Spoilers Things that grind my gears about S3

[eschaton]

The thing that really sticks in my craw in the whole franchise is the notion of "sentient" "living" or whatever machines. I think it's just stupid, even if some stories built around this misconception are actually interesting (kinda like vampire stories, they're absurd but can be entertaining). The whole point of making a machine is that it can do the work that is too dangerous, too tedious, too demanding, too expensive (when done by a human being) for a human being to do. If you build sophisticated tools after years and years of research and people tell you: "You can't use those tools because they are alive" whatever the hell that means, then what's the point?

Seriously? What's the point? There's lots of potential answers to this. One frequently bandied around these days is that super-intelligent AI is an eventual certainty, so rather than create it by accident (which could result in a self-aware entity which cares nothing about us) we should consciously attempt to create self-aware AI with ethics and morality that will protect us rather than destroy us.

There's also just the whole god complex thing, which has a longstanding basis in sci-fi. Humans like to create things, from great works of art to fine buildings to weapons of mass destruction. Creating another self-aware being (other than the normal way, with your gametes) would be the ultimate power trip.

Plus intelligence and sentience and/or sapience are two very different things. Intelligence can be simulated at the highest level by a program that will be no more sentient than your current toaster.

You have no way of knowing that.

Presuming that we live in a totally materialist world (no souls or other non-physical basis to consciousness) a self aware machine - or at least self-awareness within a machine - is inevitable. At absolute worst you'd just need to simulate a human brain down to the atomic level. Since the simulation would contain identical structure to the "real" thing, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be as self aware as a "real human."

 

[Angry Fanboy]

...and do you really have to be a complete dick.

So we've resorted to name-calling now have we? Great stuff.

 

[ScottJ85]

So we've resorted to name-calling now have we? Great stuff.

No, just an honest assessment of your behaviour.

Have fun arguing about magical faster than light space engines on a TV show, I’ve got better things to do.

 

[Angry Fanboy]

No, just an honest assessment of your behaviour.

Have fun arguing about magical faster than light space engines on a TV show, I’ve got better things to do.

Feel free to go and do your better things then. Makes absolutely no difference to me.

Try to remember that we're all just nerds posting on a Star Trek messageboard though - no good getting high and mighty about what other members want to talk about.

 

[Discofan]

Seriously? What's the point? There's lots of potential answers to this. One frequently bandied around these days is that super-intelligent AI is an eventual certainty, so rather than create it by accident (which could result in a self-aware entity which cares nothing about us) we should consciously attempt to create self-aware AI with ethics and morality that will protect us rather than destroy us.

There's also just the whole god complex thing, which has a longstanding basis in sci-fi. Humans like to create things, from great works of art to fine buildings to weapons of mass destruction. Creating another self-aware being (other than the normal way, with your gametes) would be the ultimate power trip.



You have no way of knowing that.

Presuming that we live in a totally materialist world (no souls or other non-physical basis to consciousness) a self-aware machine - or at least self-awareness within a machine - is inevitable. At absolute worst, you'd just need to simulate a human brain down to the atomic level. Since the simulation would contain an identical structure to the "real" thing, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be as self-aware as a "real human."

I disagree. Before we can create self-ware machines (to use your term) we'd have first to understand how self-awareness works and what distinguishes it from simulated self-awareness. If you are a skilled programmer you could make it seem like your program is self-aware by making it respond exactly as it would if it was the case but won't change the fact that it will only be a simulation. Now if we understand self-awareness then we will able to identify it, to measure it and there will be no need for a trial like we've seen in TNG. The mere fact that such a trial took place is the definite proof that Data is not self-aware and is just emulating it, not quite convincingly I must say. The difference between fake self-awareness and the real one is the difference between a piece of rock and a human being, it's enormous. As I said (if and when) we will be capable of creating self-awareness we will be able to measure it and the "measure of a man" will not just be a figure of speech.

 

[eschaton]

I disagree. Before we can create self-ware machines (to use your term) we'd have first to understand how self-awareness works and what distinguishes it from simulated self-awareness. If you are a skilled programmer you could make it seem like your program is self-aware by making it respond exactly as it would if it was the case but won't change the fact that it will only be a simulation. Now if we understand self-awareness then we will able to identify it, to measure it and there will be no need for a trial like we've seen in TNG. The mere fact that such a trial took place is the definite proof that Data is not self-aware and is just emulating it, not quite convincingly I must say. The difference between fake self-awareness and the real one is the difference between a piece of rock and a human being, it's enormous. As I said (if and when) we will be capable of creating self-awareness we will be able to measure it and the "measure of a man" will not just be a figure of speech.

