PollIt's Armageddon! What faction has the most chances of destroying the others?
      – BorgClown, 2009-04-04 at 06:38:34   (32 comments)

On 2009-04-04 at 06:39:19, BorgClown wrote...
Oh shit, forgot the Power Rangers!
On 2009-04-04 at 16:39:23, Lee J Haywood wrote...
We know from Terminator that the cyborgs will just nuke the planet and hunt down the survivors. They have the ability to adapt and can rebuild after damage much more quickly. I guess the main difference between robots and cyborgs is their ability to blend in with the human population, which gives them an edge on the pirates and ninjas too.
On 2009-04-05 at 03:45:14, BorgClown wrote...
But the Terminators are cyborgs in the weakest sense, they're just robots with a skin coat. The coat can be burned away and they won't miss it. Also, the liquid-metal ones were only robots, and better at much blending in. Oh, and before someone point out that Transformers are robots too, forget it, they're robots in disguise.
On 2009-04-05 at 03:46:23, BorgClown wrote...
FFS, my grammar brain-damaged is!
On 2009-04-05 at 09:04:32, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Yes, I did think of the problem with the Terminators being robots with skin (even Wikipedia says that they are in fact robots, whilst calling them cyborgs). The key thing about Skynet is the combination of focused destruction of the human race and the ability to adapt and have the Terminators avoid detection. Perhaps the new skin-job Cylons from Battlestar Galactica are a better example - although they're basically just AIs, they're almost indistinguishable from us. Perhaps they just want to enslave us, rather than exterminate us, however. A cyborg is 'an organism that has both artificial and natural systems', but allowing for a humanoid robot that can sneak up on you gives a cyborg a big advantage over a simple robot. If it has an AI that mimics human intelligence it will also have a better chance of wiping us out. You'd have thought dinosaurs would have a big advantage, having been given so much time to evolve. I guess it shows the importance of the opposable thumb.
On 2009-04-05 at 14:10:44, Thelevellers wrote...
Can I claim cyborg pirates the winners?! :D Failing that, I want the Power Rangers option! :) I think it would have to be cyborgs of some desrciption, all the best robots are humanoid or human inspired in some way I think... My thought with pirates is that they can hide out at sea til the winners are clear and at their weakest before pouncing and finishig them off, before setting up the ultimate pirate global 'economy'... :)
On 2009-04-06 at 01:38:46, BorgClown wrote...
Besides, did you note that vanilla humans are not included? They were pwned, minced and used as fertilizer (or energy) long before.
On 2009-04-06 at 01:40:44, BorgClown wrote...
Pitting robots against cyborgs of similar IQ, robots would win. Cyborgs have too much vulnerable flesh parts.
On 2009-04-06 at 10:20:04, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I'm not sure that's true, as flesh can heal itself whereas a robot is likely to just stop working altogether if it develops a fault. It's interesting to think of them having comparable intelligence - I always think of robots being quite dumb and clumsy, and cyborgs being more adaptable and fluid. It'd be cool to have a world with them both locked in an arms race, each developing over time to improve over the other.
On 2009-04-07 at 01:52:00, BorgClown wrote...
Machines can be shielded against electric, magnetic and even EMP weapons. Flesh can't be pushed too far without its proteins breaking apart.
On 2009-04-07 at 08:34:43, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Flesh can be shielded too, and at present we humans are still way more adaptable and flexible than any robot. So it's a combination of physical development and improved AI... humans can only develop (in a reasonable time scale) by becoming cyborgs, and robots will improve as research continues. The question is then, is the best conceivable robot better than the best conceivable cyborg? This doesn't seem sensible, however - where do you draw the line? If they either have nukes, that'd be cheating. If they both have nukes, it's not really a contest.
On 2009-04-07 at 21:11:45, Baslisks wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: any sufficient advanced life form would probably have nukes/anti-nukes. A cyborg doesn't even have to be on the battlefield to fight. He can control a legion of robot warriors all under himself. in reality a cyborg can make the transition to robot at anytime but still stay a cyborg faction.
On 2009-04-08 at 02:42:32, BorgClown wrote...
That's a nice notion, the antinuke system. Fission bombs need a perfectly synchronized blast of conventional explosives to compress the fissionable material. Disturb it enough and they will become just dirty bombs. And fusion bombs need a fission bomb to get started, so you have them neutralized too. It will only end with melee weapons and an epic battle at dawn!!!
On 2009-04-08 at 02:53:36, BorgClown wrote...
