Cool Commercial

ye that one was cool..would be cool if we had those IRL :)
 
Yea, it would be cool if we had those, we could send them into Iraq instead of our troops :)

But seeing as the most advanced humanoid robots we have are the Quiro (sp?), and I cant see them holding a M4 or anything of the sort.
 
leet?

you mean l33t.

check your spelling, silly boy..
 
those people who are making robotics should be ashamed of themselves. its this kind of behavior that leads to giant robots taking over the world and plugging us into the matrix. Keyanu reeves would be rolling over in his millions of pounds if he heard about this. :flame:
 
Having robots on the streets instead of humans would be very benefical in some ways but an AI out of a controlled environment leads to everything shown in the martix, terminator films and the whole lot.
It's just such a huge issue.
 
We can give them decision making capabilities, just not free will. Like the T100 in the Terminator flicks. It was intelligent, but it wouldn't just decide to run off and become a painter!
 
But how can robots become evil when you build them to look like bunnies?
 
DarkStar said:
But how can robots become evil when you build them to look like bunnies?


i take it you haven't seen Donnie Darko then...
 
if you look at that movie, the cost of that one robot (if it existed) would probably be enough to feed and house that entire shanty town. Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent crime first by preventing poverty and injustice?
 
Poverty is a very diverse subject from security, throwing food and water at terroist factions isn't gonna make them put down their weapons.
 
The same is also usually true of the soldier's equipment. But often the logistics are far tougher for something like that than you immedietly think.
 
Dan said:
if you look at that movie, the cost of that one robot (if it existed) would probably be enough to feed and house that entire shanty town. Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent crime first by preventing poverty and injustice?
well, that depends on who is providing the robot. it might make sense from an ethical POV, but it probalby makes less sense to those who make and sell the robot. if the government of the country pays for the robo-police, it'd make more sense to deal with the social issues. however, this assumes:

1) that the government does not benefit from the poverty of some portion of it's people (think about it)
2) that it's at least as easy to sell social reform to the people as it is robo-police (assuming it's an elected government of some sort)
 
I dont think a robocop is so far off in the future... you think where only limited by the "public" computer speeds... the goverment has shit thats much faster then the public stuff and of corse i think theyv been makein a robot helper system a long tima go... public robots can accept voice commands they can run walk getup they can probly even serve you a drink by next year if you set the path for the robot to follow correctly.. just install a soda dispencer in the fridge hahaha ne ways im shure somethin like this is allreaddy being made
 
xenospirit, please never use that color again :x

i used to work for a government agency xeno, it's not like supercomputers are ubiquitous. anyway, i think we are quite a ways from that commercial. even if we had the processing power need to make a robot that could analyze and react the way that one was (which i don't believe that we do), we'd still need some pretty sophistcated software unlike anything even thought of, imo. the amount of testing that such a machine would need to undergo alone puts this thing quite a ways off, imo.
 
since we're all being hypothetical and bringing in the "what ifs" i'm gonna hafta say what about the downed robot that gets shot... assuming if somebody could make it, then theres probably some bad people out there that'd know how it'd work too and couldn't they just take robots they've downed and reprogram them for their own militia type thingamabob.
 
The costs would be a factor to consider too, it may cost a lot just to build one, and because it's some kind of law enforcing robot, it could come out of taxes!
 
Plus you could only feed those people for a limited amount of time if you were just going to spend the cost of teh robot, which could hypothetically go on forever.
 
Biggiest problem I have, Target Acquisition.

What if a kid is playing with a squirt gun?

What if a member of the local police forgot their ID, and is carrying an assault rifle?

What happens if the Robotics are damaged, and the targeting is off, it starts shooting women and children?

No, no happening anytime soon.
 
Dan said:
if you look at that movie, the cost of that one robot (if it existed) would probably be enough to feed and house that entire shanty town. Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent crime first by preventing poverty and injustice?

