Sure, but I don't think it will be with fire, viruses, bullets, and bombs.

If technology doesn't stop advancing, I think it's more likely we incorporate more and more technology into ourselves until it's all machine.

There's no reason for an AI to harm us. IMO that's thinking too human. We want to kill and dominate... but again that's necessarily true. Because if our ancestors hadn't had this drive, then we wouldn't exist in the first place.

No, I mean, I don't think people will allow their curiosity to be subjugated by disaster.

e.g. technology kills 100 million people. It's horrific. But we don't abandon it, I think we tell ourselves we'll learn from those mistakes and try again.

I agree that knowledge is good. Currently some research is taboo, but I expect it to be cyclical... in the future it will be acceptable, then possibly taboo again, then acceptable again, etc.

Can't tell if this is a joke, sorry :)

Yes, the plot of "protect humans is your priority" so it decides to lock us up and kill many of us to protect us from ourselves. Seems rather contrived to me though.

More likely something like we ask it to optimize a model for society. And of course humans with cybernetic implants are the smartest and best, so they run a lot of things. Those humans might use technology to f*** s*** up, but not a pure machine IMO.

But it doesn't compete to pass on its code the way we compete to pass on our genes. And there will be no random mutations in the code.

Maybe if we developed code that writes other code. Then we have multiple branches of self writing code and humans select the ones that give the best results. We may inadvertently select AI that is being written more aggressively or something.

Anyway, I think people too readily apply human motivation and behavior to non-human things. AI, IMO, is a great example. Aliens is another.

Maybe NT personalities. I think most of the population's idea of a full life is to f***, make babies, have dinner with friends, and that's it.

Not that I think that's so bad. I think that's pretty good actually. I'm not convinced our intelligence is of a high quality. We're smarter than dogs, but ok, not such an achievement.

Now you're assigning human psychology to AI so fiercely that you've imagined yourself as AI in your thought experiment!

Well, kind of. You still try to survive (you eat and drive the speed limit and things like this). You've talked in the forums before about wanting to be in a relationship.

You're not Genghis Khan spreading your stuff across a continent, but you're not exactly the poster child for rebelling against gene preservation ;)

But the pursuit is different from the accumulation. Like a compulsive buyer who shops online and cares nothing for the object after it's delivered.

I think curiosity is an excellent explanation.

Ok, ok, now it is off topic :)

The title said it clear: 

Data analysis: Difference between Male/Female ratings

So it is data, it is analysis, it is ratings.

No hormones, neurons, evaluation of ECO codes.

I understand all too well that a topic with a title

Why are women not as successful as men in chess?

can only become political and overheated and can only land off topic.

But why a topic which in its title is dry and specific in scope has to be bombarded to the ground by politics I can't understand.

I call myself lucky because there was a short period of grace at the beginning where there was useful discussion of the actual numbers thanks to InfiniteFlash, SilentKnight and others. So I was able to learn something.

Sometimes guys get distracted when they play a good looking lady 

Women have that advantage.

Hey InfiniteFlash, how goes the effort to reconstruct the charts in the OP sans inactive players?

Nice. Thank you.

hey look! the word "female" is in the title, i bet Elubas will be by to post soon.

What is # of breaks ?

Yeah, real classy, just calling me out like that.