Robots.

[tufguy]

Can robots be started using as personal trainers in the future instead of human beings? If so, can it be done as soon as 2050? If this happens robots will start thinking themselves as humans and then it will create a problem for us.


Are my sentences correct?

 

[Glizdka]

Not a teacher
------

I think "Be started using" is wrong. You might want "Start being used" instead.

"Can robots start being used as personal trainers (...)"

 

[tedmc]

Can robots be[STRIKE] started using[/STRIKE] used as personal trainers in the future instead of human beings? If so, [STRIKE]can it be done [/STRIKE] will it be a reality [STRIKE]soon[/STRIKE]as early as 2050? If this happens, robots will start thinking[STRIKE] themselves as [/STRIKE] like humans and then it will [STRIKE]create [/STRIKE] be a problem for us.


Are my sentences correct?

.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Could robots start being used as personal trainers in the future, instead of human beings? If so, could it be done as soon as 2050? If this happens, robots will start thinking they are humans, and that will create a problem for us.

Are my sentences correct?

They are now.

At my house, we've been watching the Terminator movies. Believe me, personal trainers are the least of our problems!

 

[tufguy]

At my house, we've been watching the Terminator movies. Believe me, personal trainers are the least of our problems!

You should watch "Ex machina" if you haven't so far.

 

[Rover_KE]

In view of the speed at which AI and robotics are progressing, it wouldn't surprise me if that happened long before 2050.

 

[emsr2d2]

You should watch "Ex Machina" if you haven't [STRIKE]so far[/STRIKE] already.

Tufguy, how many times do we have to tell you to capitalise every word of film and book titles?

 

[probus]

In view of the speed at which AI and robotics are progressing, it wouldn't surprise me if that happened long before 2050.

But as Yogi Berra said: "Predictions are tough to make, especially about the future."

 

[tree123]

(I'm not a teacher.)

If this happens robots will start thinking themselves as humans and then it will create a problem for us.

I would use subjuctive mood for the sentence above, because it is not a fact but is based on the personal assumption or logic only. Am I wrong about the tense I would use?

Neither tedmc nor Charlie Bernstein has changed the tense. Would you or someone else please answer this question of mine?

---

P.S. May I ask a question on Charlie Bernstein's correction on this thread or I should create a new thread for it?

robots will start thinking themselves as humans

I wonder why the sentence above is corrected by Charlie Bernstein. Is it wrong to use the reflexive pronoun now here?

 

[jutfrank]

I would use subjuctive mood for the sentence above, because it is not a fact but is based on the personal assumption or logic only. Am I wrong about the tense I would use?

Your thinking is wrong, yes. It's perfectly appropriate to use a real (first) conditional there since tufguy is talking about a real future possibility.

I wonder why the sentence above is corrected by Charlie Bernstein. Is it wrong to use the reflexive pronoun now here?

Charlie made the sentence read better.

You could also correctly say ... thinking of themselves as human

 

[tree123]

Your thinking is wrong, yes. It's perfectly appropriate to use a real (first) conditional there since tufguy is talking about a real future possibility.

I'm not entirely convinced. What do you think about the explanation of usage of subjunctive mood from a website called 'grammarist'.

In English, the subjunctive moodis used to explore conditional or imaginary situations.

It’s used to explore hypotheticals:

I am not sure if tufguy is an IT scientist or professional. He is talking about a movie in this thread. In his words, he didn't say '...will POSSIBLY ....

Even he was a scientist and provided with the relevant theory, but the theory needs to be verified. Such a therory is called 'hypotheticals', isn't it? Many scientists in different disciplines have put forward all kinds of hypothesis, but later those failed to be established. I'm afraid that I can't even call tufguy's statement is hypothesis at all, but personal assumption or imagination only, though his thought is interesting.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not entirely convinced.

Not convinced by what?

What do you think about the explanation of usage of subjunctive mood from a website called 'grammarist'.

Yes, the sentence you quoted is accurate.

The use here is prediction, not hypothesis. The subjunctive mood is not used for prediction. The way to state a prediction like this is with a first (i.e. real, not unreal) conditional.

 

[tree123]

Not convinced by what?

Honestly I do have been very respecting you as you're an experienced teacher of English and native speaker, and I am not very convinced by your answer about the usage of subjunctive mood in the case of tufguy's. If so-called prediction of an individual's is without established scientistic theory, I would say that's just an imagination only SO FAR.

We've agreed the usage of subjuctive mood on the website. Do you agree if there're not solid facts or proofs in his remarks which can be considered as just his imagination only? Does any IT scientist put forward such an established theory and tell the public that will happen definitely?

I don't mean to talk about the IT science here. My point is imagination is supposed to use subjunctive mood.

A fortune-teller can 'predict' all kinds of things too AT WILL. Most of their predictions are nonsense.

It's said that Maya people 'predicted' the end of the world in 2012. That's nonsense too.

I don't claim tuyguf's words are nonsense, but I would say that's his imagination. How do you tell apart the defintions of 'imagination' and 'prediction'?