I read several decades ago a fascinating book called "Inteligencia en el Universo" (Intelligence in the Universe) or something very alike. The author analyses intelligence and several of its manifestations, and he basically states that artificial authomatons will inherit the starts, and even end up being the most probable kind of first contact. The reasons he states is that 1) Artificial civilizations can outlast biological ones 2) When two artificial civilizations (or even individuals) meet, they can merge (literally) if there see advantage in that. Instant evolution! 3) Artificial beings can colonize outer space quickly if they need to, because they can adapt faster to alien environments. That line of reasoning got stuck in my mind ever since, even if it can be compellingly challenged. Go Robots!
On 2009-04-08 at 02:54:26, BorgClown wrote...
Whoa, several decades. More like almost two decades.
On 2009-04-08 at 10:26:14, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Technically even artificial life is going to be an outcome of evolution, so it's not really unnatural (unless you're using a hippy definition). I see the advantage of cyborgs over robots as being that shown in the Terminator - i.e. it's easier for them to infiltrate humans (pirates, ninjas, etc. in this case). But then again, if the robots outnumber the humans and have superior weapons then the humans won't really have a chance anyway. You'd expect the robots to be thoroughly systematic, but then life as a whole is pretty good at bouncing back from disasters.
On 2009-04-08 at 15:11:25, Baslisks wrote...
@BorgClown: who is not to say that those artificial beings weren't organic at any one point?
On 2009-04-09 at 03:56:18, BorgClown wrote...
This one came to my head... http://www.flickr.com/photos/littleanimals/2429862923/
On 2009-04-10 at 06:16:41, BorgClown wrote...
Robots will pwn cyborgs, it's a matter of time: Robot Makes Scientific Discovery All by Itself - http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/robotscientist.html
On 2009-04-16 at 21:28:21, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The idea that cyborgs wouldn't just wipe out the humans in Terminator never really made sense to me, since they're way more powerful and invulnerable - my guess was that the AI just isn't quite matched to human ingenuity, and it's interesting to see that this game trailer alludes to humans being on the losing side. http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47272.html
On 2009-04-17 at 02:19:49, BorgClown wrote...
The terminators are extremely inefficient. Skynet wouldn't have sent Ahnold back in time if it didn't think machines might lose the war against a bunch of sick and malnourished hummies with inferior weapons. And WTF? They knew where humans hid, and sent undercover robots instead of vaporyzinf the place with their flying ships?
On 2009-04-17 at 02:21:33, BorgClown wrote...
Stupid Skynet, a dirty bomb or a decade of biological/chemical warfare would have exterminated the human race, wherever they hid.
On 2009-04-17 at 04:13:18, Baslisks wrote...
@BorgClown: can you think of a better trial for war machines than fighting humans?
On 2009-04-17 at 13:33:18, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's clear that Skynet is only using technology it invents itself (particularly compact lasers, I imagine). I'm not clear on who invented the time machine, as both sides use it. It seems that Skynet doesn't use existing knowledge, leaving humans with an advantage. Even when detonating nuclear weapons, Skynet is only using the things we leave lying around, not creating them itself.
On 2009-04-17 at 14:30:17, Baslisks wrote...
you said it only uses things it invents and then said it uses things lying around. What?
On 2009-04-17 at 14:35:13, Lee J Haywood wrote...
So Skynet isn't using existing knowledge, e.g. the dirty bombs that BorgClown mentioned, but did use our technology against us on/before Judgement Day. Since then, it seems to have just focused on what's available in the post-apocalyptic world and not re-created the things that we humans had. Basically, it's not got a copy of Wikipedia for reference or whatever.
On 2009-04-17 at 18:09:48, Baslisks wrote...
That is a waste of a couple thousands years of research data. If I were a sentient computer I would probably get some process on history or something. Though I would probably have it my goal to be supreme ruler of the universe.... Hmmmm
On 2009-04-17 at 19:08:42, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I guess no-one ever talks to Skynet directly. For all we know, it's insane and/or hateful of not only humans but everything we've created/invented. That would explain the self-reliance, after utilising a 'hands-off' triggering of our nuclear weapons via our computer networks and/or via built machines.
On 2009-04-17 at 20:12:44, BorgClown wrote...
That's an awesome theory Lee. I've always thought of Skynet as a higher and emotionless intelligence, but it is a failed AI, runaway war project. It might as well be a idiot savant, or a psychotic. Very cool.
On 2009-04-18 at 17:46:43, Thelevellers wrote...
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/Sd2cR8EZ3bI/AAAAAAAA-jw/K_7EGp7A58M/s640/yuktyjtrhdfg.jpg Robots will win, obviously. It's all clear to me now... :)
On 2009-04-18 at 23:04:25, BorgClown wrote...
You sir, have won the Intertubes for today.
On 2009-11-02 at 23:14:25, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Skynet does seem to be getting closer all the time... http://technology.todaysbigthing.com/2009/11/02