Printable View
I wasn't refering to their rights . . . but their expanse within the universe . . . and their impact . . . both funny . . . and annoying.
But really intellegent artificial sentience . . . doesn't need to match with top notch designs of ships, or what not.
Say they raise something similiar to a galaxy . . . but has the intellegence of a brick. But say there is a garbage scow out there woes intellegence would be more befitting for that galaxy . . . let the social questions insew.
That's an interesting point. For instance, we could imagine some artificial intelligences with the IQ of a Neanderthal (ok... let's say a very primitive human, as I don't know for sure how clever the Neanderthal was compared to the homo sapiens), or a chimpanzee. Which rights would they have ?
I expect the Federation has a few criteria to decide whether a species is considered sentient or not (to distinguish a clever chimps from a proto-human), but, for an AI, things could be harder to decide.
Let's imagine a AI with the IQ of a dog, but, being a computer, able to speak and handle various functions, showing interest in humans, but unable to evolve much more above that (come to think of it, that's close to B4 in Nemesis). Would it have the rights of a pet or those of a full sentient being ?
I think that most of the inteligence systems aboard the ships, as we've seen throughout the series, have that level of inteligence, sort of like a dog.. Clearly with enough sophistication to perform massivelly parralel autonomic responses (Walking, barking jumping, breathing, eating... thousands of 'everyday' tasks' are hugelly sophisticated and complicated) without the level of inteligence to question the meaning of existence, or contemplate it's navel! :D
I think this is one area people always forget about the functioning of a brain; People marvel at a computer which can calculate Pi to 20,000 places? How many computers do you know that can WALK not many. There's only a handful of them in Japan, the rest just have locked off limbs, which is all well and good, but they can't change pace, hop on one foot, dance or skip rope. Some of the 'simplest' things that Humans can do, a computer can't do easilly, and that's because we have a special part of the brain which handles the massivelly complex maths involved in that, and why some 'broken' humans can compete with computers in this area. Can you calculate the 17 dimensional geometry required to articulate an arm with 17 joints, preciselly calculate the pressures of each of the digits, and accuratelly place it using only the reference of two visual sensors and ballance that against data from incoming digit pressure sensors? No? Well I just did that picking up a glass of water. Yet trying to watch a computer do that - HA - it's hilaroius!
A Typical Starship computer has fantastic abilities.. It manages trillions of bits of sensor information, coordinates the inputs of thousands of people, controlls the ships energy levels, operates all of it's machines - some of which are beyond our comprehension.. yet it is not sentient because those are just autonomic functions.. It has a really huge limbic brain :D Big computers don't mean inteligence! :)
And that would make determining the inteligence of any machine very hard, especially if it's contained within a box which you can't relate too, emote with or read the body language from! Computers with the level of autonomic function of the Galaxy Class ship also creates a damned good fake, apparently smarter than most humans. A Holodeck character could quote you Pi to a billion places (if it was within it's programming to understand and do that hehe) - you couldn't - but does that make it inteligent or sentient? In most cases no! It would be some big headaches for future computer programmers ! :D
This is one reeason why I brought up the idea of a machine intelligence (say Data) creating biological lifeforms (humans) but limiting thier intelligence during creation in order to create a semi-intelligent animal workforce.
THe parallels between that, and humans making computers that border on sentinence are worth consideration.
Basically, after a point, does a creator owe the creation the resposibility of maaking them fully sentient or not? I for one, would not feel comfortable with Data making a non-sentient human workforce, but on the other hand, he could always point out things like computers and ask what the difference is.
Which is why I was one of the people calling "bull" when, in the movie Aliens, Bishop says he was programmed with the 3 laws. If he has a mandate to not allow humans to come to harm through his inaction, he would not be able to allow them to go into combat and would have to try to prevent them. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyg
However, as a combatant itself, it is vaguely possable. It would need to be a sophisticated brain, able to make complex judgements, but then all you need to present it with is a situation where killing the enemy is the least harm to the least people.
