Re: AI in FT (was Re: Be gentle...)

Silly, I don't know about that.  We won't really know untill we actually
get to outer space with large craft.  I think authors are using modern
examples for their numbers.  Using Aliens and 2001 as benchmarks is just
switching from one hypothesis to another.

Paul Calvi wrote:

> Well Keith Laumer's Bolo series is probably the best example of AI at
> work
> (as well as some of Asimov's Robot stuff). I think in general though
> Sci-FI
> writers assume (perhaps correctly) that AI will never achieve the
> ability
> to replace man in battle where all is chaos. Of course it IS silly
> that
> space ships still have hundreds of crewman. Even 2001 and Aliens had
> only a
> handful of crew to run a ship.
>
> Paul
>
> At 06:08 PM 7/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >--snip--
> >Once again, what level of AI use is in place in Full Thrust? The FT
> universe
> >is only about 200 years in the future. That's long enough to make a
> true,
> >sapient AI still an unobtained goal. However, there should be no
> reason for
> >manned fighters that far in the future. The next generation of aerial
>
> >fighter under design in the US and Europe will probably be unmanned.
> The
> >rigors of battle and advances in computer science and aeronautics are
>
> >resulting in humans being the weakest point of an aircraft. Certainly
>
> >today's aircraft can survive G loads well beyond the limits of their
> human
> >operator. I don't see why fighters need to be controlled by humans
> ala
> >_Babylon 5_ in the FT universe, when it's likely we will have
> automated
> >fighter aircraft by the first or second decade of the next century.
> The same
> >can be said for the small escort ships in FT.
> ---snip---
> >Allan Goodall:  agoodall@sympatico.ca
>
> -----
> Paul J. Calvi Jr.
> tanker@rahul.net
>
> "Objective, Offense, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of
> Command,
> Security, Surprise, Simplicity"
>
> 15SEP16