# The day <the> robots turn on us



## Phoebe1200

_NCIS _
Two tech analysts talking.

*Nell:* What's your greatest fear?
*Eric*: The day* the* robots turn on us.
*Nell: *Artificial intelligence run amok. Nothing scarier.


What's the reason for the definite article?

Is he talking about some robots that already exist or some future time when there are more robots in our world and which one day turn on mankind?


----------



## RedwoodGrove

It's kind of like why we say "the people" instead of just "people". It's a specific class of beings. It includes all the robots.

"... government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."
_Gettysburg Address, _Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you!



RedwoodGrove said:


> It's kind of like why we say "the people" instead of just "people".


And when do we say this?


----------



## RedwoodGrove

It's the same as saying "the public" or the people of a nation. We could go back and forth on this. I understand Russian doesn't use articles so that's why I provided an example in one of the most famous speeches in American history. You can't just say "people" without an article if you mean "the people" as a class. If you just say "people", it means some or many or all.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time."  Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Phoebe1200

What robots do you think he's talking about?


----------



## RedwoodGrove

He's talking about a hypothetical future such as you see in movies or read in books, in which there is a class of beings called "robots". When you refer to them as existing or acting as a cohesive group, you say "the robots". If you went back a century or so, you would refer to "the lower classes" or "the hoi polloi".

Robots are very useful. (a general statement about any, most, or all robots)
Robots need maintenance. (the same)
The robots have all malfunctioned. (as a class)
The robots enjoyed the Christmas season. (the same)


----------



## Englishmypassion

RedwoodGrove said:


> You can't just say "people" without an article if you mean "the people" as a class. If you just say "people", it means some or many or all.



But why does "cats/humans" in the sentence "Cats/Humans have a sharp sense of smell" mean all the cats/humans? Because it does.   Right?

That usage ( e.g. _the robots_) is my nemesis.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Nothing is perfect, including my definitions. Perhaps the usage pertains to the class limited to a certain locality.: "The cats are looking very hungry. We should get in the car and leave." (Our house.) Or: Alfred Hitchcock's, _The Birds. _(Bodega Bay) Or:_ The Planet of the Apes _(All the planet and all the apes.) Generalized class statement don't use the article. (?)

Statements about general characteristics don't use an article.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Thanks a bunch, RG. Not your fault -- you didn't design/code English.

But "robots" has been used in its widest sense there, hasn't it? I don't think it means only the robots in a particular locality, not even a particular country.

Yes, when a plural noun is used in its widest sense, to represent the whole class, no article is usually used before it. That's what the grammar books I've read say, though they do list exceptions like words referring to religions/castes/nationalities, etc, which, surprisingly, often follow the rule rather than behaving as exceptions.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

In this sense, I believe, it means all the robots of the world. If you just say "robots" (no article) it means that some significant percentage rise up, whether a majority or minority.


----------



## Stan0

There is a very useful trick for Russians (and perhaps speakers of other languages, that don't have articles): use possessive pronouns wherever possible.
Like the people choose freedom -- our people choose freedom, the dog barks -- my dog barks. You literally can't place a pronoun unless it makes sense. And in all cases, when you can, it means, that it should have been definite article there.

To some extent it works backwards. If he says the robots, he probably means "our robots", not just some robots, which may come from another galaxy or another dimension. 

P.S. Consider the following:
- What is your worst fear?
- The day robots start a war on us.
- Do you mean our robots or some synthetic life form like the Reapers from Mass Effect?

In op they both talk about "turning on" and "running amok" meaning it's about robots, that we created.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Stan0 said:


> 1. To some extent it works backwards. If he says the robots, he probably means "our robots", not just some robots, which may come from another galaxy or another dimension.
> 
> 2. In op they both talk about "turning on" and "running amok" meaning it's about robots, that we created.



1. Sorry but that explanation doesn't really hold water because that way we can use "our" for everything in the world: our machines/computers/trees/animals/sharks/snakes/cobras/etc.

2. Yes, if that was the case, I'd have no problem understanding the usage, but that seems an unlikely scenario -- RG also confirms that they are using "robots" in its widest sense.


----------



## Stan0

1. No, you can't. 
Like 
"... government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."
but
- People are sapient. They will see the truth and do the right thing.
- A human being is sapient. People tend to be stupid, dangerous animals and you know it.
Here you can neither say our people, nor the people.  Well, depending on the context, you just might. If you're talking to some green guys from a flying pan.  Or more realistically a foreigner, but without context it is about people in its widest sense, right? 

2. And as I have already pointed out, it may well be wrong. They are not talking about synthetic life in the universe, they talk about our robots going out of control, don't they?


----------



## Englishmypassion

You say "the robots" does not mean robots from other galaxies but our robots or the robots in this world. By that logic, we can say the computers that do not come from other galaxies are our computers, hence "the computers". But we say "Computers  calculate faster and more accurately than men/humans " -- we don't use "the" before "computers" as we are using it in its widest sense to include all known computers, that is, computers existing in the world.


