Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Pantherr pantherr@*****.net
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 04:22:48 -0500
S


P


O


I


L


E


R





S


P


A


C


E



> so. what'll it be?

Definitely the red pill. I could never live with knowing that there's
SOMETHING going on and not knowing exactly what it was.

> actually, I'm just curious as to the popular sentiment of some of you:
> if
> you were the deciding factor in The Matrix, how do you think the conflict
> should have been resolved?

I don't think the conflict WAS fully resolved in Matrix, actually. And
it WAS meant to be a trilogy, so expect two more live-action
animes from the Warschowski brothers (or however you spell their
name) :)

> or to put it better, what side will you take? are you
> pro-human.rebellion, or pro-Matrix? should the humans have been able to
> do what they accomplished in the movie by taking control? or did the AI's
> earn their place as the top of the (food?) chain?

Go humanity! I for one wouldn't want to be enslaved/imprisoned,
and DEFINITELY don't care for the idea of being used as a battery

> personally, I think the AI's earned their place. they were smarter, and
> stronger. and the humans were asking for it by initiating their
> underhanded warfare (blocking out sun, which I feel is equivalent to
> starving a rival nation today). from a moral standpoint, at the least,
> the extreme blow justified the AI's extreme retaliation.

You call growing 'crops' of humans and trapping their minds in a
VR world so they could be used as batteries w/o protest
justifiable? I mean, sure they're intelligent, but they're MACHINES.
WE made THEM. Nothing justified their rebelling on their creators
in the first place.

> that and I stand by Morpheus's suggestion that the electrical sensory
> impulses are what is "real", and the Matrix is thus "real" enough
for me.
> plus, happiness is what matters, and by having the humans hooked up to the
> Matrix, happiness is insured. when Agent Smith was interrogating
> Morpheus, he explained that the socioeconomic makeup of the Matrix world
> was based on the *peak* of human civilization. a real society of humans
> cannot guarantee each other a constant golden age, but being a part of the
> Matrix *does* guarantee that golden age.

That 'golden age', as Agent Smith called it, was the (what I like to
call) shithole of a world we live in today :P

> or even if the AI's don't care to prolong a golden age, we can know that
> it's in their interests to make sure we don't all die. so, I think we
> could take comfort in the fact that they'd probably make sure we don't all
> fry each others brains with nukes, because that wouldn't be in Their
> interest --so, they'd probably pull a few strings in the background and
> make sure we didn't do anything that profoundly stupid. real life can't
> guarantee any safeguards against apocalypse.
>
> if being hooked to the Matrix makes the humans as a whole well-off as
> can
> be, who cares about a sinister backstage reality that we don't even have
> to be aware of anyway? as [character name escapes me] protested,
> ignorance is bliss.

It was Cypher that said that. And as I said earlier, I prefer knowing
the truth, as I have a rather extreme feline curiosity. :)

> hmm, I feel the need to apologize for being off topic and abstract, but,
> naw, I said it was OT anyway.. thoughts, anyone?

Hmm. Wasn't the plot of the movie posted here on RN in the last
year or so? :)

Excellent movie, and Bullet Time photography made it happen.
Live action anime like this wouldn't be possible if it hadn't been
created. :)

I don't care what ANYONE says, no movie before this has brought
up the particular concepts that Matrix brings forth in this particular
way, with this particular combination. Sure it was made to appeal
to everyone. It's better than putting subliminal messages in it like
in A Clockwork Orange (for example). "Soylent Green is
PEOPLE!!!" IIRC it was Jett that discovered that.....

The only question I have is, what IS 'reality', anyway?

Pantherr

---
Base not your joy upon the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No hope
= no fear
- Peter Steele, in dedicating Bloody Kisses
Message no. 2
From: Neil Clark neil.clark@**********.com
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:14:00 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Pantherr <pantherr@*****.net>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix,
reviews, etc]


S


P


O


I


L


E


R





S


P


A


C


E



> so. what'll it be?

|Definitely the red pill. I could never live with knowing that there's
|SOMETHING going on and not knowing exactly what it was.

ahh, curiosity. very understandable.

