• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x04 - "Memento Mori"

Hit it!

  • Total voters
    219
AI has become a murky term that has evolved over time. The AI that we have today is very different from the AI envisioned early on. It's also accurate to say there are degrees of AI--a spectrum of possibilities.

Today we largely think of AI as pattern recognition algorithms that are trained by data rather than human coding and can be applied to many areas (speech, reading handwriting, analyzing photos, etc.) However, each AI application is for a very specific task and not a general problem-solving utility.

Using today's understanding, the ability to listen to natural speech and find relevant information to answer questions is considered AI even though it just involves essentially regurgitating existing info.

Earlier on it was primarily thought of as a simulation of human mental processes and usually more as a general problem solver.

Perhaps what we consider AI now will lead into that more expansive definition?

I'm willing to say that the TOS computer had AI as we use the term today but not as it was usually defined earlier on.
 
Mr Awe said:
AI has become a murky term that has evolved over time. The AI that we have today is very different from the AI envisioned early on. It's also accurate to say there are degrees of AI--a spectrum of possibilities.

Today we largely think of AI as pattern recognition algorithms that are trained by data rather than human coding and can be applied to many areas (speech, reading handwriting, analyzing photos, etc.) However, each AI application is for a very specific task and not a general problem-solving utility.

Using today's understanding, the ability to listen to natural speech and find relevant information to answer questions is considered AI even though it just involves essentially regurgitating existing info.

Earlier on it was primarily thought of as a simulation of human mental processes and usually more as a general problem solver.

Perhaps what we consider AI now will lead into that more expansive definition?

I'm willing to say that the TOS computer had AI as we use the term today but not as it was usually defined earlier on.
Click to expand...


Right. It was a form if AI. You could tell the computer what to do verbally and it would respond verbal and complete the action. Alexa is far behind what the Enterprise computer could do.
 
Well, we know that in TNG era computers are able to create holo characters who can pass every version of the Turing test. So, if it looks like a duck...
 
Pubert said:
When Kirk was having a discussion with the computer when it was updated and the voice was totally female it was definitely AI. It's AI of the most rudimentary kind though.
Click to expand...
You have no basis for this, especially given how amazed they are in Trek every time they meet something they call an AI. It's just your guess.

It was a form if AI.
Click to expand...
Your speculation doesn't become evidence via repetition.
 
Belz... said:
You have no basis for this, especially given how amazed they are in Trek every time they meet something they call an AI. It's just your guess.


Your speculation doesn't become evidence via repetition.
Click to expand...

Also others speculation that the tos computers are obsolete to today's computers is not actual evidence.
 
Pubert said:
Also others speculation that the tos computers are obsolete to today's computers is not actual evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised that you can't distinguish between speculation based on your own thoughts, and conclusions based on available evidence. You're trying to equivocate between our respective positions because you simply don't understand the topic we're discussing.

The TOS computer acts in NO WAY like an AI, is never described as such, and is actually compared against real AI, even in TNG. In fact, DSC makes a point that its own computer, now with the Sphere data, has become one. And yet you can't admit it because you'd then have to consider the fact that some of Star Trek's technology of the future, imagined in the 1960s, actually underestimated real advancements.

The fact of the matter is that computer speech, speed and interfaces, in addition to several mobile device functions, are better today than they were on the show. That's just a fact. The issue is that it clashes with your espoused position, and you refuse to wiggle out of it. But that isn't my problem.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not surprised that you can't distinguish between speculation based on your own thoughts, and conclusions based on available evidence. You're trying to equivocate between our respective positions because you simply don't understand the topic we're discussing.

The TOS computer acts in NO WAY like an AI, is never described as such, and is actually compared against real AI, even in TNG. In fact, DSC makes a point that its own computer, now with the Sphere data, has become one. And yet you can't admit it because you'd then have to consider the fact that some of Star Trek's technology of the future, imagined in the 1960s, actually underestimated real advancements.

The fact of the matter is that computer speech, speed and interfaces, in addition to several mobile device functions, are better today than they were on the show. That's just a fact. The issue is that it clashes with your espoused position, and you refuse to wiggle out of it. But that isn't my problem.
Click to expand...


Again there are different degrees of AI. In Star Trek there is the duotronic, multitronic and then the most advanced the positronic. Again is Alexa the same as the tos computer?
 
Pubert said:
Again there are different degrees of AI.
Click to expand...
No. Just no. We're talking about the distinction between something that is an AI, and something that isn't. The TOS computer exhibits NONE of the characteristics of an AI. Stop pretending that it does just because it supports your larger argument. You have nothing.
 
We're still doing this? I adore and will defend almost any aesthetic aspect of TOS and still wish the SNW Enterprise looked more like the TOS version but I can't defend a few of the computer interfaces that don't even have screens of any kind. If I'm willing to bend a few visual rules here and there after 53 years then I don't know why this argument is still a thing.
 
Belz... said:
No. Just no. We're talking about the distinction between something that is an AI, and something that isn't. The TOS computer exhibits NONE of the characteristics of an AI. Stop pretending that it does just because it supports your larger argument. You have nothing.
Click to expand...


Is the tos computer any different then Alexa?
 
Belz... said:
Yes. Alexa has more natural speech and more speed. The TOS computer has more data.

All this is irrelevant. Stop digging that hole you're in.
Click to expand...


The tos computer could also take commands for the ship functions and when asked a complex science question or extrapolate the information and theorize. Alexa can do none of this. No computer can as far as I know. We just aren't that advanced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top