----------



## se16teddy

Englishmypassion said:


> But why does "cats/humans" in the sentence "Cats/Humans have a sharp sense of smell" mean all the cats/humans?


1. Cats/robots/Italians have a sharp sense of smell.
2. One day the cats/robots/Italians are going to turn on us.
I feel that in 2 the cats/robots/Italians are a more clearly defined group because they have a common sense of purpose. They are not just a class: they are aware of their identity as a class: their class consciousness is heightened!


----------



## VicNicSor

se16teddy said:


> 1. Cats/robots/Italians have a sharp sense of smell.
> 2. One day the cats/robots/Italians are going to turn on us.
> I feel that in 2 the cats/robots/Italians are a more clearly defined group because they have a common sense of purpose. They are not just a class: they are aware of their identity as a class: their class consciousness is heightened!


In addition, '1' means that *any *cat*, at all times, has a sharp sense of smell. It's a generalization. While '2' talks about particular robots -- the ones that will exist at a particular point of time ("day") in the future.

*I would say "dogs", not "cats".


----------



## Stan0

Englishmypassion said:


> You say "the robots" does not mean robots from other galaxies but our robots or the robots in this world. By that logic, we can say the computers that do not come from other galaxies are our computers, hence "the computers". But we say "Computers calculate faster and more accurately than men/humans " -- we don't use "the" before "computers" as we are using it in its widest sense to include all known computers, that is, computers existing in the world.


Yes, "Computers calculate faster and more accurately than men/humans" means all the computers, that existed, exist, will be made and generally they are better in calculations. The dialog is about robots that turn on us, obviously, it means, robots that are created by us, have existed alongside us and then they switch behavior. I don't insist that my idea is 100% valid (I would find it hard to believe that it is at all possible to have such universal rule), but I don't see why it is not clear, that it's not about robots in the widest sense, it's about these robots that are being developed, produced and introduced into our lives.
To say it in other words, speaker does not imply, that robots are by their nature bound to get hostile, he fears that our version of them may fail.


----------



## se16teddy

VicNicSor said:


> In addition, '1' means that *any *cat*, at all times, has a sharp sense of smell. It's a generalization. While '2' talks about particular robots -- the ones that will exist at a particular point of time ("day") in the future.


I'm sure this is not right. "The" is not drawing a distinction between then and now. It is saying something about the cohesion of the class. They are a threat because they are acting with one mind.
_The cats/robots/Italians might turn on us tomorrow._


----------



## jmichaelm

Using the article "the" in this case identifies the group as having a certain coherence and thus purposeful action.

For example, "During the Cold War Americans were afraid _the_ Russians would attack." makes it clear we mean the government of USSR acting in an organized way. Whereas, "During the civil rights unrest of the 60s many white Americans were afraid blacks would attack them." is a statement about a class of people, but it does not attribute an organized structure or clarity of purpose to the group.

In the case of robots, this sense of purposeful action makes the statement seem more threatening (or humorous) because they lack the ability to have a sense of purpose (so far...).


----------



## Englishmypassion

VicNicSor said:


> While '2' talks about particular robots -- the ones that will exist at a particular point of time ("day") in the future.



I don't understand how.


Cross-posted (my slow internet connection delayed it too much)


----------



## VicNicSor

se16teddy said:


> "The" is not drawing a distinction between then and now. It is saying something about the cohesion of the class.
> _The cats/robots/Italians might turn on us tomorrow._


Yes, but they are still particular robots that will exist on that day, they don't include the robots that existed before, or will exist in a more distant future.
But when you say "Dogs have a sharp sense of smell", you mean the class regardless of time -- any dog that ever lived, lives or will live.

You can say "*a dog *has a sharp sense of smell", but you can't say "the day when *a robot *will turn on us"...


----------



## Oddmania

It's an interesting question, and I think se16teddy and jmichaelm are on the right track. Jmichaelm's examples make perfect sense to me. I still think "...were afraid _the _Blacks would attack them" would be acceptable, though, albeit giving the sentence a pretty racist tone, as if all Black people made up a threatening, isolated group (_the _Blacks, like _the _Nazis or _the _Communists).


VicNicSor said:


> You can say "*a dog *has a sharp sense of smell", but you can't say "the day when *a robot *will turn on us"...


You actually can. Why not? _The day I let *a* robot attack me is the day pigs fly!_

"_Bean dreams of the day when *a *prominent active male athlete in a team sport acknowledges being gay._" - Associated Press
"_...Waiting for the day when *a *prominent nutrition researcher appears on national TV to apologize for his blind adherence to the low-fat dogma._" - Mens Health
"_I never thought I'd live to see the day when *a *man walked on the moon._" - San Francisco Chronicle
"_I'd like to see the day when *a *doctor has a stethoscope in one pocket and a floppy disk with our program on it in the other._" - Science News​


----------



## VicNicSor

Oddmania said:


> You actually can. Why not? _The day I let *a* robot attack me is the day pigs fly!_


Well, you can, but it changes the meaning. I will not be "the rise of the machines", which is what is meant in the OP, but just an isolated incident.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

I haven't had the chance to read the whole thread, but Stan0's suggestion seems pretty accurate and helpful as a rule of thumb.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Englishmypassion said:


> Yes, when a plural noun is used in its widest sense, to represent the whole class, no article is usually used before it.