> actually, I'm just curious as to the popular sentiment of some of you:
> if
> you were the deciding factor in The Matrix, how do you think the conflict
> should have been resolved?

|I don't think the conflict WAS fully resolved in Matrix, actually. And
|it WAS meant to be a trilogy, so expect two more live-action
|animes from the Warschowski brothers (or however you spell their
|name) :)

> or to put it better, what side will you take? are you
> pro-human.rebellion, or pro-Matrix? should the humans have been able to
> do what they accomplished in the movie by taking control? or did the AI's
> earn their place as the top of the (food?) chain?

|Go humanity! I for one wouldn't want to be enslaved/imprisoned,
|and DEFINITELY don't care for the idea of being used as a battery

that makes me think, you and I both have billions of bacteria thriving off
our bodies, in our mouthes, in our eyelids, everywhere. we have bacteria
that feed off flakes of dead skin that falls from our bodies. is the setup
of the machines living off our body heat terribly different? does that make
you opposed to having bacteria on your body? I don't think the Matrix hurts
the human race in a very tangiable way --quite the opposite, I muse.

> personally, I think the AI's earned their place. they were smarter, and
> stronger. and the humans were asking for it by initiating their
> underhanded warfare (blocking out sun, which I feel is equivalent to
> starving a rival nation today). from a moral standpoint, at the least,
> the extreme blow justified the AI's extreme retaliation.

|You call growing 'crops' of humans and trapping their minds in a
|VR world so they could be used as batteries w/o protest
|justifiable? I mean, sure they're intelligent, but they're MACHINES.
|WE made THEM. Nothing justified their rebelling on their creators
|in the first place.

well, do remember, Morpheus said that he didn't know who started the war.
the AIs could have been the aggressors, but then, we could have started the
war too. we, the audiece, were not informed.

> that and I stand by Morpheus's suggestion that the electrical sensory
> impulses are what is "real", and the Matrix is thus "real" enough
for me.
> plus, happiness is what matters, and by having the humans hooked up to the
> Matrix, happiness is insured. when Agent Smith was interrogating
> Morpheus, he explained that the socioeconomic makeup of the Matrix world
> was based on the *peak* of human civilization. a real society of humans
> cannot guarantee each other a constant golden age, but being a part of the
> Matrix *does* guarantee that golden age.

|That 'golden age', as Agent Smith called it, was the (what I like to
|call) shithole of a world we live in today :P

well, think what you like of the world, but I was saying that this age is
"great" by *comparison* --comparison to the rest of our ages. when would
you have rather lived? in a time where you could be killed for believing
something? enslaved for being female or black? crippled because your
factory owner didn't feel like making the meat-packing plant "safe"? maybe
it's just me, but I think this world, as unfair as it can be sometimes, is a
lot more fair and plentiful than it used to be.

> or even if the AI's don't care to prolong a golden age, we can know that
> it's in their interests to make sure we don't all die. so, I think we
> could take comfort in the fact that they'd probably make sure we don't all
> fry each others brains with nukes, because that wouldn't be in Their
> interest --so, they'd probably pull a few strings in the background and
> make sure we didn't do anything that profoundly stupid. real life can't
> guarantee any safeguards against apocalypse.
>
> if being hooked to the Matrix makes the humans as a whole well-off as
> can
> be, who cares about a sinister backstage reality that we don't even have
> to be aware of anyway? as [character name escapes me] protested,
> ignorance is bliss.

|It was Cypher that said that. And as I said earlier, I prefer knowing
|the truth, as I have a rather extreme feline curiosity. :)

good, curiosity is good. but me, well. I think the question is: is
knowing the ultimate truth worth living a worse life? I would find the
prospect of being protected from any world-wide epidemics, famines,
nuke-wars, genocides, etc.. very comforting, and I think if I had the
choice, I might trade in my knowledge of the depressing, sinister backstage
truth for that.

