Charles Best Quotes

You may very appropriately want to ask me how we are going to resolve the ever-acceleratingly dangerous impasse of world-opposed politicians and ideological dogmas. I answer, it will be resolved by the computer. While no politician or political system can ever afford to yield understandably and enthusiastically to their adversaries and opposers, all politicians can and will yield enthusiastically to the computer’s safe flight-controlling capabilities in bringing all of humanity in for a happy landing.

Because I believe that humans are computers, I conjectured that computers, like people, can have left- and right-handed versions.

There's, you know, there's an ideology behind Ultron that makes him more unique that just a bad guy. He doesn't wanna just kill the Avengers. He doesn't wanna just destroy the world. He has these monologues and these beautiful speeches that kind of embody a certain mentality about what's wrong with humanity.

Modernity, the child of the Enlightenment, failed when it became apparent that the good society cannot be achieved by unaided reason.

Man is a fire-stealing animal, and we can't help building machines and machine intelligences, even if, from time to time, we use them not only to outsmart ourselves but to bring us right up to the doorstep of Doom.

I always divide people into two groups. Those who live by what they know to be a lie, and those who live by what they believe, falsely, to be the truth.

In a world that's smarter than it used to be and, in some ways, smarter than it ought to be, stupidity has a way of making us seem all the more human.

There are some problems that technology can't solve.

We are the greatest computers in this world, but now we've created the smart phone which is smarter than us now, but we're still making dumb decisions. We have given our creations more power than we have, and that to me is dumb.

The distrust and suspicion which men everywhere evidence toward their adversaries, at all states of historical development, may be regarded as the immediate precursor to the notion of ideology.

Among intellectuals who consider themselves 'scientific,' the phrase 'the nature of man' is apt to have the effect of a red flag on a bull.

The problem with humans is that they are unable to handle their own intelligence.

Man is a robot with defects.

The development of technology will leave only one problem: the infirmity of human nature.

Although technology is proceeding at a dizzying pace, I believe that the human mind will always have control of itself. And since the human mind has a degree of infinity and imagination unlikely to be matched by a machine for a very, very long time, I don't think that we will become the machines of the machines.

Either communism must die or Christianity must die because it's actually a battle between Christ and Anti-Christ.

Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.

Its typical of Mexico, of the whole human race perhaps — violence in favour of an ideal and then the ideal lost but the violence just going on.

We may hope that machines will eventually compete with men in all purely intellectual fields.

You put too much stock in human intelligence, it doesn't annihilate human nature.

Although we will hate and fight the machines, we will be supplanted anyway, and rightly so, for the intelligent machines to which we will give birth may, better than we, carry on the striving toward the goal of understanding and using the Universe, climbing to heights we ourselves could never aspire to.

The further a device is removed from human control, the more authentically mechanical it seems, and the whole trend in technology has been to devise machines that are less and less under direct human control and more and more under their own apparent will.

The 21st century will not be about the battle between capitalism and socialism but between the forces of progress and the forces of conservatism.

The original question, 'Can machines think?' I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion.

Since opposed principles, or ideologies, are irreconcilable, wars fought over principle will be wars of mutual annihilation. But wars fought for simple greed will be far less destructive, because the aggressor will be careful not to destroy what he is fighting to capture. Reasonable - that is, human - men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life.