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

Allan forget your central computer brain running the ship and imagine
this:  Throughout the ship are linked robots each capable of operating
independantly.	Much like say, Terminators from the movies, distributed
throughout the ship linked togethor in one large network.  When linked
together they have their combined intelligence and storage to run the
ship.  This way one hit doesn't destroy the ships 'brain'.  Also imagine
a turret cut off from the rest of the ship but still able to function
because one or more robots is still linked to it.  This goes along with
todays trend of moving from host based systems to a more distributed
style of processing.

One argument I can see is, well why not just distribute the 'brain'
throughout the ship?  Well by having individual robots you have a ready
made boarding, damage control and defense force.  I'm getting chills
just imaging those Terminators just standing still with just the flicker
of activity lights to show that anything is going on.  Kinda makes the
Borg collective laughable in comparison.

Allan Goodall wrote:

> 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