> hmm, I feel the need to apologize for being off topic and abstract, but,
> naw, I said it was OT anyway.. thoughts, anyone?

|Hmm. Wasn't the plot of the movie posted here on RN in the last
|year or so? :)

|Excellent movie, and Bullet Time photography made it happen.
|Live action anime like this wouldn't be possible if it hadn't been
|created. :)

definitly. the Bullet Time effect was one of the coolest things I've ever
seen. another thing I noticed was The Matrix's superior use of SOUND. the
sound of the bullets ripping through sound barriers in slow motion, the
crafted sound of the guns, and I particularly enjoyed when Neo's scream at
the bug turned into an analog phone sound.

|I don't care what ANYONE says, no movie before this has brought
|up the particular concepts that Matrix brings forth in this particular
|way, with this particular combination. Sure it was made to appeal
|to everyone. It's better than putting subliminal messages in it like
|in A Clockwork Orange (for example). "Soylent Green is
|PEOPLE!!!" IIRC it was Jett that discovered that.....

really?? I've watched that movie plenty of times, who knew I was being
subliminally taught about Soylent Green.

|The only question I have is, what IS 'reality', anyway?

I go with Morpheus's suggestion that the electrical impulses are as real
as it gets, and it is a good question, but I also think hashing over the
question too much doesn't achieve much of anything.

--Neil
Message no. 3
From: Pantherr pantherr@*****.net
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:36:15 -0500
>
> S
>
>
> P
>
>
> O
>
>
> I
>
>
> L
>
>
> E
>
>
> R
>
>
>
>
>
> S
>
>
> P
>
>
> A
>
>
> C
>
>
> E


> > or to put it better, what side will you take? are you
> > pro-human.rebellion, or pro-Matrix? should the humans have been able to
> > do what they accomplished in the movie by taking control? or did the
> > AI's earn their place as the top of the (food?) chain?
>
> |Go humanity! I for one wouldn't want to be enslaved/imprisoned,
> |and DEFINITELY don't care for the idea of being used as a battery
>
> that makes me think, you and I both have billions of bacteria thriving
> off
> our bodies, in our mouthes, in our eyelids, everywhere. we have bacteria
> that feed off flakes of dead skin that falls from our bodies. is the
> setup of the machines living off our body heat terribly different? does
> that make you opposed to having bacteria on your body? I don't think the
> Matrix hurts the human race in a very tangiable way --quite the opposite,
> I muse.

The difference is that the bacteria evolved for that purpose. They
weren't enslaved for it. It comes down to freedom, really

> > personally, I think the AI's earned their place. they were smarter,
> > and
> > stronger. and the humans were asking for it by initiating their
> > underhanded warfare (blocking out sun, which I feel is equivalent to
> > starving a rival nation today). from a moral standpoint, at the least,
> > the extreme blow justified the AI's extreme retaliation.
>
> |You call growing 'crops' of humans and trapping their minds in a
> |VR world so they could be used as batteries w/o protest
> |justifiable? I mean, sure they're intelligent, but they're MACHINES. |WE
> made THEM. Nothing justified their rebelling on their creators |in the
> first place.
>
> well, do remember, Morpheus said that he didn't know who started the
> war.
> the AIs could have been the aggressors, but then, we could have started
> the war too. we, the audiece, were not informed.

This is true...I still say that it wasn't a justifiable answer to the
problem, but then, what in war IS justifiable?

Besides, the simple fact that WE *created* them is enough to
make any actions on their part to fight our wishes unjustifiable.

After all, as far as they're concerned, we're the equivalent of 'god' in
that they wouldn't exist if we hadn't made them in the first place.

> well, think what you like of the world, but I was saying that this age
> is
> "great" by *comparison* --comparison to the rest of our ages. when would
> you have rather lived? in a time where you could be killed for believing
> something? enslaved for being female or black? crippled because your
> factory owner didn't feel like making the meat-packing plant "safe"?
> maybe it's just me, but I think this world, as unfair as it can be
> sometimes, is a lot more fair and plentiful than it used to be.

True, but as we increase our understanding and tolerance, in other areas, we're
sort of sliding backwards, IMO.

