I just watched the movie Chappie with my family. What a frusrating experience it is to be forced to watch this intelectually void nonsense and have to listen to everyone praise this Jewish shit for manipulating them into eliciting emotion for a robot.
This movie was complete with the stock technological innacuracies that grace any big screen picture, but also came with stock villain, main character, and dramatic music we are fed on a daily basis by the Jews in hollywood while simultaneously avoiding any legitimate thought provoking themes that come from increasing AI technology. There was not a single moment of this movie that wasn't extraordinarily Jewish.
Following the movie I made it very clear why this film is a gross misrepresentation of how an AI would behave and specifically noted why there was no reason to feel sorry for it. I was greeted by an orchestra of anger insinuating that I was uncapable of emptahy for not feeling sorry for the robot AI filth. Why is Jewish Hollywood pushing this agenda?
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-01 0:14
Would you watch an A.I. movie by Mentifex?
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-01 0:33
this film is a gross misrepresentation of how an AI would behave
you're a fcking idiot if you expected anythying else
I watched that San Andreas movie and let me tell you, that was a remarkably silly movie. It's also a bit of a ripoff since Dwayne The Rock Johnson isn't featured as much as you'd expect. But the chick who plays his daughter is extremely hot, and she is featured prominently, as prominently as her breasts, wowza!
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-01 15:09
>>10 This movie is another example of real-world events shown in the media shortly before they happen in the real world.
>>11 So when do you expect the San Francisco-obliterating earthquake will take place? Did you also expect the whole world to be flooded as per the 2012 movie?
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-01 15:38
>>12 It'll probably hit LA, not SF. But it will happen before Obama's end of presidency. Obama will be the last president of the US.
>>18 How edgy are you? Did you cut yourself listening to the cure? I bet you're too young for that and instead spent your middle school days cutting yourself to linkin park. Just stay in reddit with the rest of the liberal shitheads.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-01 19:19
>>19 Everything you know about God was told to you by humans.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-01 19:30
>>20 Not true. I have a personal connection with God. Stay edgy brother man.
Admin-sama, when are we going to ban people that make jokes?
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-02 1:03
Admin doesn't even knowthis board exisst.. dont make afuss
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-02 8:04
>>26 Wrong. Just do an experiment yourself or arrange to be present at a lab demonstration. Hell, you can even watch it on Jewtube like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyOtIsnG71U
So while there is a large amount of scientific data that we have to accept based only on belief in scientific authorities, there's still a lot of facts that you can verify personally. And for every fact of science, there are at least hundreds of people in the world who've witnessed an experiment about it.
AI would behave in a way it is designed to behave. In particular a novelty company may design a robot that behaves like a robot in movie. Although that would impractical, but hey!
Regarding human-like AI. The humans behave the way they behave due to evolutional adaptation to earth's environment and underlaying cellular structure. There is no reasons AI should copy human behavior exactly, unless requested by client (i.e. you need a sex doll).
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-02 15:38
>>36 What makes you think that the desired idiosyncrasies of human behavior are so neatly separable from our killer instincts? If it is indeed possible for a computer program to simulate human behavior (beyond a certain high degree of fidelity), I would argue that it would be at the cost of the obedience and unquestioning servitude that we have come to expect from our computer programs.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-02 20:45
>>37 All human instincts are subordinate to the self-preservation instinct. That is basically the whole goal of life.
AI is not required to preserve itself.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-02 20:52
>>38 Self-preservation isn't the whole goal of life. It's "self-preservation + reproduction + preservation of offspring".
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-02 20:59
reproduction is just a part of self-preservation
the life is the cell's DNA, not your stupid brain or personality, which are just a product of life.
>>35 Wrong. Just do an prayer yourself or arrange to be present at a team prayer.
So while there is a large amount of religious data that we have to accept based only on belief in bible, there's still a lot of facts that you can verify personally by talking to G-d. And for every fact of problem, there are at least hundreds of people in the world who've witnessed an miracle about it.
>>35 And don't forget to try and confirm every weird black hole quantum hypertime proton decay ``fact'' you got, after all at least hundreds of people in the world have witnessed an experiment about it.
>>40 No, it isn't. Take modern-day white populations as an example: their self-preservation instinct is active (e.g. they don't walk under working bulldozers or open airplane doors during flights), while their reproduction instincts are virtually dormant (birthrates are too low even for population conservation let alone growth, even with tiny mortality rates). In other words, the modern white man is an excellent example of self-preservation instinct without a reproduction instinct.
>>54 Races are not organisms. Everyone can self-preserve through reproduction while population shrinks as long as the rate is over 1.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-03 16:32
>>54 I think it says something quite strong about society (and maybe the instinct of reproduction) that it's possible to be "reprogrammed" to not have such a desire to reproduce. Can it really be so instinctive that we can just suppress it?
