Re: NBC

On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Roger Books wrote:

> On 25-Feb-00 at 18:05, sportyspam@harm.dhs.org
(sportyspam@harm.dhs.org) wrote:
> 
> >   Hmmm, another example might be tanks.  Someone was musing about
them.
> > You have to figure, 150 years the AI is going to be pretty good,
good
> > enough that you won't need someone in the tank.
> 
> I don't know, the pattern recognition will be much better, possibly
the
> threat ranking will be better, but as far as I can tell there isn't 
> that much progress being made with respect to AI.  I don't think that
> in 150 years you will have intelligent machines, and even if you do
> would you put a self-aware, self-modifying machine in sole charge of
> a super tank?  We humans seem to have an instinct dislike of anything
> that smacks of Frankenstien.	I'm sorry, I don't like the idea that
> the next step on the evolutionary ladder is a machine.

  Fighter jets are already being controlled by the computer.  A pilot
says
go left and the jet figures out how to actually do it.	How long until
the
pilot doesn't even decided left and right but 'kill that' and the jet
figures out how to do it?  Then how long until it's "you go over there,
kill any military targets without IFF and come back;  I'll stay here and
drink some coffee?"
  We already trust cruise missles with nuclear warheads.  You're worried
about a tank?  Although admittedly if somethng 150 years from now that
is as large as a modern day tank couldn't also easily level a city, I'd
be
a bit surprised.
  As for AI, even conservative estimates [and if the past has shown us
anything even the most optomistic estimates about computers have fallen
far short of the actual advances] make it a practical certainty that a
computer in 150 years will be so frightfully fast and powerful that even
if it wasn't 'intelligent', it would still pretend so well that it would
clearly be the better choice as a tank commander.  :)  Thats assumeing
biotech doesn't catch up to, and surpass, non-organic computation.