess my post came across 
too serious.   Interesting story about the wormbox cyber-amoeba
thing.

John

