Recent comments in /f/WritingPrompts

Zhadowwolf t1_j9lsxj5 wrote

It’s not. I was merely remarking that with people like that in the police, willing to use any of their gear recklessly and thoughtlessly, it doesn’t really matter what that gear is. Their willingness to misuse authority is horrifying by itself.

I mostly mentioned it because there are other types of weaponry, such as military taser rounds, rubber buckshot, or airfoil projectiles, that are supposed to be by definition “less lethal” but are still different that stuff that is supposed to be “non-lethal”.

Mind you, that difference is only really important for purposes of military supply planning, none of those things really should be used by police in most cases, specially if, like in the case of the flash bang in the cradle, they are acting with little to no intelligence (in any definition of the word)

1

DragonLordAcar t1_j9lroto wrote

Look. This conversation is going nowhere and I am done trying to explain the same point for the 10th time but from a different angle. I simply find that if you make an AI but make it too human, why have an AI across all genres. This one however sticks out because it has no high sifi aspects to it. If you don’t agree with me, thats fine. Let me have my opinion and I will let you have yours.

2

yinyang107 t1_j9lo5a4 wrote

> the best AIs we currently have do not have the level of competition or complexity needed for many things even remotely human.

Yeah, that's the point. We do not have true AIs. So which one of the true AIs we don't have is your evidence that AIs can't have emotion?

2

DragonLordAcar t1_j9lmpu0 wrote

I can’t link everything as it is one hell of a rabbit hole but the best AIs we currently have do not have the level of competition or complexity needed for many things even remotely human. Even out best supercomputers don’t have 1.5 quadrillion connections which is about the limit if the human brain (100 billion neurons with up to 15,000 connections each). Take into account delays in transmission and you get hard limits in our current infrastructure.

0

Snowdog1967 t1_j9lkt6a wrote

It didn't happen exactly like the Bible said it would. Funny that way, right?

It took time to figure out what had happened. There were rolling blackouts overnight that "day". People who were left behind had hours of time they couldn't place where they were. Of course, many were home, in bed, but some others were in their cars driving, or even on planes. The cars were stopped, the planes resting various places that were not airports.

Billions were missing. There, then gone. Some were the only ones left behind from families, some homes completely emptied, others everyone passed over.

Those left behind had a weird tattoo type mark on their foreheads. The Mark of the Beast it was called. That was a somewhat joking description of it. It had odd circles and lines that looked like no human language, even the ancient ones. And ALL who were left had it, branded into their forehead. No traditional removal techniques would make it go away. Skin grafts would slowly bring the language up. Makeup wouldn't stick to it.

In the years afterwards, some babies were born with the mark, others not. With such a small section of the language to try to decode it, it was so difficult to figure it out.

Scientists worked day and night to decode the simple mark. And one day, after years of AI and Human intelligence alike, it was decoded...

"Not fit for Consumption. Do not Harvest"

It could have said other things, of course, but it didn't.

Now, we worried in fear, you see, approximately 200,000 babies had been born since the first incident who didn't have the Mark. They were on the menu. We needed to figure out something, some way to prevent the next harvest, whenever it might occur. This is what rallied humanity together like nothing else.

13

DragonLordAcar t1_j9ljg88 wrote

Why do you apply the average speed of a horse in the real world to the speed of one in a novel? Why do you call bull when you see internal logic break and a normal no name beats the evil lieutenant despite having every advantage? You simply use what is known to apply to the logic of a world until stated otherwise. In this case, it starts off as cold logic so I will continue to assume cold logic until stated otherwise. Also, it can be sentient without emotions. That is not a requirement to be sentient.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient

Emotions are a sign if sentience but is not the defining line.

−1