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

At 10:09 AM 7/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>The problem comes when there are engagements after the first.
>The AI has no imagination and therefore has a hard time predicting what
a
>human will learn from the first encounter. 

Why? Why doesn't the AI have an imagination? This has been a staple for
years of SF (most recently with Data in Star Trek). There is an
assumption
that "true" biological intelligence is capable of imagination and
random,
unpredictable behaviour but that you won't get this if you build an
intelligence artificially. 

My belief is that the human brain can eventually be duplicated (and even
surpassed) through electronic engineering or biomechanical engineering.
At
that point, we'll have an artificially constructed intelligence that can
think, learn, and have an imagination.

Now, the question is whether you can put together an artificial brain
that
can run at faster speeds than the human brain. I think part of our
"imagination" and random thoughts comes from the strange way we store
information. Humans have a devil of a time working things through in a
logical, sequential manner. On the other hand, that same storage system
makes it possible for humans to jump to leaps of intuitive logic far
more
efficiently than a machine. 

The one problem human brains have is that they are essentially isolated
except through some pretty inefficient networking protocols: sight,
sound,
touch, smell, taste. If you could build an artificial mind that behaved
like
a human's, it may not be able to function any faster than a human mind.
However, it should be possible to build a massively parallel artificial
mind
that can behave logically, and intuitively, and FASTER than a human.

In short, humans won't be able to keep up with the machine's thoughts or
the
pace of war in such an environment. Add that to starships fighting at
speeds
far greater than the human mind can handle, and you've just made humans
useless.

One more thing: presumably it would be possible to run an artificial
brain
in a spaceship without the need for all those expensive life support
systems
needed for multiple humans. You could design the brain for a specific
ship.
If nothing else, an artificially controlled ship will be packed with
more
weaponry than is possible in a ship with a few hundred humans onboard.
You
won't need escape pods, for one thing.

>Computers react quicker but they have no intuitive learning ability
which
>will spell their doom every time.

CURRENT computers have no intuitive learning ability. I believe that a
true
artificial brain WILL have intuitive learning. At that point, humans
become
more of a liability than an asset.

>And have said all that, I think that AI in fighters is a very good
idea.
>Download the program of attack at the time of launch and let them go. 
Why
>would you risk a human on what is really a multi-attack drone?  In
figter
>combat reaction time and ability to hold your Gs is a little more
important
>than your learning curve anyway.

Actually, this is turning into one of the more interesting discussions
I've
had online in a while. I agree with you on your above point. In fact, in
my
suggested timeline a truly thinking brain that will happily fight a war
hasn't been invented yet. So humans are still needed for the actual
running
of the war, and the actual running of the ships in a tactical sense. You
point out the exact reason, though, why fighters should be automated. 

One other thing, you could probably program the fighters to update their
combat algorithms from transmissions coming from the carrier. Not only
would
the carrier supply sensor information, it would also supply updated
combat
parameters and tactical analysis.

Allan Goodall:	agoodall@sympatico.ca 
"You'll want to hear about my new obsession.
 I'm riding high upon a deep depression. 
 I'm only happy when it rains."    - Garbage