Could you give an example?



RedwoodGrove said:


> In this sense, I believe, it means all the robots of the world.


Could you tell me what sense that is?  And are you talking about 'no article' or 'the' here?


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> _NCIS _
> Two tech analysts talking.
> 
> *Nell:* What's your greatest fear?
> *Eric*: The day* the* robots turn on us.
> *Nell: *Artificial intelligence run amok. Nothing scarier.
> 
> 
> What's the reason for the definite article?
> 
> Is he talking about some robots that already exist or *some future time* when there are more *robots in our world* and which one day *turn on mankind*?


They will say to each other "It is time to attack the humans".  Same "the".


----------



## Englishmypassion

Phoebe1200 said:


> Could you give an example?



I have already done that: _*Computers* can calculate faster that humans._

Some more examples:
_
*Cats* have glittering eyes.
*Boats* are usually made of wood.
*Hummingbirds* can fly backwards too.
*Androids* are *robots* that look and act like *humans*. _(I suppose it's correct too.)


----------



## Phoebe1200

I'm confused.

If '*No article*' represents the whole class, then what does a plural noun with '*the*' represent ????


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> If '*No article*' represents the whole class, then what does a plural noun with '*the*' represent ????


See #6 for an illustration of usage.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I still don't get it. 

Does saying "the robots" include only some robots and not all the robots?


----------



## JulianStuart

Maybe  It's not as precise an issue as you would like it to be - the speaker is not trying to make the distinction you are.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Could you explain to me what the difference is between this?


The tiger is a dangerous animal.
Tigers are dangerous animals.​


----------



## Englishmypassion

Sentence 1 talks about the class tiger or the species known as tiger. The idea is not that of an individual tiger but the species. 
Sentwnce 2 talks about all the tigers in the world/all individual tigers in the world.


----------



## Phoebe1200

But doesn't "The tiger is a dangerous animal" include all the tigers in the world?


----------



## Englishmypassion

Phoebe1200 said:


> But doesn't "The tiger is a dangerous animal" include all the tigers in the world?



No, it doesn't talk about all individual animals-- it talks about the species, as one class, and the species then includes all the tigers in the world!  (No, no, put that gun down, please.)

That's how it is in English -- too complex and difficult for learners but necessary to understand to understand the usage of articles well.


----------



## Phoebe1200

But basically both 

_The tiger is a dangerous animal.
Tigers are dangerous animals.
_

is saying the same thing but simply using different ways, right?


----------



## Englishmypassion

Practically yes, grammatically/linguistically/conceptually, no.

"I had twelve bananas" and "I had a dozen of bananas" mean the same number of bananas but the article usage and singularity-plurality differ.


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes - they are linguistically distinct ways of communicating the same idea.

I have only skimmed the thread, but note that in this question context is important.

Cats have a keen sense of smell : we understand that this means cats in general, and essentially all cats 
Robots are turning on us : we understand that this means some robots
The robots are turning on us : we understand this as all robots.
Robots do not have emotions : we understand this as all robots.

Note that it is not the sentence structure which determines the effect of an article or imposes an article choice - it is also the idea being expressed and how this fits with previous understanding.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Phoebe1200 said:


> The tiger is a dangerous animal.
> Tigers are dangerous animals.


So, both of these mean exactly the same thing except for the fact that they're expressed differently grammar-wise?   And I can use either of them to convey the same meaning?


----------



## VicNicSor

Phoebe1200 said:


> So, both of these mean exactly the same thing except for the fact that they're expressed differently grammar-wise?   And I can use either of them to convey the same meaning?


"*A* tiger is a dangerous animal." would mean the same too. But all these are different from the OP. You could only say "*the robots*" in "The day the robots turn on us." *Not *"a robot", "the robot", or "robots".


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> So, both of these mean exactly the same thing except for the fact that they're expressed differently grammar-wise?   And I can use either of them to convey the same meaning?


This is the same question as #36, which we already answered in #37  and #38. 
But Vic raises an important point - it is only true for the tiger case and not for the OP. The other options are possible but the meaning changes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> The other options are possible but the meaning changes.


Sorry, just to clarify, here you're talking about the OP, right?



Glasguensis said:


> Robots are turning on us: we understand that this means some robots
> The robots are turning on us: we understand this as all robots.


And this is how the meaning changes, right?


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes and yes.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks a million everyone for being so helpful!


----------