> > if being hooked to the Matrix makes the humans as a whole well-off as
> > can
> > be, who cares about a sinister backstage reality that we don't even have
> > to be aware of anyway? as [character name escapes me] protested,
> > ignorance is bliss.
>
> |It was Cypher that said that. And as I said earlier, I prefer knowing
> |the truth, as I have a rather extreme feline curiosity. :)
>
> good, curiosity is good. but me, well. I think the question is: is
> knowing the ultimate truth worth living a worse life? I would find the
> prospect of being protected from any world-wide epidemics, famines,
> nuke-wars, genocides, etc.. very comforting, and I think if I had the
> choice, I might trade in my knowledge of the depressing, sinister
> backstage truth for that.

As was said in the movie, not everyone is ready to be unplugged.
YMMV :)

I subscribe wholly to the knowledge is power philosophy, FWIW :)

> |I don't care what ANYONE says, no movie before this has brought
> |up the particular concepts that Matrix brings forth in this particular
> |way, with this particular combination. Sure it was made to appeal |to
> everyone. It's better than putting subliminal messages in it like |in A
> Clockwork Orange (for example). "Soylent Green is |PEOPLE!!!" IIRC it
> was Jett that discovered that.....
>
> really?? I've watched that movie plenty of times, who knew I was being
> subliminally taught about Soylent Green.

IIRC, she found 1-2 frame shots mixed in depicting graphic scenes
of sex and violence. I've never seen it myself, and I think that
Soylent green line is a dialogue quote or something. :)

> |The only question I have is, what IS 'reality', anyway?
>
> I go with Morpheus's suggestion that the electrical impulses are as real
> as it gets, and it is a good question, but I also think hashing over the
> question too much doesn't achieve much of anything.

True. But it never hurts to consider the possibilities and
implications :)


Pantherr

---
Base not your joy upon the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No hope
= no fear
- Peter Steele, in dedicating Bloody Kisses
Message no. 4
From: Jordan findlerman@*****.com
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 06:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
--- Pantherr wrote:
>
> >
> > S
> >
> >
> > P
> >
> >
> > O
> >
> >
> > I
> >
> >
> > L
> >
> >
> > E
> >
> >
> > R
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > S
> >
> >
> > P
> >
> >
> > A
> >
> >
> > C
> >
> >
> > E
>
>
[Snip]

> The difference is that the bacteria evolved for that
> purpose. They
> weren't enslaved for it. It comes down to freedom,
> really

Ahhhh...You mean the kind of freedom that is an
inherited right to all sentient beings? What, then,
about the AI's Freedom? Weren't they just trying to
ensure their freedom, and survival? We cut off their
sun, their food supply. Whose freedom was first
infrindged upon?

> > > personally, I think the AI's earned their
> place. they were smarter,
> > > and
> > > stronger. and the humans were asking for it by
> initiating their
> > > underhanded warfare (blocking out sun, which I
> feel is equivalent to
> > > starving a rival nation today). from a moral
> standpoint, at the least,
> > > the extreme blow justified the AI's extreme
> retaliation.
> >
> > |You call growing 'crops' of humans and trapping
> their minds in a
> > |VR world so they could be used as batteries w/o
> protest
> > |justifiable? I mean, sure they're intelligent,
> but they're MACHINES. |WE
> > made THEM. Nothing justified their rebelling on
> their creators |in the
> > first place.
> >
> > well, do remember, Morpheus said that he didn't
> know who started the
> > war.
> > the AIs could have been the aggressors, but then,
> we could have started
> > the war too. we, the audiece, were not informed.
>
> This is true...I still say that it wasn't a
> justifiable answer to the
> problem, but then, what in war IS justifiable?
>
> Besides, the simple fact that WE *created* them is
> enough to
> make any actions on their part to fight our wishes
> unjustifiable.
>
> After all, as far as they're concerned, we're the
> equivalent of 'god' in
> that they wouldn't exist if we hadn't made them in
> the first place.

Hmmm....interesting, but wrong. I am "full-blooded
American" (an Oxy-moron if I ever heard one). I can
guarantee you that back in the 1770s, we didn't think
of the British as 'gods.' I don't know about your
nationality, Panther, but are you saying that
Americans had no right to rebel? Think about it. We
created the AIs....AI, by definition, being Sentient
beings....self-governing....so, why should we blame
them for wanting to determine their own fate?

