What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
As much as the realistic-looking training holograms in DSC annoyed me at least they had very, very limited functionality and only worked in a very small chamber equipped with crude holoprojectors. DSC's were actually closer to what I imagined 23rd century Starfleet hologram experiments looking like.
I think you're underestimating how ridiculous the TNG holodeck actually is.
Will we have much more convincing looking holograms this century? Maybe. I don't know enough about hologram technology to guess, really, but I haven't noticed that much advancement in them in my lifetime, and what little improvement has been made seems at least partly depedent on strictly controlling the distance and angle the audience gets to see the hologram from, which would make it rather useless for a holodeck.
But the TNG holodeck isn't just convincing looking holograms. It uses replicator technology and/or transporter technology (so far in the real world, this might as well be magic with no serious scientific path to it being realized) to include real elements in the illusion (like water). It uses force fields to safely give the illusion that the holograms are all physical objects (again, not sure if this will ever actually be possible and certainly doesn't seem to be coming soon). And it fits seemingly any number of people in one small space, using some unexplained tech to allow them all to explore as far as they want in any direction without ever reaching the wall or ever bumping into, seeing or hearing each other despite being only a few feet apart from one another (this is probably not logistically possible unless we invent a way to literally fold space as much as we want, which I don't see happening this century).
I'd give us better odds of inventing Black Mirror's version of augmented reality (where we just trick our minds into seeing a reality that isn't there) by the end of this century than TNG's holodeck.
You also had those aliens were Odo actor was in it and the rest of people from the crashed ship had died and he made holograms over the dead crew.
No, I agree with you the holodeck as depicted in the TNG-era is super advanced and super incredible. When I think of VR in sci-fi, I either think of the Matrix or the holodeck in Trek because they're both such gold standards on the ultimate VR experience. What I am saying is that the awe and wonder Riker and Wesley have of it in the pilot seems way beyond the scenery being more realistic or the smells more vibrant or force fields being stronger. Data is even explaining the concept of it to Riker. Which is weird since holodecks (however less impressive or restricted) existed pre-TNG. It's like someone explaining to me how a PS5 works when all I said was that I was in awe of the updated graphics.
But I grant that within the story - we are supposed to accept that this particular variation of the holodeck is as advanced as it gets but limited variations of it exist before. Fine. I know the real world reason is that the holodeck was never before seen in a live-action Star Trek. So the character's awe and wonder of it was a stand in for us an audience.
The issue for me is inserting that specific advanced variation of the holodeck being new in the mid-24th century. Trek is famous for being prescient with technology but I think this is one of the rare cases where they really did not predict the timing of this technology well (maybe in the 1980s - it just seemed as something centuries away from us. As you listed - it requires incredible feats of engineering that we are unlikely to hit anytime soon).
It's why the writers always feel compelled to add some variation of VR in the prequels (ENT, DISCO, SNW) but with the caveat that it's buggy, not as advanced, limited in some capacity, or alien technology only. I think the TNG writers kind of created a bind because current Trek writers know that some version of VR/holodeck will be likely to exist by at least the ENT/DISCO - era but they're forever trapped writing that VR has a whole host of problems or limitations because of TNG. Typically, modern shows take the blame for it and some fans will criticize the depictions of VR "too early". My "controversial" opinion is that the fault really lies with TNG claiming the holodeck as it is shown was first rolled out in the mid-24th century.
I could see that too for sure.
The one in TAS couldn't produce people and apparently was not as realistic as the one we saw in Farpoint.
It can do birds though. Hmmm, did they ever say it couldn't do humans or did the program being used just not include any?
They didn't say that in TAS, but I extrapolated that from the fact that the prototype they used in Strange New Worlds needed transporter patterns to create people.
The SNW and TAS holo-rooms fit together, if clumsily. But holotechnology was clearly done in fits and starts since Harry in VOY says there were no holodecks in Kirk's time, so the path to get from the training holograms used by Lorca to what we saw aboard the Enterprise-D was fraught with failures.
Janeway at one point even says that holoprograms of her own childhood were much less sophisticated than the holodecks aboard Voyager.
Janeway at one point even says that holoprograms of her own childhood were much less sophisticated than the holodecks aboard Voyager.
Yeah, but Harry's an idiot.
So is Katherine "They really packed them in" Janeway.
That post doesn't promote good feelings.
Not so rare — especially in regards to computers. I recall some magazine article published during S1 or S2 enthusing about how the ship’s computer could answer anything a character asked about so long as they used a specific phrase like “SHOW ME (x)” or “TELL ME (x)”; and right up until Zora’s advent, every previously-seen ship’s computer in the entire franchise spoke along the lines of “(Subject) is (adjective) (noun). (Adjective) (noun) suggested.” LLMs use much more naturalistic language right now (including, of course, contractions).
