My point is that Trek CAN change that to make it more in line with how science and technology evolve in the real world and take a step forward... but it seems to (or rather the executives and writers) refuse to do so.
Burnham, Sarek and Picard
- Thread starter balls
- Start date
My point is that Trek CAN change that to make it more in line with how science and technology evolve in the real world and take a step forward... but it seems to (or rather the executives and writers) refuse to do so.
I won't pretend to have a good enough memory for the specific examples you raise but I do agree with the general premise.
I'll have to dig out the link as it is right up your street but the gist is it came from an article discussing future AI and the exponential advancement of technology.
One point raised was how if we took someone from 1600 to 1800 they would be a bit weirded out but wouldn't find it too hard to comprehend.
Take someone from 1800 to 2000 though and their head will be fucked due to the significantly more rapid and unbelievable advancement.
I personally don't subscribe to as strict a lineage to the tech as you do but I have said more than once that 2370s tech doesn't seem advanced enough - just a question of how advanced is advanced enough.
I guess the easy explanation is an assumption of as yet unheard of roadblocks during the interim periods that we haven't seen.
Back to the AI point - I'm choosing to take the headcanon approach that it is like Slipstream in Andromeda. Far from perfect but at least I don't have to worry too much.
Would equate Data to Rommie in so much as they both clearly have cognitive abilities but lack a spark that differentiates between human and not.
Yes, it can. But it hasn't fully in the past and to keep expecting it to do so now seems an exercise in futility. It's trying to bend Star Trek in to a preconceived box and then being mad when it doesn't. And then heaping accusations at the production teams as if that will make it all better. Largely because I don't think production teams are concerned about future predictions and are interested in drama. And Star Trek has rarely gotten human behavior right so I rarely expect technology to be right either.
If I want future looking I'm not going to fictional entertainment. I'll read.
The Zhat Vash had no interest in preserving Romulan culture. They were basically a rogue organization that just happened to be within the Romulan government. They destroyed Romulus' own evacuation fleet, dooming countless Romulans, out of hatred of AI.
The Zhat Vash were to the Romulan government what Hydra was to Shield in the Marvel movies basically.
Yes, but V'laris also asked Picard if he ever noticed distinct lack of automation and AI in Romulan culture... and then she pointed to the Zhat Vash.
In UFP on the other hand, we HAVE seen automation and AI used quite a bit (and Disco showed us that SF ships DO have internal automated bots doing cleanup and repair work).
To me, this specifically pointed to Zhat Vash operating within Romulan star empire for the most part - with some workings outside of it occasionally.
The Zhat Vash also hadn't tried taking control of UFP's Utopia Planitia androids on Mars until after encountering that message left for AI's - this is basically what prompted them to act outside their borders mostly.
That happens to be the same reason why I reveal secrets.
Eh? The Zhat Vash exist solely because Romulans found that message centuries earlier which made them fear AI and create the Zhat Vash specifically to combat that threat.
You also need to take into account that as a civilization advances, changes would be happening faster and faster... an acceleration of acceleration.
Its been said the 21st century in real life will effectively equate to over 20 000 years worth of advancements (in the span of 100 years).
That's just for 1 species (us). Now imagine what this would mean for UFP which doesn't have money, freely shares resources, technology and science.
It would (at minimum) result in say 40 000 years worth of advancement from 22nd century to the 23rd for Humanity alone.
If you include Vulcans, Tellarites and Andorians in the mix as the founding members of UFP (in 2161), that 40 000 years would multiply by 4x (due to inclusion of other species)... and from that point on, it would continue to further accelerate advancements as more species join UFP (even less advanced species would be brought eventually up to date and they would contribute in a same capacity).
While I would agree with you to a point, I guess what I'm saying is that the reason I'm talking about Kardashev scale is due to this being an easier mechanism in classifying potential advancement of a given species.
And because we have literature hypothesizing on what Type II, Type III and emerging Type IV civilizations might look like, Trek writers could have drawn from that and real life to merge their fictional tech (not to mention miniaturizations and networking of all those devices,) with those Type II civilization and emerging Type III civilization concepts and showcase that throughout centuries.
I think there's too much in perceptions that AI could never 'equate' humans in everything, when that's not really the case.
Reality is (and there's nothing 'sad' about it) that AI already can (and will) equate Humans in pretty much everything.
Even when it comes to creativity, its actually easily quantifiable because its nothing more than a combo of randomized information that one was exposed to and finding patterns between those bits of info composed into something that particular individual likes - that's pretty much all there is to it.
