Terminator Salvation Opens Well, Scientists Not Impressed

destinyland writes "A science magazine asks an MIT professor, roboticists, artificial intelligence workers, and science fiction authors about the possibility of an uprising of machines. Answers range from 'of course it's possible' to 'why would an intelligent network waste resources on personal combat?' An engineering professor points out that bipedal robots 'are largely impractical,' and Vernor Vinge says a greater threat to humanity is good old-fashioned nuclear annihilation. But one roboticist says it's inevitable robots will eventually be used in warfare, while another warns of robots in the hands of criminals, cults, and other 'non-state actors.' 'What we should fear in the foreseeable future is not unethical robots, but unethical roboticists.'" The new movie got off to a good start, drawing $13.4 million in its first day. I found it reasonably entertaining; pretty much what I'd expect from a Terminator movie. If nothing else, I learned that being able to crash helicopters and survive being thrown into the occasional wall are the two most valuable skills to have during a robot uprising. What did you think?

Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent?

[__aaclcg7560]

Old news, boss. See Two Faces of Tomorrow [sfreviews.net] by James P. Hogan. This novel written in 1979 asked a more basic question: If a computer network became aware, can the plug still be pulled?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why would an intelligent lifeform get violent?

[Have Blue]

Pretty much. They deduced the existence of a "zeroeth law", which allows them to break the other three laws to protect humanity as a whole. Which was a decent idea, but retconning in "and therefore Spacer-era robots have been secretly manipulating the Galactic Empire for its entire history" was not.

Re:nuclear kils skynet also

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet was designed to survive a nuclear attack

No it wasn't, that is a myth.

Re:Batteries Run Out

[TheRaven64]

In T2 it is stated that they have a power source that lasts 120 years. This basically means nuclear. T3 states that the 850 uses two hydrogen fuel cells, although even if they were 100% efficient they would not be able to generate enough power if that's 'really' what they were, so it's likely that the writers meant a hydrogen fusion reactor. Obviously Skynet made some impressive developments in fusion after it went online. Not really surprising for something 'learning at a geometric rate'.

Re:nuclear kils skynet also

[shellster_dude]

I live in a nuclear resistant bunker, you insensitive clod!

Re:nuclear kils skynet also

[spire3661]

THe destructive power of a nuclear generated EMP is HIGHLY overrated and mostly inconsequential compared to the fact that you are initiating a nuclear chain reaction. Its a low grade side effect at best, no one would deploy a nuclear weapon with its sole intent of generating the EMP blast.

Tell that to the Soviets

[DG]

The Soviets designed and built a class of extremely high-yield devices (50-100Mt) explicitly to detonate as high-altitude airbursts to create massive EMP and disrupt communications and control networks.

A 5 Mt city-cracker is more about the blast/heat effects, but a 100 Mt device makes a HUGE EMP.

They made the neutron-reflective tamper out of fissionable material. Dirty and inefficient as hell, but it sure 'nuff boosted yield.

DG

I don't think it'll do well

[greg_barton]

I just saw it and the theater was nearly empty. In fact, when I got there ten minutes before the start the theater was completely empty. To contrast I saw Star Trek on te Friday and Sunday after it opened. Both times were completely packed. (In the same theater.)

I didn't much like it. The movie didn't hang together well. You know you're seeing a badly pieced together movie when the actors have generic dialog, like "Thanks for the thing you did before...you know...with the stuff..." It shows that the director is making bits and pieces he can rearrange and throw together easily. That happened more than once in Terminator Salvation. I liked the ending, and the ideas behind it, but it could have been darker. Dark Knight and Battlestar Galactica (and the previous terminator franchise movies) have shown us that a dark movie can be successful. Too bad they didn't follow that line with TS.

Geek movies live and die by word of mouth. The geeks see it first, then the non geeks on the geeks recommendation. No recommendation, no secondary audience. And I can't recommend this movie. It ain't the Star Trek 5 of the series, but that ain't sayin' much...