Which reminds me of another story: It was a pretty bad movie and the story seemed to make no sense until certain things were revealed near the end. (I'm intentionally omitting the name of the movie since I must include spoilers to explain the story.) There were robots that had been programmed to defend people, as basic security (not soldiers). They could even kill a person who was taking actions that threatened the life of another: in the eyes of their programming the aggressor was always wrong.
Well, there also were robots that were designed to simulate humans so well that people would have trouble distinguishing them: they looked and acted human.
And a crisis arises when one of the first kinds of robots mistakes one of the second kind for human, and kills a human in its defense. :eek:
The shock of the act itself is quickly eclipsed by the realization that it must be kept secret or things will be VERY BAD (tm) for the makers of both kinds of robots.
The scene where the human is killed was really good, and a perfect example of the scene seeming badly written until you find out what was really going on:
First time through, a male executive propositions a woman and acts as if she has absolutely no choice in the matter. He seems amused by her refusals until one of the security robots intervenes. Then he reacts like the security robot is dangerously malfunctioning and even procures a weapon and attacks it. Having realized that the executive is now posing a deadly threat to the woman and perhaps others, the robot is authorized to take actions that may result in his death to disarm hims, and that is what happens (he is killed in the disarming).
Second time through (having seen the movie once), a male executive decides to play with the new gadget, and is amused when it "simulates" not wanting to comply, but then one of the security robots for some reason tries to intefere, and makes it clear it will use force to keep the executive away from his toy. Realizing that the security robot is malfunctioning badly, the executive seeks to defend himself against it, and retrieves a weapon with which to destroy it. It then attacks him and kills him.
2 conflicting viewpoints on the same events.
Anyway, I think Asimov felt that, just as people have a little trouble adjusting to someone coming home from war (the nagging notion that "he's a killer"), it will be exaggerated in the case of robots, and people will never accept into their communities the same robots that were used for combat (nagging belief it may "go off" and kill people around it). The only way people would accept robots is if they were 100% no threat.
Not sure I entirely agree, but society has changed quite a bit in the decades since Asimov first wrote the 3 laws and automated weapons still give people the willies. :) Heck, a lot of people are creeped-out by police dogs (they accept them as a weapons, but (so?) they can't see them as still being a pet, and okay to have around children).
Anyway, I think Asimov felt that, just as people have a little trouble adjusting to someone coming home from war (the nagging notion that "he's a killer"), it will be exaggerated in the case of robots, and people will never accept into their communities the same robots that were used for combat (nagging belief it may "go off" and kill people around it). The only way people would accept robots is if they were 100% no threat.
Actually, from statements Asimov made while still walking the Earth, he stated that in fact he thought the 3 Laws were in real life a pretty dumb idea - unworkable and unenforceable - and were created solely as a plot device for his stories, in which they frequently don't work. He grumbled that people just didn't get the point.
I also heard that Asimov was fed up with stories of robots rebelling against their masters, which were the norm as far as robot stories went since Carel Capek invented the term, and created these laws to base stories on something else than robots battling humans.
It doesn't surprise me that he considered these laws unrealistic - for one thing, I always thought that "Not harming humans" must have required the builders to include a very detailed database in any robot's brain, to be able to decide what was supposed to harm a human or not (it's obvious a human will be harmed should he drown or be stabbed, but how about a guy wearing a pacemaker coming near a magnetic field, or someone who has been standing in the sun for some time falling into cold water, for instance ?)
Which could be a very dangerous things indeed, should a perverted individual manage to acess such database... :D
The whole thing kinda reminds me of the Simpson's ep. where they go to Itchy&Scratchy Land and the robots start attacking their creators. Prof. Frink comes into the lab and says something like "According to chaos theory, all robots eventually turn agianst their creators....."
Makes you wonder why scientists in sci-fi create robots, super-soldiers and super intelligent computers: they all turn against their creators at some point.
Even when (or maybe especially when) they are "3 Laws Safe"! :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky
For the same reason why people keep going into the holodeck, or use shuttlecraft-so it can all go horribly wrong for story purposes. If the Enterprise is any indication as to how things are going in the rest of the Federation, about the only bit of technology that would be in use would be the artifical gravity. :eek: