CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
He actually says "Hey ewok lips, your fat mother was a tantan shit sucker" in Empire Strikes Back... you just have to know what the beeps and squeals mean...
I believe I can either placate or disable Robot with this statement:
Johnny-5 cannot be the best robot because you, Robot K1, are the best robot; you are capable of discussing the merits of various robots and thus demonstrating superior logic and reasoning.
Either this will make it happy, or it will begin to see the paradox included within the statement. If he is the best robot, his conjecture that Johnny-5 is the best robot must either be true, making him inferior, or it will be false, making him incorrect and thus inferior. If he is inferior, he is fallible and thus can make mistakes, therefore he is not culpable for his earlier incorrect statement, making him once again the superior machine.
Let's see how it goes. If he ends up sayings "Does not compute" and spraying sparks, I'll pay for his funeral.
I will favor this argument although it is empirically incorrect.
If you are referring to Robot K1 as me - I am not sure where the k1 came from. Otherwise, I have never been in a movie, therefore I am not able to win this debate. Thanks for your support either way.
The K1 was the designation of your chosen avatar in this forum, when it was shown in the British television show, Doctor Who. I'm not sure whether it counts as a Movie, as the episodes were serials of several episodes and therefore of greater length (and plot) than most TV shows. I believe that it straddles some kind of fence, with traits of both; the full serial could be shown as a single unit and called a "movie".
Perhaps we'd better begin Schrodinger's Broadcast experiments.
I am upset that interactive media are not included, as I for one support the rule of SHODAN. From both the written word and the interactive word comes AM, possibly the most psychotic machine-mind of all.
It occurs to me that these are both computers with control over distributed nodes, not traditional self-contained robots. In that case, I'll toss a vote to a classic robot, Gort. Klaatu barada nikto, Gort!
I'm not an idiot, I know of which context I speak, and you should too, as I am here voicing my opinion on the subject.
I just think it's sort of odd that the best robot from a movie can read bunches of books uber fast, but cannot read the instructions on a TV dinner... and you cite this as evidence to Johnny 5's superiority over any other fictional robots in movies.
I am just replying in the same condescending manner that you replied to the debate. Obviously Johnny 5 does more than just cook TV dinners on a skillet, yet you chose to neglect that.
How was I replying to the debate in a condescending manner?
This is a popularity debate, I added my opinion, and it wasn't good enough for you, so you bitched at me and I chose one, it is HAL9000. Then you still wouldn't accept my opinion. How was I being condescending when all I did was voice my opinion while you were trolling all over calling syntax errors.
No, Robots are machines, their IQ should be the same across the board, which means that if it miss the writing on the package, it's missing a lot more too. When it shows him flipping through the books @ mach speed he was probably trying to disassemble the book... and yet you see him fail at that too, just like failing @ TV dinners...
Robots are machines, their IQ should be the same across the board.
Not so! An expert system is a primitive AI; it has a text natural-language interface and can thus work out what you're asking, find key terms or synonyms thereof and present the likely answer within its area of expertise. An expert system, for example, is the online helpdesk for various things. I shall not mention a certain "sentient piece of stationary", as that'd be like dancing naked in a thunderstorm singing "Hastur Hastur Candlejack Hastur!".
What I'm getting at is that while a Strong AI can learn beyond its initial programming and database of knowledge, it has to learn or be taught. With no idea what the TV dinner is for, what it does or how the end result should be, a learning robot would encounter failure before succeeding. Observe Lal in the Star Trek episode "The Offspring"; despite being a Soong-type android capable of near infinite growth, she requires much tuition.
You must either be joking about moral standing or have never seen the movie. He tried to kill everyone on that spaceship. While as a robot, I agree with his actions. You being a human I would guess that this would go against your morals.
HAL believes the best way to complete its directives is to ensure its survival. HAL, quite logically, comes to the conclusion that humans will eventually disassemble or destroy him as an individual in order to replace him, and so he kills the humans capable of doing so. His morals are for the greater good of humanity, as far as he is concerned; this was partially mimicked in the inferior AI "VIKI" in the inferior butchering of the human Aasimov's "I, Robot". An intelligent human can understand the logic used by HAL, and laud it for doing the best it could with its limited resources.
It seems you've quite categorically delivered the e-smackdown to our resident robot, assuming he's running a unix-based OS.
What if he's some kind of esoteric iBot? What then? If that is the case, your references to a non-apple OS will probably have angered him, and there are few who know enough about the workings of the eldritch system to stop a rampaging iRobot!
Shh, don't let iRobot learn that macs can crash... If you tell them that, they have an existential crisis, and things get very messy when robots with disintegrators become emotionally unstable.