For AI's (or, say adaptive algorithms), their database of information/exposure would be ridiculously larger than that of any Human (seeing how we can only retain a bare fraction of data in just 1 discipline - maybe 0.000001% or less) and would be able to find patterns in days or hours - depending on the computational speed (which is accelerating constantly) - humans consistently take far longer to make such connections.
This has already been showcased in reality on several occasions, so there's nothing intricately 'unique' to humans or biological organisms that AI cannot replicate with accuracy... either now, or in the very short time span... but pretty much already.
To some people, this may seem 'frightening', but to me it seems like an interesting opportunity to not only see just how far we can advance with aid of such technology, but how much we can learn about ourselves and the inner workings of the universe, multiverse and reality at large... not to mention just how fast we can already repair the damage we caused to the environment (less than 10 years).
Scifi should stop with the fear and dread and instead maybe try pushing things forward for a change to challenge us more - Trek especially.
I guess I'm sad because as I grew up and became more interested in such things... I guess I wanted Trek to similarly progress as it seemed to have been more progressive than most other scifi out there with a positive outlook.
Last edited:
It won't.
And, yes, AI is frightening. What opportunities? We are literally removing humanity at every level. But, some people want to be replaced I guess.
Regarding your first para - that was the crux of the article I'm thinking of and I tried to articulate it but in short, agree fully.
The rest, I agree with you in terms of the scope for ambition, the scope for utilising literature and scientific theory but would suggest that it would negatively impact the product in terms of mainstream appeal if the focus was too heavy.
As far as my attempts to reason things away - I'm just stealing from other shows so that when I watch the show I can tune out that bit of me and enjoy it for what the writer intends...then rewatch 3 times and try and tear it apart
So long as we are all having fun and being civil then live and let live.
Or you could look at it from a different point of view: liberating humanity from the drudgery so we can pursue higher things.
That's not frightening.
Its only frightening because of Hollywood and people who project nonsensical notions about AI behavior without understanding mechanistic science of behavior to begin with... and it threatens an existing paradigm and how the world works (which is realistically looking outdated and sorely lacking when it comes to both environmental and human well-being).
Agree to disagree, save for the pursuit of higher things. Though no doubt that definition of "higher things" will be debatable.
I'm not scared because of Hollywood. Hollywood doesn't scare me. Hollywood doesn't inspire me. Hollywood is not the source of my information.
Telling me it is not frightening demonstrates a frightening misunderstanding of how some humans manage fear. As per usual the efforts to increase technological applications seem to come at the expense of humanity and human influence, ignoring potential consequences and minimizing our interactions.
Hopefully a more balanced approach prevails rather than "Technology good! Humans bad!" (gross oversimplification because I like hyperbole).
Well, Trek doesn't HAVE to be 100% 'accurate' in such extrapolations (obviously)... but it would be good to include Kardashev scale literature and scientific theory and merge some of it with what we know and what Trek created to date (in say 24th century and moving things from there) to create different type of story telling... something that would change it for the better and also perhaps maybe make people in real life think differently too about such things.
I personally agree with the idea of using AI to free to pursue other ventures but there are plenty in society for whom automation is currently a fear for them around losing jobs and the like.
Until UBI comes in and removes the risk of unemployment there will be an inherent fear in society that writers will play on.
But as I say, would be nice to have a story without it for once but I think for now the fear is an easier sell
Fear always is.
Especially if it leads to anger, which then leads to hate and then, sometimes even leads to suffering...
Oh bugger - wrong franchise
Some how still seems relevant
It's not wrong we talk about the Mandalorian here all the time.
I never said nor implied: 'technology good! Humans bad!'.
I simply pointed out the reality of how far technology and science progressed. Humans as a species are neither bad or good... but on a large scale, the general population is not well exposed to basic methods of science (which would include critical thinking and problem solving) and that makes most people susceptible to manipulation, being used and also making gross assumptions about situations - which results in us making bad decisions in the process.
Plus, existing conditions prevent most people from stopping to think about the world we live in... and for that, we need to change the socio-economic system/environment in which we live... though I'm afraid that such change probably won't come from social movements, but rather climate change and rapid advancement of science and technology will force humanity to facilitate societal changes on a large scale as already we are noticing that existing economic, social and political institutions simply speaking are outdated and not working (in fact, they have always performed poorly, its just that it hadn't become more obvious until recently).
It's not wrong we talk about the Mandalorian here all the time.
Ah mate, if you like the Mandalorian you should get on some.of the older stuff.
There is this film from 1999. Was a prequel to the original films and it had these really cool things called midichlorians! And this definitely not problematic rasta style character called Jar Jar Binks...
Of course technology has progressed. That was never in question.