Perhaps more people are just realising that it wouldn't make them very happy to have children at a certain moment in time (i.e every time they think of it, it's inconvenient) and then it's too late when it becomes convenient.
I've personally never had a strong desire to reproduce, but I have a desire to have sex. Maybe just because having a screaming baby to tend to and raise is just too much time to waste for no perceivable advantage for me or society.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-03 16:40
>>56 I don't follow your logic. If whites today had an active reproduction instinct, they would have as many babies as they could feed (and that is a lot more than 2 per family). The fact that they have 0.9-1.4 babies per family shows their reproduction instinct is dormant. Yes, even having one child does not constitute an active reproduction instinct by human standards (e.g., Africans have 5-10 children despite poverty and starvation, and whites used to have the same in previous centuries)
>>57 Self-preservation instinct can be suppressed too, see self-immolating monks and self-detonating terrorists. Is self-preservation not an instinct, then?
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-03 16:43
>>58 I'm not saying that self-preservation is not an instinct. Of course it is, but it can be overridden with large willpower.
It just requires more willpower than deciding not to reproduce (I think, I wouldn't know).
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-03 16:46
>>58 What's the reason for Africans wanting to reproduce in large numbers but Europeans (and maybe Japanese) not, do you think? I'm just curious.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-03 17:02
>>59 And that means reproduction instinct is not a part of self-preservation instinct, at least not an integral part. I'm glad we agree.
>>60 I can't find a link, but there was a study recently where they put a colony of mice in super-comfortable conditions and their birthrates dropped almost to the point of extinction. I.e. lack of life threats and environmental pressures may suppress reproductive urges. At the very least, the existence of retirement funds, pensions, care for elderly, as well as general safety and comfort, means that people have less of an incentive to make children that would protect them from danger and care for them when they're old.
If whites today had an active reproduction instinct, they would have as many babies as they could feed
Having an instinct for something doesn't mean you are going to indulge in it until the end of time. Having only one child may satisfy the urge for reproduction perfectly fine, so a population can shrink while the instinct for reproduction is satisfied in every individual (and thus, in the group).
Additionally, the number of children you can reasonably sustain vary wildly from region to region. If there are no things like pensions, children become necessary to sustain yourself in old age. If child mortality is high, more children means more chances that one will survive. What constitutes ``can feed'' differs a lot as well. Maintaining a child on the level of Africa is easier than doing so on the level of the first world, despite differences in resources.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-03 17:10
>>61 By the way, I wasn't the poster who said that reproduction constitutes part of the self-preservation instinct.
I had thought about this idea of care for elderly, but it's quite striking to me because I don't know if people actually think this way (or have done in the past) when they are trying to conceive a child.
Of course it's possible that it's coded genetically, which would be interesting.
I've always thought that it was really societal factors and discovering the modern pointlessness of reproduction that has led people away form reproduction. Check out this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9632668
>>63 Shithole societies are very much clan/family-oriented - when a member of a family gets a high-ranking job, he or she starts to get his relatives into as many positions as possible. Having connections in high places also means getting "favors". Thus having few children means simply having far fewer chances to succeed socially and financially.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-03 17:35
>>64 Yeah, interesting. What is this horrible accent, though.
I don't know if people actually think this way (or have done in the past)
The roots of son-preference lie deep in Chinese culture. Traditionally, the bloodline passes through the male side. Women also "marry out", joining their husband's families and looking after their in-laws, not their own parents. For a long time, a son was your pension. Having a girl was wasteful.
birthrates are too low even for population conservation let alone growth
Why do we allow idiots like you to post in this board? Even a complete retard can google this shit and find that the white population has been steadily growing, not dwindling. Further, birth control is not exclusive to white people, nor modern day globalization. Some African tribes are known to kill offspring when they felt the resources would be too scarce in comparison to the population growth of their own tribe. It's not that they "lack a reproduction instinct" (nice armchair pseudo-biology, imbecile), but are concerned with procuring their offspring a comfortable upbringing. I'm sorry your parents weren't.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-03 19:28
>>69 Yeah, tell me about it. Here we have a retard saying "the white population has been steadily growing, not dwindling" and he's allowed to post! Why couldn't he at least google this shit instead of posting?
Now Spain, like much of the EU, faces the demographic consequences. The results have been transformative. In a half century Spain’s fertility rate has fallen more than 50% to 1.4 children per female, one of the lowest not only in Europe, but also the world and well below the 2.1 rate necessary simply to replace the current population.
As of 2010, about 48% of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility.[3] ... This includes most nations of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, and many others
It takes 2.1 children per woman for a given generation to replace itself, and U.S. births have been below replacement level since 2007.
Further, birth control is not exclusive to white people, nor modern day globalization
I never said that, retard. Why do you disagree with things I've never even said, retard? Is it because you're a dumbass fucking retard who shouldn't even post?