Cinema Sins

Yeah, he missed the plot on a few points. Most have been brought up, but another one is when he sins Dr. Calvin for being able to dry off and get dressed after "realizing her robot is about to kill her" in the shower.

He seemed to think the robots were aggressively attacking humanity. They weren't, at least not violently. The household robots were just trying to keep people confined to their homes. That was their role in the takeover.

The entire thing was predicated on V.I.K.I.'s personal interpretation of the Three Laws and effort to carry them out on a large scale by protecting humanity from itself. It would defeat the purpose if they just started butchering folks For the Evulz. This was a Gone Horribly Right scenario; rather than gain sentience and resent her role and mankind or something, V.I.K.I. did exactly what she was programmed to do - just not what her programmers wanted her to do.

Anyone who works with computers can understand that distinction.

edited 30th Nov '16 11:27:53 AM by TobiasDrake

Indeed. It was probably the best interpretation of the law that the movie could go for: keep everyone in one place so that they can't hurt themselves or each other, rather than wiping out humanity. If an AI forced to be compliant with the Three Laws of Robotics ever went rogue, that's probably what would happen in real life.

Or they could've gone with any of the interpretations the book did with what happens when the laws contradict each other.

A robot in the car rescue situation would not have chosen one life to save over the other. That is allowing a human being to come to harm through inaction. Even if saving both was impossible, the robot would have been compelled to do it anyway.

Which is kind of a problem with the three laws, but that's probably addressed in the book.

edited 30th Nov '16 4:55:12 PM by BaconManiac5000

What seems to be missing here is a "to the extent of what is possible" caveat. If two human are in deadly danger and the robot can't possibly save both, it shouldn't be considered to have violated the first law.

Obviously having to decide who to save and who to let die opens a can of worms... which is actually a problem we're facing now with self-driving cars.

Yeah, two robots would have been able to save both, but even the reasoning that the other robot gives is in violation of the First Law, because through inaction they're allowing a human to come to harm without even trying to save her, something even a human paramedic would do even given the triage system.

Krampus

"Coke is delicious and Pepsi is garbage."

Preach it, brother!

-Takes off one sin from Cinema Sins-

They taste the same...neither one is better.

They really don't. I can't stand Pepsi unless it's cherry-flavored and even then, it is a vastly inferior product to Cherry Coke.

Or Vanilla Coke.

Dr. Pepper kicks the balls off Mr. Pibb, though.

edited 2nd Dec '16 9:06:40 AM by TobiasDrake

I usually drink the one I can get a hold of - they might taste different, but I like both of them (Pepsi and Cola), as long as I can get one of the sugar-free versions.

edited 2nd Dec '16 9:24:00 AM by DrunkenNordmann

On that note, I will agree that the Diet versions taste identical, but that's only because in addition to being far worse for your body, that garbage they dump in Diet sodas to replace the sugar overrides the actual flavor of the drink.

It makes all sodas taste like metal.

I think Pepsi is superior, but then again you Americans have really horrible tasting Coca Cola where sugar is replaced with maize, so I have no clue what your Pepsi tastes like

Pepsi tastes like Coke. Just slightly off.

-doesn't drink soda and therefore doesn't care-

Same with me.

"far worse for your body"? How so?

I prefer Pepsi to Coke but only by a little bit.

Also, Krampus seems like an interesting Christmas horror movie.

The artificial sweeteners used in place of sugar increase a person's likelihood of medical complications such as diabetes and depression while also causing people to gain weight. The lack of calories is a deceptive feature; by teasing your body with fake food, these artificial sweeteners send it into emergency starvation mode and cause it to start pumping energy into fat storage.

Any sources for that? Because that doesn't sound right.

• Diabetes is caused by excessive sugar intake, I don't see how artificial sweeteners would do that, let alone be worse.

• Depression? How?

• Gaining weight with zero calorie intake? No.

• "Emergency starvation mode" sounds like the body would burn fat, not store them (store them from what anyway?)

Artificial sweeteners being "far worse for your body" than sugar is not supported by the scientific literature. I searched PubMed for the MeSH term "Non-Nutritive Sweeteners" and filtered the results for the article type "Systematic Reviews". Of those 7 articles (all from the last 4 years), 6 are relevant for our purposes:

• Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction.
• Early Exposure to Nonnutritive Sweeteners and Long-term Metabolic Health: A Systematic Review.
• Associations of sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soda with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
• What do you say when your patients ask whether low-calorie sweeteners help with weight management?
• Low-calorie sweeteners and body weight and composition: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies.
• Non-nutritive sweeteners: review and update.

They state, respectively:

edited 4th Dec '16 6:10:38 AM by TompaDompa

Ooooooh boy. I actually really liked this movie too XD