IMO, imagination = idea or thought is without facts, theory, survey, scientific research, etc.
prediction = ideas or thoughts are based on factors above more or less.


I don't intend to be rude or argumentative, and I don't try to challenge the English of you folk who are language experts. I am asking the grammar, just because I don't understand, and I hope someone can help me out. I admit my English is poor, but meanwhile I suppose teachers like you would encourage students or learners can have their independent thoughts even if we were wrong. I hope you, tufguy and possible other people will not be offended by my manner. If you are offended, I'd like to apologize. You can advise me how I should phrase my question and expressions more politely and acceptable.

 

[tree123]

Let's look at a simpler situation:

1. If my son loses his job in Turkey, he will go back to England.
2. If my son lost his job in Turkey, he would go back to England.

1. In this predictive conditional sentence, I am presenting my son's losing his job as a real possibility, and his return to England as a certainty in the event of his losing his job.

2. in this hypothetical conditional, I am presenting my son's losing his job as a far less real, more hypothetical, possibility. In the unlikely (as I see it) event of his losing his job, I see his return to England as a certainty.

I understood and agree the usage you illustrate.

I assume many fathers generally their sons very well - character, situation, job etc. In such a case, sentence 1 which is with predictive condition is very acceptable.

Tufguy's statement is based on - 'You should watch "Ex machina[sic]" if you haven't so far'? Ex Machina is not very different from a fariy tale. This is a science fiction movie.

I really appreciate you and jutfrank are trying to help me with my English in this thread and other threads. Can I just agree at disagreement now?

I don't think this question is really important to me, so I'd like to drop off the question of mine now. Maybe a few years later, I looked back upon the grammar, and I would agree with jutfrank in this case.

*Charlie Bernstein has advised me whether or not the wording is polite or friendly, it is largely depends on the manner. I do agree with him about this. However, someitmes, a person is polite, and s/he still can possibly be mistakenly interpreted as being aggressive. In Dale Carnegie's book, he actually advises his readers not to argue. Right, no matter how elegantly, politely the wording is employed, and how sincerely the manner is presented by the speaker, there's still a risk to possibly be misunderstood. Good night.

 

[probus]

In Dale Carnegie's book, he actually advises his readers not to argue.

That is because Dale Carnegie's goal was to help people become successful in selling things. Our goal as teachers is to help people improve their English. Therefore we have to correct students whose English is faulty.

 

[Tdol]

I imagine the Maya were pretty sure about their prediction. I may be wrong about the future, but there is a clear difference between something I think is on the cards and a long shot.

 

[Tarheel]

You can say something could happen. (It's a possibility.) You can also say it will happen. (You are sure it is going to happen.)

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Tufguy, how many times do we have to tell you to capitalise every word of film and book titles?

Pick a number!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'm not entirely convinced. What do you think about the explanation of usage of subjunctive mood from a website called 'grammarist'.

I have nothing to say about subjunctive moods. I'm simply telling you what normal, natural, proper usage is.

I am not sure if tufguy is an IT scientist or professional. He is talking about a movie in this thread. In his words, he didn't say '...will POSSIBLY ....

Even if he were a scientist and provided us the relevant theory, [STRIKE]but[/STRIKE] the theory needs to be verified.

Oh, come on. This isn't a debate society or science symposium.

Such a therory is called 'hypotheticals', isn't it? Many scientists in different disciplines have put forward all kinds of hypothesis, but later those failed to be established. I'm afraid that I can't even call tufguy's statement is hypothesis at all,

None of us would. It's not.

but personal assumption or imagination only, though his thought is interesting.

You have a choice at this forum: Learn from people who speak English or spar with people who speak English.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I understand and agree with the usage you illustrate.

I assume many fathers generally treat their sons very well - character, situation, job etc. In such a case, sentence 1, which is uses the predictive condition is very acceptable.

Tufguy's statement is based on - 'You should watch "Ex machina[sic]" if you haven't so far'. Ex Machina is not very different from a fariy tale. This is a science fiction movie.

Tufguy was making a joke.

I really appreciate that you and jutfrank are trying to help me with my English in this thread and other threads. Can I just agree to disagree now?

Always. You're welcome to tell us we're wrong. But when you do, you're usually missing the points advisors are trying hard to make. You're free to disagree, but it's more useful to learn.

I don't think this question is really important to me, so I'd like to drop off the question of mine now. Maybe a few years later, I will look back upon the grammar, and I will agree with jutfrank in this case.

*Charlie Bernstein has advised me whether or not the wording is polite or friendly. It is largely depends on the manner. I do agree with him about this. However, someitmes, a person is polite, and [STRIKE]s/he[/STRIKE] still can possibly be mistakenly interpreted as being aggressive.

Of course. The danger of communication is always being misunderstood. It's the human condition. We can only do our best to communicate clearly.

In Dale Carnegie's book, he actually advises his readers not to argue.

We can tell you're not a Carnegie devotee!

No matter how elegantly and politely the wording is employed [no comma] and how sincerely the matter is presented by the speaker, there's still a risk of possibly being misunderstood. Good night.

Sleep tight!