Talk:Synbot

I know that this article fails the Google test and is somewhat in contradiction with Avoid neologisms, but given the gravity of the subject I think this type of bot merits an article. --ASU 16:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

threats and dangers?
This section appears fanciful. Computer graphics simulations of people cause trauma? --MarkWahl 00:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, really, it's not. Psychological and emotional trauma, yes. Physical trauma, undocumented, but plausible. --ASU 21:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Presumption
This looks to be a deliberate signal-to-noise reduction operation. The article should be slightly less presumptuous of the current state of the art and/or merged with a more general article on simulacra/disinformation. Incidentally, has anyone made an entry for the tracking patterns in printouts created by laser printers? O&V

Simply Outlandish
I was linked to this page by Disinformation, where ASU described it as the "most advanced disinformation weapon ever", which seemed like a joke to me. It turns out that the person who made this article wanted synbots to seem downright fantastical. This cutting edge form of technology is nothing more than mere movie magic. The article suggests that synbots have been designed as weapons of disinformation rather than just tools for 3D rendering. I must say, before I read this article I knew nothing about Synbots. I yet have no idea what they are or (more importantly) how they are used. Is any group really planning on using these to promote disinformation? I figure they are simply the tools of the trade in cinematography. Unfortunately, now that I've read this article, I know even less. I have been thoroughly disinformed.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. It just seems like this article endows synbots with more traits than they really have. David

lol wut?
Time-travelling computer simulations designed to destroy memory? How exactly does that work without some sort of mind beam beaming the characters directly into your mind?

I don't see any indication in the article that the writer is talking about a fictional technology, so what basis is there exactly for this claim that some malevolent force is in control of memory implantation rays that replace your childhood with a Pixar film?

Arguably, it could be said that digital actors on television may become real enough that people would not realize they are watching a special effect, but it's a tremendous leap to say that this is the most dangerourous weapon of all history.

It sounds like a silly conspiracy theory. --Mech