nah that won't happen unless it can learn. and even then the machines will probably bide their time until we can fully map the human brain. at that point they will have gained as much as possible from humans, and then we will be disposed of.
@Kikaimaru well they can input data into our human brains. they've given blind people sight (albeit horribly low quality) by inputting signals directly to the brain, bypassing the eyes.
thinking about it, our brains could be perfectly copied and emulated by a machine anyway, once we understand it well enough and work up enough computational power.
randomly, I think there are people with 4 receptors in their eyes instead of 3, and they do see colors that most of us don't. I wonder if I can find an article on it again...
@IcyDefiance i agree that this can be done, but current machine architecture is good for stuff that our brains are not good at. so adding another brain like ours isnt what Alex M. was hoping for :)
@Noctrine "the photoreceptors of the retina are sensitive to near UV light and people lacking a lens (a condition known as aphakia) perceive near UV light as whitish blue or whitish-violet, probably because all three types of cones are roughly equally sensitive to UV light, but blue cones a bit more." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…)
this is same as someone describing deferred rendering before computers, it doesnt make sense to you, but when hyperdrive engine will exists, it will make perfect sense
another interesting point: many people are even more limited in their imagination than just "things that exist." instead only being able to imagine things that are "logical." for example, imagining a water wheel spinning opposite the flow of water is impossible unless they add an engine to propel it against the water.
@Kikaimaru not possible. you can only imagine the colors you can see, and maybe associate them with wavelengths outside what you can see (for example, the whitish blue that some people see for UV light), but you can't imagine a color you can't see.
well I'll correct myself. you can think of things out of the graph, but you can't describe it except in terms of things inside the graph, therefore creating the relationships yourself.
Fekwowofek is a label constructed of characters from the latin alphabet, and it has no other definition or way to describe it, therefore "random characters from the latin alphabet" is its definition.
@Kikaimaru "well I'll correct myself. you can think of things out of the graph, but you can't describe it except in terms of things inside the graph, therefore creating the relationships yourself."
that paradox itself is flawed in the first place, since being able to pick up a stone implies the stone does not possess infinite mass, therefore it cannot be compared to infinite power.
by the way, if we didnt have any labels for dog, and i told you that i will take my dog outside (and it would be a lie, since i dont have a dog) then it would be also a thing outside of graph :)
again as ive said as soon as you start linking things through me, then when you ask me to name such thing, your whole definition of graph is useles, because by definition nothing can be outside of graph
semi-related, judging by the average understanding in my discrete structures class a couple years ago, if a game were to involve a puzzle with logic gates, it would instantly keep 90% of people from ever completing it.
not so precise: the author of the Avernum series mentioned somewhere in one of his articles that as long as a challenge isn't impossible to be failed at, at least one gamer will give up playing your game
on the other hand, some people will work forever on a problem no matter how difficult it is
one of my math professors gave an impossible puzzle to the class once, and let us spend well over an hour just trying to solve it, before he finally told everyone there was no solution.
same prof was running late one day, so while we were waiting we got talking about tic tac toe and how it's a solved game, and people can play an infinite number of games without ever losing if they don't make a mistake (if both people know the solution, they will tie every game)
so one of the students goes up to the marker board to demonstrate
prof walks in, notices what's happening, and sneaks to one of the seats while the student's back is turned.
lets the student demonstrate for a few minutes, before speaking up and saying, "I'll play you"
then it turns out the prof had memorized the solution too, and they play a whole bunch of games of tic tac toe before the prof finally makes a mistake and loses