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

In message <199707122208.SAA27289@smtp2.sympatico.ca>
	  Allan Goodall <agoodall@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> To my mind building an artificial intelligence is a
> mechanical (electro-mechanical or bio-mechanical) problem that has yet
to be
> solved.

Here here.

> Okay, now I KNOW why the SF writers don't like putting AIs in their
combat
> stories. Human conflict is interesting; reading a story about AIs
clashing
> is not (well, actually it can be, but good stories based on
artificially
> created characters are few and far between). For story purposes they
want
> humans on board that ship.

Though, as Iain M Banks proves, stories about AIs can be just
as interesting as stories about humans.

> 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.

I'm a bit more optimistic. I reckon we'll get them within 100
years, but it's one of those things that's difficult to predict.

> So, here's my proposal for automated system use in the FT universe.
This is
> probably not what Jon had in mind if, indeed, he had considered this
at all.
> However, I think it makes a reasonable starting point:

Okay, I've added my points after yours. A lot are reasons why
I see problems from a 'realistic' (as much as is possible when
predicting future tech) point of view.

> 
> 1) All fighters are fully automated craft. They are the direct
descendants
> of the automated combat aircraft of the 21st century. This very neatly
> explains the incredibly low survival rate of fighters in the FT
universe. :-)

Basically what I assumed. Remember also that a fighter that
doesn't need to carry around a life support system is going
to be faster, or have more room for weapons.

> 2) Most cruisers and larger ships in the various navies are human
manned but
> heavily automated. All sensor sweeps, targeting, and firing are done
by
> computers set on automatic (similar to--but far more advanced--than
the
> Phalanx system onboard modern US warships). Most damage control
systems are
> automated, but humans are still needed to do maintenance and repairs
in
> areas not easily accessed by robots. Most outside repairs are done by
robots. 

I'd guess that the humans do very little of the repair, but
act more as overseers of the robots. Combat is going to be
very boring for crews. They sit around and watch the computers
do all the targetting and firing of weapons.

> 3) Humans still run the big ships in the fleet.

Humans could run the battle from a small ship a few light seconds
from the battle zone. Leave all the snap decisions to the computers,
and just control the overall tactics via laser communicators.

This of course has problems with interception/forgery of orders
from C&C to the ships.

> 5) Sa'vasku not using artificial intelligence should be obvious.

Not at all. The problem, is that as soon as we have AI, the term
goes out of date. Who's to say that one mind is 'artificial', and
another isn't, if they both have the same capabilities? If human
minds can be uploaded into computers, and 'AI's' can be implanted
into a biological brain, then there really is no difference, and
labelling one as 'artificial' (which suggests inferiority), is no
different from any other form of racial discrimination.

> 6) Humans actually HAVE developed sapient AIs in secret military labs.
> However, they can't get any of them to risk their artificial selves to
fight
> a war (I've actually got a story idea for this scenario). Lacking the
human
> "frailties" of love, pride, hate, and personal sacrifice, they simply
won't
> risk themselves.

My argument would be that if these so called AIs don't have
emotions, then they haven't achieved human level sentience.
A sufficiently complex mind is going to have ideas about self
awareness and self preservation, which are emotions of a sort.
They will have goals, plans and priorities, some of which may
well put serving some other ideal above their own preservation,
just as humans do. I'd say they be no more willing to fight and
die than a human would, but they'd also be no less willing.

> They KNOW they don't have a soul and that for them there is
> nothing beyond this "life," so they damned well won't risk themselves.

I definately have to disagree here. I KNOW that I don't have a soul.
I also KNOW that you, and everyone else, don't have souls. I also
know people that KNOW that everyone has a soul. Does that mean that
they're more suicidally inclined than me? I don't think so...

Also, why should computers necessarily be atheists? The athiests
answer is that they're more intelligent than we are and are less
prone to silly superstitious beliefs...

The idea of machine religion though is one I find intriguing,
and definitely worth exploring.

> 7) While ships can be programmed to fight in space, the overwhelming
number
> of variables in ground combat mean that humans must still do the work
> dirtside. Computer advances have resulted in single man tanks and
artillery
> vehicles. Grunts are still grunts.

'AI' controlled drones and missiles would be common place I'd have
thought, and very deadly to grunts.

-- 
Be seeing you,
Sam.