I don't think it's necessary to solve the hard problem of consciousness as long as we live in a materialist world and there aren't underlying aspects of reality we have yet to understand (like consciousness involving quantum phenomena). After all, we know human brains are conscious. We can also be pretty certain, as a result that if transporters existed a person assembled from atoms in a structure 100% identical to the original person would also be conscious. And if you can build a conscious person up from atoms without understanding fully how the brain works (merely scanning and duplicating perfectly) it stands to reason that within a simulation where the properties of atoms themselves are accurately modeled, you could do the same thing. You don't even need to simulate the person's thoughts - just the starting position of all of the atoms and their energy states. Then let the whole thing fly.

Indeed, this is one portion of argument behind the simulation hypothesis - that a simulation will feel identical to reality for those within it, which means its far more likely we exist within a simulation than the "prime universe."

 

[Discofan]

I don't think it's necessary to solve the hard problem of consciousness as long as we live in a materialist world and there aren't underlying aspects of reality we have yet to understand (like consciousness involving quantum phenomena). After all, we know human brains are conscious. We can also be pretty certain, as a result that if transporters existed a person assembled from atoms in a structure 100% identical to the original person would also be conscious. And if you can build a conscious person up from atoms without understanding fully how the brain works (merely scanning and duplicating perfectly) it stands to reason that within a simulation where the properties of atoms themselves are accurately modeled, you could do the same thing. You don't even need to simulate the person's thoughts - just the starting position of all of the atoms and their energy states. Then let the whole thing fly.

Indeed, this is one portion of argument behind the simulation hypothesis - that a simulation will feel identical to reality for those within it, which means its far more likely we exist within a simulation than the "prime universe."

But this has nothing to do with my argument. duplicating a person down to its atoms is IMO an impossibility. For one thing, how do you prevent the atoms already assembled from flying apart while you're assembling the rest of the body??? The more "hot" the matter is the more its atoms will tend to move away from each other (in what could only be described as an explosion). Anyway, that impossibility (or near impossibility to keep an open mind) aside, duplicating a human being is quite different from creating an intelligent being from scratch using principles that are only analogous to life as we know it.

Plus something that they seem to ignore (or pretend to ignore) in Star Trek is that duplicating a program is a very simple thing. In fact, computers couldn't work if it wasn't. So if you have ONE self-aware program it would be the same thing as having one billion of them. The only thing preventing you from copying that program would be copyrights, Ie a legal document and not a law of nature.

And so before we can do that we'll have to understand self-awareness well enough to be able to measure it and as I said before it would make episodes like "The Measure Of A Man" completely pointless. The simple fact that such an episode exists is definite proof that self-awareness has not been achieved.

 

[Arpy]

Lots of things annoyed me this year about the show, some of which have already been mentioned above, but the detached nacelles didn’t so much. I though it was a bit cheesy but meh. (Also, it isn’t just the nacelles but whole segments of the ships.) But honestly, it’s 32nd century technology: it’s amazing that they aren’t all just balls of light at this point. Way more tech should have appeared magical, or abstract, and just completely opaque to our understanding.

 

[fireproof78]

Way more tech should have appeared magical, or abstract, and just completely opaque to our understanding.

Perhaps, but then they would just dumb it down with an analogy. Technology simply isn't going to advance beyond an audience's comprehension.

 

[Arpy]

Perhaps, but then they would just dumb it down with an analogy. Technology simply isn't going to advance beyond an audience's comprehension.

Then the setting should go to a period beyond the audience’s comprehension? Plus, I think it could be done really well and interestingly if they gave it proper thought.

 

[fireproof78]

Then the setting should go to a period beyond the audience’s comprehension? Plus, I think it could be done really well and interestingly if they gave it proper thought.

I think it could too, but I'm someone who browses technical journals, future tech design websites and the like. While I have no doubt there is some overlap between technology fans and Star Trek fans I think that keeping it accessible is just as important.

 

[Arpy]

I think it can become accessible over time. The initial presentation of the tech would seem completely bewildering (as say a Roman would be by the mobile phone I’m typing this on), but then slowly be unraveled in layers increasingly more understandable to our contemporary concepts of physics and, well, ontology. Again, no one told them to set the thing in the 32nd century.

