Re: AI's in full thrust

Ryan Montieth Gill wrote:
> 
> Really smart AI's would probably still take up a considerable amount
of
> space.
> 
> As far a judgement and AI's  on capital and smaller ships. One
generally
> wants crewmen/seamen on hand for damage controls, maintanance and
such.
> The current trend with modern naval vessels is Big systems that are
smart,
> but manual controls for contingencies. Smaller vessels have more
> automation and single civil style systems ( single prop shafts,
etc...)
> and reduced weapons fits. They are very easy to mission kill as a
result.
> 
> The Sulaco would have been in deep trouble had she suffered any major
> damage in a naval engagement. The colonial marines also failed in
their
> mission because of a reliance on computers.
> 
> Big capital ships still have a large complement of sailers/officers to
> handle duties and tasks. You want experienced commanders in the CICs
on
> those naval vessels handling the delacate situations, not computers.
> 
> As far as fighters go, Jamming and countermeasures can work
surprisingly
> well on smart weapons. Even brilliant weapons will have trouble with
some
> of the newer countermeasures. Having a human operator to fudge the
pickle
> onto where he thinks the target is can really help in sticky
situations.
> Don't forget, they had AI's in Star Wars. All the droids and
computers.
> Every Fighter had an AI (ok the x wings). The R2 units. Some computers
> were more single funct, others were more multi-purpose.
> 
> One book to look for is a large hardback called Great Space Battles.
Thats
> got FT written all over it. Interceptor carriers, small escorts,
capital
> ships, etc. The story goes that Earth's space navy has developed a
> dependance on automated systems with AI's at their core. Earth gets
into a
> war with a pair of planets in the Laguna System after a colony ship is
> attacked and destroyed. The fleet sent to investigate gets their butts
> handed to them by a smaller force. The Lagunans have a jamming system
that
> disables the AIs thus crippling the Earth Fleet. Earth is forced to
pull
> older ships from mothball that have simpler computers that are immune
to
> the jamming and that have humans at their core/controls.
> 
> AI's can also backfire. 2001 and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress are both
> good examples. Every one knows why HAL had problems. He was given
> conflicting orders. To lie and not to lie. So he killed F. Poole,
> Kowalski, and the two other scientist. End result, mission failure.
The
> the Moon... the commo/control net for the Lunar Penal Colony reaches
> sentience and sides with the rebels.
> 
> So in summary, why not allow AI's but.. If I were to build a ship I
would
> not forget the important human factor. You gotta have humans there to
fix
> the bugs, fix the damage and to show finesse and intuition when the
AI's
> are unrealiable. They should be used to reduce the workload of the
humans
> and assist where ever possible. Replacing humans entirely would be a
> disaster waiting to happen. (Aliens, 2001, Alien, Great Space Battles)
> 
> - Ryan Montieth Gill	/|\   Scotland Forever	DoD# 0780/AMA/SOHC -
> - _ryan.gill@turner.com or labrg@emory.edu_	'85 CB700S 'Mehev' -
> - I speak not for CNN, nor they for me.   '72 CB750K 'The Barge' -
> - www.mojoski.com/~rgill	       '76 MonteCarlo 'Bumblecrow' -
> ---		  Senator Koella Should go to JAIL !!		 ---
> --- Kill someone and leave the accident you should go to jail! ---

I was watching "beyond 2000" on television the other day.  They had an
artical about these group of researchers attempting to put a single
neuron (as software) into a computer.  The program required an entire
supercomputer just to process that one neuron!	And the supercomputer
could barely keep up!  That one neuron was processing 150,000 inputs
from  other neurons.  The average human brain has about 6000 neurons...

I think this means that AIs at human-level intellegence is a ways off...
This does not write off Lt Commander Data or the Bolos, ect.  It just
shows how much computing power it takes to make their intellegence
possible!  COOL! 8-)

Donald Hosford