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

In message <33C3276C.625C@earthlink.net>
	  Peggy & Jeff Shoffner <pshoffner@earthlink.net> 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 Integral Trees. He's probably thinking more along the
lines of 'The Mote in Gods Eye'.

> > 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

Something FT never defines is just how big a " is. I assume somewhat
less than a 1000km. You're obviously assuming something much larger.

> 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.

Even today, with standard random functions, you'd need another
computer to analyse the data and predict what random function
was being used. Hook up the computer to a lump of radioactive
matter, and use particle decay as your randomiser, then you've
got something far more random than a human.

> > algorithms) and humans still direct the overall course of the
battle. Human
> > crews are TINY compared to those in naval ships 2 centuries before.

> 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.	Yeah, I know a bunch of
the 
> people are "Ensign Expendibles," but you've got to have some
engineering 
> technicians, and some others to relay orders, and a small staff of 
> medicals in case someone gets hurt, a few people to play
quartermaster, then 
> someone to cook for everyone, someone to clean the toilets, etc.  You
get the 
> point. 

But if you only need two or three cew to run the ship, then most
of the support personnel are unneeded. Computers can do all the
mundane chores, while the humans sit around and play cards until
they have to make a tactical decision.

> > 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.

Says who? This is one thing that's very much up to debate, and
some of us (such as myself and Allan) believe simulating the
human mind is no more than an engineering problem. There is no
reason why an AI couldn't do *anything* a human could do.

> missions especially.	Take look at the Mars expedition; I would say a
very 
> snazzy job in computer engineering,

This is late 20th century technology. We're talking 23rd century
technology. Big difference.

-- 
Be seeing you,
Sam.