 

[fireproof78]

Again, no one told them to set the thing in the 32nd century.

No. And it was terrible choice by my reckoning. But, they were damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[Discofan]

No. And it was terrible choice by my reckoning. But, they were damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Isn't that always the way?

 

[fireproof78]

Isn't that always the way?

True.

 

[Arpy]

Isn't that always the way?

No, that’s cynical and fatalistic. It suggests that no progress can be made, and that’s not realistic. They can do better; they just chose to concentrate on other things. This all the DSC you’re going to get, and it’s okay if it just sucks on some levels. Oh, well.

 

[fireproof78]

This all the DSC you’re going to get, and it’s okay if it just sucks on some levels. Oh, well.

I would love to know how we demand better. Yeah, it sucks. Burnham being captain might be me being done with the show for a bit. No having my CBS subscription right now might help. No clue at this point.

 

[Arpy]

I would love to know how we demand better. Yeah, it sucks. Burnham being captain might be me being done with the show for a bit. No having my CBS subscription right now might help. No clue at this point.

I want to know...like with Star Wars when all the fans were annoyed with Last Jedi and that made them change their course on Rise of Skywalker (in the wrong direction)...who exactly are they listening to and where? Box office, fine, but that doesn’t tell you where you went wrong or what direction to course-correct toward.

I mean, if you listen to some of the fans on these boards, DSC is shit because the embroidery on the uniforms is incorrect. Come on. But, what about legitimately questionable creative decisions that might be improved upon? Do they do market research behind two-way mirrors, scour the interwebs, or what?

 

[fireproof78]

I want to know...like with Star Wars when all the fans were annoyed with Last Jedi and that made them change their course on Rise of Skywalker (in the wrong direction)...who exactly are they listening to and where? Box office, fine, but that doesn’t tell you where you went wrong or what direction to course-correct toward.

I mean, if you listen to some of the fans on these boards, DSC is shit because the embroidery on the uniforms is incorrect. Come on. But, what about legitimately questionable creative decisions that might be improved upon? Do they do market research behind two-way mirrors, scour the interwebs, or what?

I truly wish I knew. Honestly. Unfortunately, I think they pull information more of industry insiders, and that impacts their view. I recall one of my favorite games and how excited I was for the sequel. The sequel was a complete 180 from the original in terms of elements of story, interface and overall feel. I stumbled upon an interview from one of the program developments at a tech school. And it blew my mind how the developers with the sequel had listened to veterans from the field who basically tore apart things that gamers really liked. And that ended up being a poor choice because the sequel was so poorly received.

I think the producers catch wind of different elements, and the general pushback, i.e. wanting more episodic, more references. I think they attempt to look at past Trek and draw on themes that seemed popular, which is why we get a lot of war based seasons. But, I think they are really worried about writing a good Star Trek story and the result is a lot of elements that not everyone likes. It's enjoyable for some, poor for others, and ends up more being so hit and miss that feedback is difficult to parse.

That's just my view. I could be completely wrong.

 

[Vger23]

I truly wish I knew. Honestly. Unfortunately, I think they pull information more of industry insiders, and that impacts their view. I recall one of my favorite games and how excited I was for the sequel. The sequel was a complete 180 from the original in terms of elements of story, interface and overall feel. I stumbled upon an interview from one of the program developments at a tech school. And it blew my mind how the developers with the sequel had listened to veterans from the field who basically tore apart things that gamers really liked. And that ended up being a poor choice because the sequel was so poorly received.

I think the producers catch wind of different elements, and the general pushback, i.e. wanting more episodic, more references. I think they attempt to look at past Trek and draw on themes that seemed popular, which is why we get a lot of war based seasons. But, I think they are really worried about writing a good Star Trek story and the result is a lot of elements that not everyone likes. It's enjoyable for some, poor for others, and ends up more being so hit and miss that feedback is difficult to parse.

That's just my view. I could be completely wrong.

I continue to wish that the writers and producers of modern Trek would just write THEIR fucking story and vision, and block all the other noise out.

“Star Trek by Checkbox” has been going on since the production of Star Trek Generations, and it just hasn’t worked as well, whether it’s writers trying to appease the fans, studio, or both. Just tell a frigging story and to hell with the fans.

Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett were the last two key production guys who really understood that it seems....and that was a LONG time ago.