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

>Robert Crawford writes:	
>	Redundancy. There was a great Niven and Pournelle short story
>(I can't remember the title, but it was _supposed_ to be the opening
>to _Mote in God's Eye_) that has a highly automated, self-running ship
>against a standard, heavily-manned ship. The self-automated ship
>didn't have enough people to take casualties _and_ handle the damage
>to the automatics.

The story is called "Reflex", and can be found in the collection
entitled
"There Will Be War", (vol. 1 of 10), published by Tor.

In addition, any AI would initially be programmed with necessary logic
and
"learning" functions, but at what point in its development would the AI
be
able to duplicate the human thought process to create and implement an
'original', unique tactic that it hadn't encountered before? Without
that
ability present, you'll have autonomous fleets using identical tactics
(or a
huge programming staff, which makes the basic idea of AI moot as it's
not
truly autonomous) and a tactical (and possibly strategic) stalemate.

Consider as a rough analogy: two opposing commanders; one who always
follows
his forces doctrine and expects his opponent to do likewise. The other
uses
his force's doctrine only when it suits his immediate battlefield needs,
improvising as opportunity presents itself. Which commander will have
the
advantage, all else being equal? (I give 9:5 on the latter,
personally...)

The ability for independent, spontaneous thought in AI can also have
severe
side effects. What if the unit in question learned to ask the question
"why?"? It might even decide it was fighting for the wrong side...

Besides all that, it'd put the bodybag manufacturers out of business...
8)

KJ