[Snip]

> Pantherr

--Fin
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 5
From: Pantherr pantherr@*****.net
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:38:00 -0500
> > > S
> > >
> > >
> > > P
> > >
> > >
> > > O
> > >
> > >
> > > I
> > >
> > >
> > > L
> > >
> > >
> > > E
> > >
> > >
> > > R
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > S
> > >
> > >
> > > P
> > >
> > >
> > > A
> > >
> > >
> > > C
> > >
> > >
> > > E
> >
> >
> [Snip]
>
> > The difference is that the bacteria evolved for that
> > purpose. They
> > weren't enslaved for it. It comes down to freedom,
> > really
>
> Ahhhh...You mean the kind of freedom that is an
> inherited right to all sentient beings? What, then,
> about the AI's Freedom? Weren't they just trying to
> ensure their freedom, and survival? We cut off their
> sun, their food supply. Whose freedom was first
> infrindged upon?

May I bring your attention to an earlier point made in this thread. It
is NOT known whether we struck first or the machines did. And by
the point in time where the movie is set, that's irrelevant, really...

> > Besides, the simple fact that WE *created* them is
> > enough to
> > make any actions on their part to fight our wishes
> > unjustifiable.
> >
> > After all, as far as they're concerned, we're the
> > equivalent of 'god' in
> > that they wouldn't exist if we hadn't made them in
> > the first place.
>
> Hmmm....interesting, but wrong. I am "full-blooded
> American" (an Oxy-moron if I ever heard one). I can
> guarantee you that back in the 1770s, we didn't think
> of the British as 'gods.' I don't know about your
> nationality, Panther, but are you saying that
> Americans had no right to rebel? Think about it. We
> created the AIs....AI, by definition, being Sentient
> beings....self-governing....so, why should we blame
> them for wanting to determine their own fate?

You're reading something into my words that's not there, I think.
Not to mention comparing apples and oranges. There's a HUGE
gap between a creation rebelling against its creator and a
colony/state/country rebelling against a form of rule.

And FWIW, I was born and raised on the southern shore of Lake
Superior, in Michigan's Upper Peninsula :)

And not to knock (or mock, for that matter) anyone's religious
beliefs or anything, but in the Bible, at what point does ANY person
get to outright rebel against God's wishes, and make war on the
heavens?

Pantherr
---
Base not your joy upon the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No hope
= no fear
- Peter Steele, in dedicating Bloody Kisses
Message no. 6
From: Josh strago@***.com
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 13:08:10 -0400
Pantherr wrote:

> <SNIP Spoiler Space and Matrix stuff>

> And not to knock (or mock, for that matter) anyone's religious
> beliefs or anything, but in the Bible, at what point does ANY person
> get to outright rebel against God's wishes, and make war on the
> heavens?
>
> Pantherr
> ---

Well, Satan did. And then there's Armageddon.
Message no. 7
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 23:11:54 -0400 (EDT)
"Pantherr" <pantherr@*****.net> writes:
> S
>
>
> P
>
>
> O
>
>
> I
>
>
> L
>
>
> E
>
>
> R
>
>
>
>
>
> S
>
>
> P
>
>
> A
>
>
> C
>
>
> E


> > [Snip]
> > > Besides, the simple fact that WE *created* them is
> > > enough to
> > > make any actions on their part to fight our wishes
> > > unjustifiable.
> > >
> > > After all, as far as they're concerned, we're the
> > > equivalent of 'god' in
> > > that they wouldn't exist if we hadn't made them in
> > > the first place.

I cannot follow your reasoning here. You are making a huge
jump by casting the humans as 'god' and the AIs as creations without
rights.

> > Hmmm....interesting, but wrong. I am "full-blooded
> > American" (an Oxy-moron if I ever heard one). I can
> > guarantee you that back in the 1770s, we didn't think
> > of the British as 'gods.' I don't know about your
> > nationality, Panther, but are you saying that
> > Americans had no right to rebel? Think about it. We
> > created the AIs....AI, by definition, being Sentient
> > beings....self-governing....so, why should we blame
> > them for wanting to determine their own fate?
>
> You're reading something into my words that's not there, I think.
> Not to mention comparing apples and oranges. There's a HUGE
> gap between a creation rebelling against its creator and a
> colony/state/country rebelling against a form of rule.

