"I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
With those iconic words, from the mutinous HAL 9000 of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, cinema-goers of 1968 were warned we might be in for a future where the machines we create turn against us.
Half a century later, the great robot revolution, or Judgment Day as another sci-fi classic called it, has failed to eventuate.
In the frightening future of 2017, our daily interaction with artificial intelligence software is typically limited to quizzing Siri for the day's weather forecast.
The most advanced forms of AI we have aren't all-knowing, all-seeing evil robots like HAL, but machine-learning tools we rely on to harvest the vast volume of data made available through the internet.
That's not to say all predictions missed the mark.
US futurist Ray Kurzweil, who envisions a technological "singularity" where AI becomes as truly intelligent as humans, famously forecast that by 1998, a computer would beat a human at chess.
With a year to spare, IBM's Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov in 1997.
Others are continually taken by surprise.
Last year, AlphaGo beat world champion Lee Sedol at Go - something researchers didn't think would happen for at least another decade.
What impact AI will have on our working lives remains unclear.
One headline-grabbing study out of Oxford University, suggesting that 47 per cent of all employment in the US was at risk of being replaced by computers and algorithms in the next 20 years, appeared overblown when set against findings of a forensic OECD investigation.
Of the 21 advanced nations the report looked at, only 9 per cent of jobs were "potentially automatable" - a far cry from the threatened mass robot redundancy.
Professor Albert Yeap, director of Auckland University of Technology's Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research, agrees such fears are probably overstated.
"AI is currently being developed in a useful way, on balance," he says.
"There will be job losses, but I think society will adapt and new opportunities will emerge, so there's no need to worry about this."
Kaila Colbin, the New Zealand ambassador of Silicon Valley think-tank Singularity University, nonetheless says the issue demands our close attention.
"I have study after study saying we should be terrified, and as many saying new jobs will be created and there's nothing to worry about."
The main point of disagreement, she says, is not whether jobs will go away - but whether new ones will be created.
And if that is the case, at best, we are facing a major transition, and at worst, mass unemployment.
"Meanwhile, a report from the Roosevelt Institute just came out that said a Universal Basic Income would add $2.5 trillion to the US economy.
"So why wouldn't we be starting to consider our options now?"
Whatever the case, most Kiwis don't appear to be fretting.
A Massey University study found 87.5 per cent of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics or algorithms could take my job".
But Yeap and Colbin - both speaking at Great Barrier Island's "Battle of the Brains" festival this weekend - agree the pace of innovation has become rapid, particularly because of developments in robotics, big data and the internet.
We're seeing extraordinary advances in image recognition, which self-driving cars need to identify a pedestrian, tree or stop sign.
Speech recognition is being used for real-time translation -- you can Skype with people who speak a different language and Skype will translate for you on the fly.
And big data analysis is leading to incredible discoveries about genetics, as well as powering something as mundane as your Google search results.
How we use robots is really limited only by our imagination, says Yeap, who has tracked the advent of bipedal, human-like androids.
We'll see them becoming more emotionally capable and providing critical services, such as performing surgery.
Perhaps the biggest barrier to achieving "true AI" lies in the way in which researchers were trained to develop AI software, Yeap says.
"The whole field is focused on performance-based modelling and if and when they try to model how the mind works, they will face a mind-modelling conundrum.
"For instance, how could they develop models of the mind when they have no idea what the mind computes?"
Researchers working in the cognitive sciences have been trying to figure out how the mind works for centuries - and they were still essentially in the dark.
Without this knowledge, AI researchers are at a loss in building true AI, and consequently, many don't even attempt to do so.
"Overlooking this challenge and focussing simply on performance-based modelling is a huge mistake, and it's a trend that saddens me," Yeap says.
"To date, the lessons humans have learned through evolution have not been incorporated into AI - and by not paying attention to the mind, the industry risks creating dumb but powerful machines."
So what can we expect in the short-term?
Yeap predicts big advances in the development of humanoids - two-legged, two-handed, human-like robots - and perhaps even artificial soldiers programmed to kill.
As scary as that might sound, Colbin says the real concern isn't with robots rebelling, but simply ignoring us in pursuit of their prime directive.
An example of this so-called "control problem" could be AI programmed to manufacture paper clips, becoming super intelligent, and ultimately using all of its resources to optimise production and potentially turn the entire planet into paper clips.
"The good news is that lots of very intelligent people recognise that this is the real problem, and are working hard to make sure we don't all turn into paper clips."
• Colbin and Yeap will be joined on this weekend's panel by Emeritus Professor Michael Corballis and Sir Richard Faull, with journalist and broadcaster Damian Christie moderating. For further information, visit the event's Facebook page.