Re: [FT]SML question

David Griffin wrote:

> --- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > David Griffin wrote:
> >
> > > If we're permitted Star Trek level tech, the
> > fighters
> > > may be sentient computers, as complex and
> > self-aware
> > > as any fighter pilot, only with vast resources of
> > > data, tactics, experience (not all it's own), and
> > > the lightning speed possible with a machine.
> > Yikes!
> >
> > Star Trek must know something that we do not, as
> > they have explicitly
> > not constructed sentient warships, despite their
> > clearly proven ability
> > to do so (Does anyon remember the M-5 computer?).
> >
>
> They remember, but are getting into the same problem
> sideways with "photonic lifeforms" aka holodeck
> lifeforms. Yes, they're petrified to create sentient
> starship, but clearly they can do it. Would this
> be a good idea? Hmm... maybe and maybe not. Depends
> on whether they like you. If they don't you're in
> first class trouble. If they do, you have a
> potentially
> far better ship that can help get itself out of
> scrapes and is rather difficult to hijack. A ship
> that can go on fighting even when the crew is
> incapacitated. A ship that can repair itself with
> holographic crew if necessary.

Holodeck sims with intelligence are okay, as they are relatively
incapable of causing great amounts of destruction.  Sentient ships have
the problem that they must not only react to situations, they must be
capable of pro-actively being in situations to react to (they must go
out and do things, without being told).  Self aware machines capable of
pursuing their own interests are a problem, how do you convince them to
do what is expected of them?

There is the (now) old joke about how the japanese developed a fully
sentient and aware computer.  When they asked it to optimise agriculture
in the home islands, it replied "Fuck You, I don't eat rice".

> I sometimes think that the Feds let one bad
> experience cause them to throw out a whole concept
> when it doesn't deserve to be. Maybe you just don't
> use the engrams of a psychotic when you make sentient
> computers?
>

Unfortunately, you do not know if suitable ingrams are used until after