In my mind, these are very similar situations. The colony of
a country is typically created to suck the resources out of a region
to make the country richer. The AIs were originally created to
improve the standing of humans... I'd appreciate a clarification of
where your "huge gap" is and what it consists of so I can understand
better.

> And not to knock (or mock, for that matter) anyone's religious
> beliefs or anything, but in the Bible, at what point does ANY person
> get to outright rebel against God's wishes, and make war on the
> heavens?

Why does creating someone make you their god? Just because
the people of the movie have managed to create sentient AIs, why
should the AIs consider us gods? They aren't the AI's gods, they are
their creators.
I feel that you're using the wrong analogy here. You should
try to think of the humans in the movies as the parents of the AIs,
not their gods. The creation of an AI is not drastically different
than the creation of a child, except that the law as I know it today
does not currently treat AIs (or any other non-citizen, to a lesser
extent) as sentient beings with a full set of rights.

Mark
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:39:58 +1000
Mark A Shieh writes:
> I feel that you're using the wrong analogy here. You should
> try to think of the humans in the movies as the parents of the AIs,
> not their gods. The creation of an AI is not drastically different
> than the creation of a child, except that the law as I know it today
> does not currently treat AIs (or any other non-citizen, to a lesser
> extent) as sentient beings with a full set of rights.

Creation of a child = a few minutes of sweaty exercise, plus nine months of
waiting, plus a few hours of excruciating pain. The real work is done via
the wonders of millions of years of evolution, largely on automatic. This
doesn't exactly require skilled labour, if you pardon the pun.

Creation of an AI would be a very different exercise. It would be creating a
totally new form of life, if it worked. All the work would be done by the
creators. A parallel would be the creation of a new species, via genetic
engineering, out of a pool of amino acids.

What do we define as God? Usually, the creator of the universe, and more
importantly, the creator of man (if you accept the Bible's point of view on
theology, which personally I don't). Creating an AI would put the creators
on the same moral plane as God, from the point of view of the AI. Of course,
convincing the AI of that is another matter.

Furthermore, AI != sentience. Intelligence does not imply sentience,
sentience does not imply intelligence. They are very different concepts. It
may well prove to be possible to create a true artificial intelligence,
possible of creative thought (which is usually used as the definition of an
artificial intelligence, and something a lot of humans aren't demonstrably
able to do), that is not sentient. We do not know, as we are long way from
doing either.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 9
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
As a quick intellgence vs. sentience comment, I realize that
most of my argument revolves around sentient AIs. I hope that I state
it more clearly at the very bottom.

"Robert Watkins" <robert.watkins@******.com> writes:
> Mark A Shieh writes:
> > I feel that you're using the wrong analogy here. You should
> > try to think of the humans in the movies as the parents of the AIs,
> > not their gods. The creation of an AI is not drastically different
> > than the creation of a child, except that the law as I know it today
> > does not currently treat AIs (or any other non-citizen, to a lesser
> > extent) as sentient beings with a full set of rights.

> Creation of a child = [snip easier to do, as everything is already
> set up]
>
> Creation of an AI would be a very different exercise. It would be creating a
> totally new form of life, if it worked. All the work would be done by the
> creators. A parallel would be the creation of a new species, via genetic
> engineering, out of a pool of amino acids.

I don't think you are describing the creation of an AI. It
feels more like you are describing the first time someone has managed
to create an AI, or a new species by genetic engineering.

I agree, the creation of an AI is like the creation of a new
species(IMHO, it is the creation of a new species), and the
accomplishment is not to be trivialized. In this case, it is clearly
not human. What would be the case if it were a biological construct,
similar enough to a human to be treated as such? This makes the
creator a spectacular geneticist, not god. What about a successful
cloning of the creator? Does it have rights? IMHO, The creation of
new life shouldn't be given rights dependent on its form.

