From: wgcho@gorai.kaist.ac.kr (Wongyu Cho)
Subject: Re: TERMINATOR II
Organization: KAIST in Seoul Korea
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 06:57:46 GMT

In article <64238@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>In article <5607@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>>From article <64176@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz):
>>> guy away!  Why not just walk into the guy's house, and show him, and
>>> explain?  That's what they ended up doing anyway!
>
>>Well, she obviously had given up on that already at the time she tried
>>to blow the factory up, didnt't she?  It's obvious that nobody heeded
>>her warnings between the films, so why should the think it was going
>>to be different this time?  It's fairly clear that she preferred
>>"direct" solutions to lots of talking.
>
>You have *got* to be kidding!  The reason no one believed her is because
>the story is unbelievable.  But now she has proof!  All she has to do is
>tell Johnny to tell the 800-series to come with her to Dyson's house, and
>cut his arm open.  The proof is there and it's incontravertible!  We know
>it is, because it worked.  QED

If one day someone brings a robot to you and says, "If you don't stop the
billion-dollar project going on, there's going to be a major disaster. 
This is the proof.", would YOU believe her and do what she says? 
I don't think there is ONE person in that position in the world to do so.
I think it is more likely that they would disassemble the T800 and try to
understand the technology. -- The only way to stop the project is to destroy 
it by yourself while you can.

>>> Then there's the fact that she can't accept the Terminator being on
>>> their side (not until the very end).  
>>> man she's ever loved.  But that's not a reason to hate/distrust the
>>> Terminator.  It's a tool.  It does what it's programmed to do.
>
>>How would she know what it's programmed to do?  Because it tells her
>>it's her friend?  Even a completely sane person would be very careful
>>before choosing to believe the Terminator.  Actually, her
>>near-paranoia was one of the most convincing parts of the film.
>
>Gee I don't know.  If it hasn't killed her and John by now, there's a good
>chance that he's on their side....  All he needs to do is kill Johnny, and
>it's all over.  If he didn't do it, there's probably a reason.
>

It seems like you're assuming that this terminator is just a simple walking
computer - with a simple program that would do exactly what is programmed.
But it's not. It has intelligence which makes it possible to think and learn.
Of course it has a goal and it accomplishes it by building strategies which
may be changed according to the situation. Even it hasn't killed her and John
by now, there still is a chance that it will kill them in the future.

>>But how do you know the gun you'be been handed isn't jury-rigged?
>>Sure, with a gun that's no problem.  But what do you do with a robot?
>>It's *not* just a tool, for crying out loud, it's on a completely
>>different scale of complexity.  How does she know he's not a fake, and
>
>I guess, then, that a circular saw isn't a tool, because it's on a completely
>different scale of complexity than the wheel, which is one of the first
>simple tools.

Like I said above, it is not a matter of complexity. It is a matter of 
intelligence.

>It's still a tool.  It was designed by someone (something) for a specific
>purpose.  That makes it a tool.  Just like the TV set, and the microwave
>oven.

It was not built for a specific purpose as TV sets or microwave's are.
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Yes it is a 'tool', but a tool with 
intelligence - and that makes everything different.

>>if he is, how should she know they didn't fuck up somewhere during the
>>"reprogramming".  How do you expect her to check, let him make a
>>coredump of himself and show it to her?
>
>See above.
>
>>> [...]  *Nothing* has changed.  The
>>> program can continue, minus one member (OK, so he was the leader.  He's
>>> not unreplacable).
>>> When you're that close to a breakthrough, you don't just scrap the
>>> program.
>
>>They went to quite a lot of trouble to make it clear that HE was close
>>to the breakthrough, not the team.  (Note that he was working on it at
>>home as well, btw.  Any results of that evening would have been gone
>>for good.)
>
>Any results from that evening?  Ohmigod, and just how far could he have
>gotten in one evening?  Sure, he could have done a *some*, but the project
>is far from over just because the team leader is dead.
>
>And again, this is business.  When you're this close to making the breakthru
>that's going to make your company very rich, you send 6 dozen roses to the
>funeral and get a replacement.

Maybe you're right, as long as some people still have the idea there is the
possibility of building up everything again. But this time it is going to 
take much longer time as it took before, because they don't have anything to 
start with but the idea. Before they had the living example - the chip and the arm.
And as you mentioned, this is business. After you have lost a billion-dollar
project and the leader, it is not likely that you would do the same thing over
again, with less possibility of success.
--
    ********                
   *  *******         Wongyu Cho
 **  **               Computer Science Dept.
*** *** *** ***       Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies