Just watched a short programme on BBC News - AI Uncovered, talking about a Skynet scenario where AI takes over the world.
The American chap was asked how we'd stop it and he said using EMP. The presenter asked if it could cause more damage than it stopped and he said it would need a massive current of thousands of volts.
Our future is in the hands of somebody who thinks current is measured in volts people.
Well the person interviewing him clearly didn't know any better.
He was a BBC presenter :-)
It seems to be very common when there is even a hint of science etc. with interviewers.
And your point? I recall correcting John Craven, who in rehearsal described Colorado Beetles as being 5cm long... I've never seen one in my life, but I knew a plague of 2-inch beetles would merit more than a quick mention on the JC Newsround.
Not sure what you mean by "my point"?
Why would being a BBC presenter imply that he knew what he was talking about?
Indeed. BBC personnel are appointed on the basis of correct political ideology - not on general or scientific knowledge.
I think that's the general case throughout the world of journalism, not just the BBC! :-)
As a journalist, you keep a rolodex of people you trust on sciency matters, and they tell you the kinds of questions to ask, and what the answers should look like. These are people you contact "off record" to obtain information without giving a cite to such in the article.
Paul
The Forbin Project, a movie with a rather dreadful plot, displays what an intelligence could craft. And how it could outsmart its opponents. The movie is from 1970, and it did not have a big box office. But aspects of it are believable, especially how gullible the people in control are. Why, just like some of our AI promoters in fact.
The movie is available *for free* and is hosted on archive.org . It is 800MB or so. If you ignore the corny plot, at least some of the ideas are plausible. At least the public can come away from the thing, knowing that a "kill switch" on data centers is an absolute must. This is the kind of movie, it takes several days to view it, because you'll have to stop and do something else for a while. It's not engaging enough to watch straight through.
I especially like the scene near the end, where some military men are running away, because they think they can outrun a nuclear explosion, and the CIA? man continues to sit in his chair and just wait for it. At least one individual in that scene, realizes the futility of running.
*******An EMP can be generated by a nuclear explosion. The energy can penetrate war machines with tiny gaps in the metal work, and silicon chips do not handle this well. Vacuum tubes are supposed to be more resistant.
Whereas nukes delivered for surface damage potential, would explode at a lower altitude, and their EMP may not be felt quite as far away. It would take purposeful high altitude explosions to do more widespread damage. And there are no examples of what would happen with a 100Mt device at 400 kilometres.
There is a good chance, during mutually assured destruction, that mankind would be reduced to cavemen, with much of their toys disabled. You may not be burned to a crisp, but you have nothing to warm your can of beans upon. The fuels won't last long, as there is potentially nothing to pump them. Natural gas pipelines, use some of the gas in the pipe, to run the pump. I doubt the entire network runs that way.
The question then, is when it comes to programmed trajectories, how many of the munitions are set to 400 kilometers ?
Paul
These are not just any journalists - these are *BBC journalists*.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required