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

At 10:53 PM 7/8/97 -0700, Jeff wrote:
>>....Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle were bad for this in the 70s....
>
>Are you refering to the book about the torus of gas surrounding a star,
and 
>the humans are living inside the torus, while a AI ship tries to figure
out a 
>way to "deal" with them?   (What was that called????  The [blank]
Tree?)

The novel was _The Integral Trees_ by Larry Niven. Actually, I was
thinking
of _The Mote in God's Eye_ and other Codominium stories. 

> good point, but I want to play Devil's advocate with your suggestions.
 Not 
>that I'm shooting them down, but the best ideas are the ones that can
survive 
>scrutiny.....

Hey, no sweat. My skin's thick enough.

>> 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. :-)
>Big problem;  180,000 miles per second isn't just a good idea, it's the
law. 
> When dealing with relative distances of space (ie, the opposing
fleet's 
>distance is measured in light-minutes) piloting these craft remotely is
going 
>to be near impossible due the the lag in acknowledging a situation and 
>responding to it.

I'm not talking remote piloting. I'm talking autonomous piloting. I
forget
where I read it (Jane's Defence Weekly, I'd imagine) but both the USAF
and
RAF are beginning (or have begun) projects for autonomous aircraft to
replace or supplant fighter and fighter bomber aircraft currently in
use.
The Gulf War showed many of the failings of automatic weapons, but it
showed
many of the strengths as well. For one thing, nobody on YOUR side gets
hurt.

Anyway, aircraft are capable of much higher G-forces than are
sustainable by
their crew. If you take away the need for a cockpit and ejection seat,
and
the need for a reasonably comfortable pilot, you can do some interesting
things with fighter and bomber design. This is what we're looking at
today.
I'd imagine this would be de rigeur 200 years in the future.
 
>Not sure about all of the automation; one series I've finished reading
made a 
>very good point about allowing a computer to do targeting and ECM; a
human 
>tactician on the opposing side could recognize the AI's "random"
jumping for 
>ECM (and possibly targeting lasers, radar, whatever) and adjust his 
>computer's targeting and ECM to counteract the AI's targeting AND lock
onto 
>its ECM to make it a BIG target.  Simply put, humans are better
randomizers.
>As for repair work, I guess remote driven robots might work.  I'll deal
with 
>that later though....

Currently humans are better randomizers. I'm not sure that will be the
case
in the future. This sounds a lot like the strawman arguments I've seen
in a
number of SF books. What's interesting is the public perception that
this is
true and will continue to be true into the future. As such, writers say
"Humans are more random/intuitive than computers" and use it as a plot
device or an excuse for putting people in the ships. It's the same sort
of
argument that's used to explain away Faster Than Light travel when
everything we know suggests it isn't possible. Basically, it's so that
the
author can justify humans in his spacecraft. 

I don't necessarily disagree, though. But I do disagree with novels that
discount the ability of computers to "downsize" the amount of crew
needed on
a ship. 

>Possibly, but I think there'd still be a large number of people on
board.	
>When things get sophisticated, it seems like there is a greater demand
for 
>warm bodies.  I hate using this analogy, but (shudder) look at Star
Drek; 
>their technology is highly advanced enough to just about run the
Enterprise 
>with only a handful of people, but when you add in the support
personnel, 
>general staffing, etc. you get a BIG roster. 

Sorry, but I don't agree with most of the basic assumptions made in Star
Trek. There is no way those ships need that many people. And there is NO
WAY
I'd work on a ship that put my family in danger!

>Yeah, I know a bunch of the 
>people are "Ensign Expendibles," but you've got to have some
engineering 
>technicians

Granted.

>and some others to relay orders, 

Not necessary. What's the computer for?

>and a small staff of 
>medicals in case someone gets hurt, 

Granted.

>a few people to play quartermaster, then 
>someone to cook for everyone, someone to clean the toilets, etc.

The replicator is the quartermaster, the replicator is the cook, and if
they
can replicate/beam stuff around, their toilets should be self cleaning!

>> 4) About half the smaller (escort class) ships in the fleets are
human
>> controlled, with the others running automated like the fighters.
Independant
>> scouts, destroyers and frigates on convoy protection, sentry duty,
and
>> survey missions are human operated.....
>
>BIG no-no.  Computers aren't capable of replacing human intuition. 
Survey 
>missions especially.  

That's what I said (you even quoted it). 

>Escort ships either being 
>automated or controlled by Cap ships would have problems too.	Does
that 
>automated escort recognize our damaged carrier as one of ours, or one
of 
>theirs.  RC escorts would have the problem of RC fighters; relative
distance 
>kills response times.

Remote controlled escorts wouldn't have to behave within human
survivable
tollerances. How would a human recognize a damaged carrier as one of
ours?
Pattern recognition, plotted location, IFF? You could automate all of
these.
The intention was that our classic vehicle for attacking the Kra'vak,
the
disposable escort, could be automated.

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