Maybe Federation people liked virtual reality more than holodeck for a long time, but then Love Instructors went away as things people wanted to do so people invented holodecks as a replacement for a means of having and learning about sex. It was also used as learning tool like one those instruction videos on Youtube, and a place to create nice scenic locations. Once people were able to then create more life like holograms people then started using holodecks for games and role playing. Plus more sex of course as well.
Maybe the holodeck technology existed before TNG, but holodecks were rare, so the technology was not known to the general public first hand, but only to few privileged people who worked/lived in certain places? That could explain the awe and surprise some of the characters displayed in TNG season one.
As for sentient holograms, the writing is really inconsistent. They make holograms sentient or not sentient, depending on what kind of story they want to tell -- with all the horrible implications. The worst problems in these regards came up because of VOY, iirc. Would be nice if they addressed this problem on-screen, i.e. explaining that holograms/androids only become sentient in very rare, very special instances.
Nevertheless, it's ridiculous to propose that you could accidentally create a sentient AI by giving the computer a wrong command. It's absurd that this possibility hadn't occured to those who designed and programmed the computer, and those models that preceded it, and they didn't include security measures to prevent that from happening.
As for sentient holograms, the writing is really inconsistent. They make holograms sentient or not sentient, depending on what kind of story they want to tell -- with all the horrible implications. The worst problems in these regards came up because of VOY, iirc. Would be nice if they addressed this problem on-screen, i.e. explaining that holograms/androids only become sentient in very rare, very special instances.
Nevertheless, it's ridiculous to propose that you could accidentally create a sentient AI by giving the computer a wrong command. It's absurd that this possibility hadn't occured to those who designed and programmed the computer, and those models that preceded it, and they didn't include security measures to prevent that from happening.
What gave the Enterprise computer an intelligence in "Emergence" was some unusual storm they went through recently. (I think the captain's log mentioned the storm in the beginning.)
Which is a random event, that triggered an evolutionary programming event.
Keep in mind that there are two different approaches to advanced computing. Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life...
Artificial Life, is in some ways completely different in its approach. The programming generated by evolutionary programming or, if you prefer, genetic algorithms, is completely different from what a human being does when writing a program.
I remember an article back in the early 1990s in human programmers could not figure out how to program a an electronic thumb for an Artificial Hand Prosthetic...
So the they tried genetic programming. You see the problem is the number of degrees of freedom that a real thumb has. Which is very complex to model, let alone control an Artificial one.
The genetic algorithm ran and came up with precisely one line of code, just ONE. It was a very long line of code instead of being a series of lines. It works.
Furthermore an arm that replaces a human arm because of need, that uses genetic programming does the learning, not the individual in question. It takes about fifteen minutes to do so.at least thirty years ago it did. It learns the user, not the user learning it.
Furthermore a genetically programmed digital flight control system will do do a better job than a human designed one. Why? Survival. The only program that is used is the one that survived evolution...
Humans don't, or can't take into account every thing.
But here is the rub.
You, as a human have to know how to describe the problem correctly, otherwise garbage. There is a great deal of garbage out there.
Keep in mind that there are two different approaches to advanced computing. Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life...
Artificial Life, is in some ways completely different in its approach. The programming generated by evolutionary programming or, if you prefer, genetic algorithms, is completely different from what a human being does when writing a program.
I remember an article back in the early 1990s in human programmers could not figure out how to program a an electronic thumb for an Artificial Hand Prosthetic...
So the they tried genetic programming. You see the problem is the number of degrees of freedom that a real thumb has. Which is very complex to model, let alone control an Artificial one.
The genetic algorithm ran and came up with precisely one line of code, just ONE. It was a very long line of code instead of being a series of lines. It works.
Furthermore an arm that replaces a human arm because of need, that uses genetic programming does the learning, not the individual in question. It takes about fifteen minutes to do so.at least thirty years ago it did. It learns the user, not the user learning it.
Furthermore a genetically programmed digital flight control system will do do a better job than a human designed one. Why? Survival. The only program that is used is the one that survived evolution...
Humans don't, or can't take into account every thing.
But here is the rub.
You, as a human have to know how to describe the problem correctly, otherwise garbage. There is a great deal of garbage out there.
My take: The TAS Rec Room was an advanced environmental simulator (creating real stuff via replicator tech and physical effects like temperature and wind) overlayed with holographic projectors that created only visual effects (fake stuff like blue sky and birds). Everyone in the room sees and feels the same environmental simulation. YMMV 
.
.
Clearly the same cloud that the Enterprise and the Romulans went through in The Practical Joker. They should know better.
Similar threads
