Re: NBC

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Roger Books wrote:
> On 27-Feb-00 at 13:21, sportyspam@harm.dhs.org
(sportyspam@harm.dhs.org) wrote:
> 
> >   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.
> 
> cruise missiles are not intelligent, you don't have to worry about
them
> deciding they don't like their creators.

  You mean, you don't worry a cruise missle will go the wrong way and
end
up nuking a friendly carrier?

> >   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]
> 
> Except in the area of AI.  There were many predictions in the 80's
> that the AI problem would be over with by Y2000.  We don't seem much
> closer than we were then.

  I'm sure there were predictions we'd all be living on the moon by now
too.  Some people make really bad predictions.	Turing may have got it
wrong but we have a lot better perspective now.

> We may at some point have psuedo-intelligent tanks for doing things
like
> "hold this pass" or "do this suicide mission", but when it comes to
> to working with footsoldiers I can't see a pseudo-intelligent tank
> being in charge, there will be at least 1 human to override the beast
> should it make a mistake.

  Foot... soldiers?  Oh, you mean the drones the drone tank launches. 
I'm
sure that won't be a problem.  ;)