Re: AI

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:29:14 +1000, Alan E and Carmel J Brain
<aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:

>Speaking as probably the only person on this list who's actually
>designed and built a military-grade AI (for naval anti-missle defence),
>I'm not so sure.
>You don't have to have something much smarter than an ant, or at best a
>frog, to be really useful.

I've studiously avoided the AI debate. I got involved in an AI debate on
this
list last year. Or was it two years ago? Anyway, my argument was that
you're
not going to see "manned" fighters by the time the Tuffleyverse comes
around.
Instead, fighters will be AI run. 

The counter argument was the old "humans are not predictable, AI is"
argument
(although ask Kasparov what he thinks about that... *L*). 

Personally, I found it strangely comforting that most people in the
discussion
were willing to believe in human fighter pilots 200 years plus in the
future.
It gave credence to the sci-fi authors who still want humans behind
fighter
controls.

However, I personally don't think that human "unpredictability" will win
out
against lightning fast reactions and 30 g (40 g? 50 g? 60+ g) high speed
turns. 

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@interlog.com
Goodall's Grotto: http://www.interlog.com/~agoodall/

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"