Money isn't a solution when it comes to poverty and famine. Money will feed those people for a few weeks, a stable environment with a good infrastructure will allow them to really develop. And for a stable environment you need people to ensure safety, or in this case robots.
Money won't change anything about their current situation, it just allows them to live some time more in their shitty situation.
 
AudioRage said:
Biggiest problem I have, Target Acquisition.

What if a kid is playing with a squirt gun?

What if a member of the local police forgot their ID, and is carrying an assault rifle?

What happens if the Robotics are damaged, and the targeting is off, it starts shooting women and children?

No, no happening anytime soon.



well it's got a live video feed. so i guess whoever would be commanding the mission or watching it would be able to override any actions the robot wanted to take. so if the robot identified a child as a threat, of course the commander would then override that command.
 
Dan said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent crime first by preventing poverty and injustice?

You know they tried that once...

However communism didnt work...
 
Dedalus said:
well it's got a live video feed. so i guess whoever would be commanding the mission or watching it would be able to override any actions the robot wanted to take. so if the robot identified a child as a threat, of course the commander would then override that command.
I'm guessing there wouldn't be a person on the other end of every robot, every minute.

But even so, if there was a system malfunction, and it started shooting kids, it would be a bit bad.
 
AudioRage said:
I'm guessing there wouldn't be a person on the other end of every robot, every minute.

But even so, if there was a system malfunction, and it started shooting kids, it would be a bit bad.


well it would be a bit irresponsible to leave something so dangerous unattended. i'm sure there would always be someone watching, otherwise that's just a hugely stupid thing to just leave the robot on it's own. and no doubt they'll have implemented some security measures. i mean, if i was deploying the robot, i'd have someone watching the live feed, with a team of researchers and technicians backing the commander up, and on the field i'd have a couple of snipers maybe, or a helicopter even. snipers would be there to both protect the robot and take it down should it get out of control but only has a last measure.

i don't think something like this would be deployed unless they had all their angles covered. so to answer your query, yeah i think someone would be watching round the clock.
 
Then again, people are probably just as likely to go off the rails as a robot...perhaps even mroe so. System malfunctions are all well and good but humans can go insane and not even let on to the fact they want to kill you.

I guess you just have to trust in the programer and the creator of the hardware.
 
Wow...this discussion went in a way different direction than I thought it would. I posted it just because I thought it was somereally badass CG. Interesting discussion though. You guys rock.
 
I thought the CG was really cool because it has a very gritty, realistic feel to it. Most CG seems WAY too polished and shiny, which automatically makes it look fake. I love it when FX guys incorporate handheld camera stuff with CG, it just grounds it in reality.
 
DarkStar said:
I thought the CG was really cool because it has a very gritty, realistic feel to it. Most CG seems WAY too polished and shiny, which automatically makes it look fake. I love it when FX guys incorporate handheld camera stuff with CG, it just grounds it in reality.

A lot of that CG wasnt really CG, but actually a guy (or, more likely a woman) wearing a blue-suit.

(http://ffmedia.ign.com/filmforce/image/andyserkis-suit-gollum15.jpg)

The suit would be a bit different from the one used to make Gollum. It would have all the "outside" components of the robot attached to it. For instance, most of the head was actually there when they filmed as was the chest plate as well as the white shell on the legs. After they are done filming they remove the blue-suit from the frame and fill it in with CG. Thats how they did the much maligned Jar-Jar Binks. The guy playing him was Jar-Jar from the neck down and wore a base-ball cap for a frame of reference. Once filming was done, they replaced his head with Jar-Jar's.

That technique gives much better movement and a much more real look than straight CG.
 
ductonius said:
A lot of that CG wasnt really CG, but actually a guy (or, more likely a woman) wearing a blue-suit.

Yeah...but even if they use references and mo-cap and all that stuff I still think its considered CG right? I mean, Gollum IS considered to be CG...I think...
 
The problem with this machine is that it's 'judgement' is far off.
If you say, "I kicked your ass at Half-Life 2!" The machine would probably understand kick your ass and kill you.
Hmm, this could be effective on annoying Cs players...
 
Back
Top