Human input in Trek spaceship battles - Page 7

Timo · November 3 2009, 07:10 PM

...But that wasn't the issue, now was it? Just the "thinking it through" part was.

Timo Saloniemi

Myasishchev · November 3 2009, 07:55 PM

CuttingEdge100 wrote:

Myasischev,

I find it funny that CuttingEdge says, in the same breath, that death is inevitable and that building better minds than our own cheapens human life.

That wasn't my intention if that's what you got out of it. My point was is that there are things inevitable that we don't necessarily do everything we can to further along.

Sorry if I misrepresented you, I just thought it was an odd thing to say.

You could say the same thing about a parent sending a child to college when the parent only has a GED--is he cheapening his own struggles by trying to increase the quality of life of his successor? I tend to think the opposite.

That really isn't a very good analogy. A better analogy would be a parent using genetic engineering to make his kid superior in every aspect to his natural parents, ensuring that he had the best genes, the best senses, the greatest intelligence, the greatest confidence.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to figure out how that is not awesome.

At any rate, people practice eugenics every time they choose to conceive, or not to conceive. Genetic engineering is the next step forward in the control of our reproduction, but not at all the beginning of it. Genetic engineering just gives us better tools to do what we've been doing since time immemorial--trying to make the most successful offspring we can, so that our genes persist all the way down the line.

Well, technically, wholesale genetic engineering wouldn't, and spells the end of biology-based replicators as the fittest lifeforms on our planet. What genetic engineering--and to a greater degree AI--offer is a chance for our ideals and knowledge to carry on into the future, because eventually our DNA won't--heck, in the cosmic long run, can't.

CuttingEdge100 · November 3 2009, 08:46 PM

Timo,

...But that wasn't the issue, now was it? Just the "thinking it through" part was.

You can think something through and be wrong...

Myasischev,

Sorry if I misrepresented you, I just thought it was an odd thing to say.

Don't worry, I forgive you

Genetic engineering is the next step forward in the control of our reproduction, but not at all the beginning of it. Genetic engineering just gives us better tools to do what we've been doing since time immemorial--trying to make the most successful offspring we can, so that our genes persist all the way down the line.

I understand using gene therapy or genetic modification (with a person's consent of course) to treat hereditary disorders, birth-defects, and such. But I don't think it's a good idea to start trying to use genetic engineering to try and go around breeding genetic superhumans.

What genetic engineering--and to a greater degree AI--offer is a chance for our ideals and knowledge to carry on into the future, because eventually our DNA won't--heck, in the cosmic long run, can't.

Nothing lasts forever...

newtype_alpha · November 4 2009, 06:39 AM

CuttingEdge100 wrote:

Timo,

...But that wasn't the issue, now was it? Just the "thinking it through" part was.

You can think something through and be wrong...

The important part is that I spent the better part of a year talking to experts in the field and paying actual money to get my hands on real research journals on the subject just so I would know what I was talking about. There's something to be said for genuine research as opposed to "I saw 'Terminator' on DVD the other night and this is what I think will happen."

ProtoAvatar · November 4 2009, 04:40 PM

About human/AI input in spaceship battles.

This depends heavily on the type of AI available.

If AIs are smarter then humans, they won't need humans at all.

If the Ai is as smart/creative as a human and thinks 1000 times faster, then the AI should control the ship at in all situations in which time is of the essence - the AI will think all situations and options through, unlike humans who will have to rely on the moment's inspiration.
If the AI is not as smart/creative as humans but thinks 1000 times faster, then this AI should control all more or less conventional reactions/actions of the ship in battle/other emergency situations. Humans should be able to propose/command a certain tactic, though.

The same can be said about any other potential advantage an AI could have over a human brain:
If the exact memorization of a large volume of information is needed in a situation, then an AI should completely replace humans in that situation, if it's as smart as a human. If it's below humans, the AI should perform the functions that require the memorised information, and humans should do the rest.
Etc.

newtype_alpha · November 5 2009, 08:00 AM

ProtoAvatar wrote:

If it's below humans, the AI should perform the functions that require the memorised information, and humans should do the rest.
Etc.

What do you think all that "attack pattern alpha" business is about? The Conn's entire job is probably to program--and keep track of--a limited set of pre-determined maneuvers and call the right ones into action for the right situation. Otherwise, to be blunt, there just aren't enough buttons on a helm station to realistically pilot a galaxy class starship, especially in combat.

And then there's the extremely verbose and frantic business on the Defiant when Eddington fried their computers; would would normally be done with two or three keystrokes took five minutes of manually calling out thruster sequences and system checks.

T'Girl · November 6 2009, 12:09 AM

I believe there is always going to be a human (sapient) being's finger on the button. If not a firing button, then something labeled 'enable' or 'weapons release'. It would not seem to be a part of the federations core philosophy to have a computer make the judgment about ending intelligent life. The machine would figure angles, speed, power requirements, a being would be required to make the ethical decision to destroy and kill.

ProtoAvatar · November 6 2009, 01:58 PM

newtype_alpha wrote:

ProtoAvatar wrote:

About human/AI input in spaceship battles.

This depends heavily on the type of AI available.

If AIs are smarter then humans, they won't need humans at all.

If the Ai is as smart/creative as a human and thinks 1000 times faster, then the AI should control the ship at in all situations in which time is of the essence - the AI will think all situations and options through, unlike humans who will have to rely on the moment's inspiration.
If the AI is not as smart/creative as humans but thinks 1000 times faster, then this AI should control all more or less conventional reactions/actions of the ship in battle/other emergency situations. Humans should be able to propose/command a certain tactic, though.

The same can be said about any other potential advantage an AI could have over a human brain:
If the exact memorization of a large volume of information is needed in a situation, then an AI should completely replace humans in that situation, if it's as smart as a human. If it's below humans, the AI should perform the functions that require the memorised information, and humans should do the rest.
Etc.

What do you think all that "attack pattern alpha" business is about? The Conn's entire job is probably to program--and keep track of--a limited set of pre-determined maneuvers and call the right ones into action for the right situation. Otherwise, to be blunt, there just aren't enough buttons on a helm station to realistically pilot a galaxy class starship, especially in combat.

And then there's the extremely verbose and frantic business on the Defiant when Eddington fried their computers; would would normally be done with two or three keystrokes took five minutes of manually calling out thruster sequences and system checks.

The problem is - the AIs from trek were shown to think 1000s of time faster than humans.
Their role, as shown, is too limited. There should be no need for a weapons officer or for a helm operator during a fight; indeed, using organics for this should be contraindicated (human/organic reaction speed is to slow for this) - the computer should take over those functions.
The captain's role should be only to propose/order the execution of innovative tactics/strategies to the AI.