Computer, create an adversary capable of defeating "_____"
- Thread starter Guy Gardener
- Start date
Re: Computer, create an adversary capable of defeating "____
Doesn't really follow, on a couple of levels.
For one, the idea that A must be able to defeat C if A defeats B defeats C is only valid for very narrow ideas of "defeating". Usually things work in a more "paper, scissors, rock" fashion.
For another, we don't know that Data could defeat the computer even if he were smarter than it and playing the same game as it. Chess masters today can't outplay the best computers, despite enjoying the supposed "advantage" of sapience.
We don't even have any proof that Data would be smarter than the computer in any particular sense. We have heard some estimates for processing power, but Data is the only machine for which real-world computing units such as (60 trillion ) flops or (800 quadrillion) bytes were mentioned. Those were never explicitly compared to what a ship's or a shuttlecraft's computer could do. If the infamous "quad" is shorthand for "quadrillion", though, then Data with his 800 is way out of the league. Holosimulations of humanoid characters involve juggling gigaquads, and gathering of scientific data on a new phenomenon involves teraquads. Since starship computers handle such volumes easily enough, they could probably "number-wrestle" Data to submission even if he enjoyed greater mental flexibility, much like a chess computer defeats a sapient opponent.
And even disregarding number-crunching, Data's capability for abstract thought might not be greater than that of the starship computer. After all, said computer does come up with all these holodeck scenarios and challenges, effortlessly emulating, simulating or otherwise doing a deceptively good impression of human imagination. Few if any holoadventures witnessed are indicated to be limited to a script prewritten by a sapient humanoid.
All of this is fairly logical in the end. After all, Data's head (which we suppose is where his brain is, at least judging by "Time's Arrow") is not the size of a starship computer core. Surely the superior size and complexity of hardware must count for something?
Timo Saloniemi
Doesn't really follow, on a couple of levels.
For one, the idea that A must be able to defeat C if A defeats B defeats C is only valid for very narrow ideas of "defeating". Usually things work in a more "paper, scissors, rock" fashion.
For another, we don't know that Data could defeat the computer even if he were smarter than it and playing the same game as it. Chess masters today can't outplay the best computers, despite enjoying the supposed "advantage" of sapience.
We don't even have any proof that Data would be smarter than the computer in any particular sense. We have heard some estimates for processing power, but Data is the only machine for which real-world computing units such as (60 trillion ) flops or (800 quadrillion) bytes were mentioned. Those were never explicitly compared to what a ship's or a shuttlecraft's computer could do. If the infamous "quad" is shorthand for "quadrillion", though, then Data with his 800 is way out of the league. Holosimulations of humanoid characters involve juggling gigaquads, and gathering of scientific data on a new phenomenon involves teraquads. Since starship computers handle such volumes easily enough, they could probably "number-wrestle" Data to submission even if he enjoyed greater mental flexibility, much like a chess computer defeats a sapient opponent.
And even disregarding number-crunching, Data's capability for abstract thought might not be greater than that of the starship computer. After all, said computer does come up with all these holodeck scenarios and challenges, effortlessly emulating, simulating or otherwise doing a deceptively good impression of human imagination. Few if any holoadventures witnessed are indicated to be limited to a script prewritten by a sapient humanoid.
All of this is fairly logical in the end. After all, Data's head (which we suppose is where his brain is, at least judging by "Time's Arrow") is not the size of a starship computer core. Surely the superior size and complexity of hardware must count for something?
Timo Saloniemi
Re: Computer, create an adversary capable of defeating "____
But we really have a fairly limited rule-set. A computer can be better than a human at chess, or poker, or some other game, yet still not be as intelligent as the person.
Big Blue (I think that was the name) beat a chess champion at chess, but all that computer was programmed for was chess. It wasn't doing chess and other games, all the programmers had to do was make the program really really good at chess.
Intelligence and Sentience are a bit more hazy. Being rainman as far as chess or poker makes you a savant, but it doesn't say that you'll be good at other things, like say figuring out how to play 3D chess. A sentient being could adapt to that new game, but a program designed to only beat kasperov at 2D chess isn't going to adapt as fast.
Well, not exactly. You need good hardware to have the capacity to do complex problems, but having ancient software would hinder a computer just as much as ancient software. A program written ten years ago usually doesn't have the same abilities as one written today, and some functions will be a lot harder on old software than new. You could possibly get around a restriction in software *if* the program can rewrite itself, but even then I think you'd end up limited by the support files.
I've always thought that the holodeck was programmed by people. We script AIs all the time for various video games, and we see scenarios for the games we're playing. But the computer doesn't make them up -- some programmer or artist did. All the computer does is put the images on the screen and follow the program as written.
Other than mods, I just don't see a computer "writing" the Hdeck programs so much as playing them.
Well, size is part of it, I guess, but it would depend on how the machine is put together, and as I mentioned before, the programming.
A psp is smaller than the AppleII I used in second grade, yet it's probably 100x as smart as the computer. I think I could probably put my iPod up against the Eniac and as far as computing power, the room-sized Eniac loses. We've come a long way in miniturizing computer components, so I'm not sure you can just talk about size.
But we really have a fairly limited rule-set. A computer can be better than a human at chess, or poker, or some other game, yet still not be as intelligent as the person.
Big Blue (I think that was the name) beat a chess champion at chess, but all that computer was programmed for was chess. It wasn't doing chess and other games, all the programmers had to do was make the program really really good at chess.
Intelligence and Sentience are a bit more hazy. Being rainman as far as chess or poker makes you a savant, but it doesn't say that you'll be good at other things, like say figuring out how to play 3D chess. A sentient being could adapt to that new game, but a program designed to only beat kasperov at 2D chess isn't going to adapt as fast.
Well, not exactly. You need good hardware to have the capacity to do complex problems, but having ancient software would hinder a computer just as much as ancient software. A program written ten years ago usually doesn't have the same abilities as one written today, and some functions will be a lot harder on old software than new. You could possibly get around a restriction in software *if* the program can rewrite itself, but even then I think you'd end up limited by the support files.
I've always thought that the holodeck was programmed by people. We script AIs all the time for various video games, and we see scenarios for the games we're playing. But the computer doesn't make them up -- some programmer or artist did. All the computer does is put the images on the screen and follow the program as written.
Other than mods, I just don't see a computer "writing" the Hdeck programs so much as playing them.
Well, size is part of it, I guess, but it would depend on how the machine is put together, and as I mentioned before, the programming.
A psp is smaller than the AppleII I used in second grade, yet it's probably 100x as smart as the computer. I think I could probably put my iPod up against the Eniac and as far as computing power, the room-sized Eniac loses. We've come a long way in miniturizing computer components, so I'm not sure you can just talk about size.