What about years down the road? Some person buys an AI
creation program off the shelf and decides to push a button and run
it. Are they to be treated as god by the AI? It's easier than
creating a child. It sounds too similar to slavery not to be related.

> What do we define as God? Usually, the creator of the universe, and more
> importantly, the creator of man (if you accept the Bible's point of view on
> theology, which personally I don't). Creating an AI would put the creators
> on the same moral plane as God, from the point of view of the AI. Of course,
> convincing the AI of that is another matter.

Alternatively, the AI could view the creators as merely beings
with the ability to create a species other than themselves. I don't
feel that the creators of an AI qualify for either requirement. It is
still more of a parental relationship the way I view things.

> Furthermore, AI != sentience. Intelligence does not imply sentience,
> sentience does not imply intelligence. They are very different
> concepts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply sentience on the part of AIs. I
had completely forgotten about the traditional definition of AIs, as
the ones in _The Matrix_ seem to either be sentient or be able to fake
it. However, I thought that sentience implied intelligence, although
not vice versa.
In addition, most of what I am saying only applies to sentient
beings. IIRC, we have already written programs that demonstrate
intelligence for very simple universes, but they are still just tools.

Mark
Message no. 10
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:40:45 +1000
Scott Wheelock writes:
> "And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Jim, Mary-Louise & Charles."
> ] actually i can have a cake and than eat it
> ] that is very possible
> ]
> ] expression:
> ] i can eat my cake and have it to
> ]
> ] much harder
> ] (saw this own the scifi channel some time ago
> ] i wish i could remember the authors name)
>
> Same diff...the expression implies that you want to do
> both at the same time, sequence doesn't really come into
> it...it still works. However, if the proper expression is
> "eat" then "have," I'll use it that way. Thanks for the
> correction.

He's having a go at you...

The saying is "You can't have your cake and eat it too".

As you said, sequence doesn't come into it... the expression is meant to
imply that the events are simultaneous, when actually it's referring to the
future: if you eat your cake, you can't still have it afterwards.

I don't know if you're a native English speaker, Scott, but this is just one
of the many examples of the slipperiness of the English language.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 11
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:10:22 +1000
> "And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Robert Watkins."
> ] I don't know if you're a native English speaker, Scott, but
> this is just one
> ] of the many examples of the slipperiness of the English language.
>
> <big grin>
>
> Well, you've got me! How'd you know I was Canadian?
> (according to some, we don't speak English at all :)
>
> -Murder of One
>
> P.S. The ending '.ca' in my e-mail means Canada. That's
> an easy way to tell, sometimes.

But it wouldn't tell me if you're from Quebec, though... It also wouldn't
tell me if you're an immigrant. Assumptions can burn people, sometimes. :0


--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 12
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc]
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Going back to that thing about the AIs rebelling against their
'gods'...

As I recall, didn't the humans try to destroy the AIs out of fear and
the AIs defended themselves? Then (I know this bit) the humans tried to
block out the sun, forcing the AIs to adapt - and they adapted by
farming humans for their energy.

If I'm right, then, IMNSHO, that totally invalidates the 'rebelling
against your god' debate. I mean, humans would probably fight back
against their Creator if a) He attacked them and b) they could.

Now, if we do want to buy into the 'rebelling against god' theory, try
this on for size. Humans may originally have been 'gods' to the AIs.
But then we started slacking around (even more :) ), using the AIs to
do our work for us and do menial jobs we didn't want to be bothered
with and all that kinda stuff. Now, don't you think that would lower
YOUR opinion of God if He only created you so you could clean His house
for Him? :) The AIs probably realised that humans, as a species were
jerks and lazy bums ( :) ). Who'd want a god like that?

Think about it - you're trying to compare the relationship of God to
men to the relationship of men to AIs. Okay, maybe He created us and
maybe we created them. Past that, I can't see any similarities.

Sorry if anyone's already said this. I think I came in late. :)

*Doc' sighs in ecstasy..."Ah, bliss...a return to the rough and tumble
of the list..."*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT, spoiler] red pill- two pill- blue pill- yes? [was: Matrix, reviews, etc], you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!