The Ion Cannon coming to an orbit near you!

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
Death said:
How many SF stories are there out there about an artificially intelligent being/object either being or going "evil", compared to ones where AIs were beneficial to humanity?
Not many that I know of. And the few I have seen were almost in redemption of themselves or other AI, such as Bishop from Aliens.
 

Spertallica

Rear Admiral
How many SF stories are there out there about an artificially intelligent being/object either being or going "evil", compared to ones where AIs were beneficial to humanity?
I dunno, even though T2 and I, Robot featured "evil" AIs, they both also had benevolent AI's- (Ahhhnold and whomever Will Smith's CG robot sidekick was). The AI in Stealth also wound up sacrificing itself for a human being- though (as was the case in I, Robot), it involved an AI that initially took its programming so literally that it wound up hurting friendly humans in the course of the story.

It's kind of a classic sci-fi storyline though :) - AI's can only be as "good" as their programming allows, and I think humankind has always had a shadowy fear its machines turning on us.
 

Fatcat

Swabbie
Banned
How many SF stories are there out there about an artificially intelligent being/object either being or going "evil", compared to ones where AIs were beneficial to humanity?
A lot. People are afraid of technology that is new or that they don't understand, so movies like Stealth where the computer "turns" evil play into those fears.
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
2001: a space oddessy, The Matrix, Resident Evil (the movie).... Thats a pretty broad brush stroke and it in no way ends there. It's like its some kind of underlying fear that mans creation will turn on him. Death is right that it's a favorite theme in sci-fi. The movie stealth is just one of the newest ones to rehash this same theme. (although its a little more prominent in the story than others)

It's almost like an extension of the realization that most "good" human inventions have the potential to be lethal. (nuclear energy, automobiles)
 

Worf

Vice Admiral
Technology is neutral. It can be used for both good an bad. Usually when R&D happens, it's for "good" (I'll leave the definition up to you) purposes, but it can be perverted (and it often is). Eventually, either the technology will suffer from the tragedy of the commons (where a common something eventually gets overused to the point of uselessness), or someone comes up with a really "evil" use for it.

Practically every bit of technology has some negative downside to it. It may not have been apparent when it was invented, but it does exist.
 

Ijuin

Admiral
Quarto said:
In 1940, the Germans used a radio guidance system to get their night bombers to reach their targets. The British eventually figured out how to jam the system. The Germans then introduced a new system, which the British couldn't jam. Eventually, of course, the British would've learned how to jam that one too, but then the Germans would've invented a new system again. Get my point? You can't stop developing a particular line of weapons because the enemy can potentially figure out how to counter them - you develop a weapon, you use it as long as possible, and when the enemy learns how to counter it you develop a new version that takes into account what the enemy has done.
Quite right. I just wanted to dispel the idea that UAV's are some kind of superweapon. Every weapon has its counter, even if the counter is still only theoretical. UAV's will complement manned fighters and bombers, not supplant them.
 

Spertallica

Rear Admiral
How does technology suffer the tradgedy of the commons? It's not a scarce resource (subject to being exhausted)- if it was, intellectual property law (like patent, copyright, or trade secret) wouldn't be necessary. The tradgedy of the commons, as I understand it, only applies to finite resources (like cow pastures or the Earth's atmosphere).
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
AD said:
2001: a space oddessy, The Matrix, Resident Evil (the movie).... Thats a pretty broad brush stroke
I'd have to say lumping 2001 in with either of those other movies is a pretty broad brush stroke, yourself ;)
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
The Terminator would be a better example of errant AI than 2001. One seems slightly more fantastical than the the other; I don't see how someone could lump something as generally awful as Resident Evil with 2001
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
LeHah said:
The Terminator would be a better example of errant AI than 2001. One seems slightly more fantastical than the the other; I don't see how someone could lump something as generally awful as Resident Evil with 2001

Once you take out the monkeys and "higher beings," 2001 is essentialy about how hal decides the best way to protect the mission objectives is to eliminate the humans (a decidedly unpredictable threat) from the equation. Hal wasn't supposed to do this bit it was an oversight in his programming.

I included it because it is an older, higher profile example of the same underlying theme. It shows that that this motif is present across a large spectrum of sci-fi past and present.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Once you take out the monkeys and "higher beings," 2001 is essentialy about how hal decides the best way to protect the mission objectives is to eliminate the humans (a decidedly unpredictable threat) from the equation. Hal wasn't supposed to do this bit it was an oversight in his programming.
Not quite. That concept (protecting mission objectives) is a retcon - it's the explanation established for HAL's actions in the sequel, 2010. In the original movie HAL was simply an evil computer.

I don't understand what LeHah is going on about, though... the topic was how widely seen evil computers are, so going from a movie considered high art to the Resident Evil movie seems entirely appropriate.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
I don't understand what LeHah is going on about, though... the topic was how widely seen evil computers are, so going from a movie considered high art to the Resident Evil movie seems entirely appropriate.
2001 is pitched as a slightly more "realistic" movie than the other ones cited. Also, the fact that HAL turns on the passengers is mostly a subplot to a larger story about, well, whatever the hell 2001 is about as thats more personal interpretation.

I don't know - I see where someone would want to say HAL is evil and all that but there are better, more "comic book" examples than that. Pitching 2001 with The Matrix is digestable, but not with the utter schlock that is a Paul Anderson movie.
 

Ijuin

Admiral
Spertallica said:
How does technology suffer the tradgedy of the commons? It's not a scarce resource (subject to being exhausted)- if it was, intellectual property law (like patent, copyright, or trade secret) wouldn't be necessary. The tradgedy of the commons, as I understand it, only applies to finite resources (like cow pastures or the Earth's atmosphere).

In this case I think it is not technology itself that is the "commons" but the ADVANCEMENT of technology. Basically, if nobody has a personal stake in promoting/protecting technological advancement (i.e. technology is a "common" resource free to be used by all without paying a cent to the inventor), then nobody will be interested in promoting technological advance because everybody else will just use the invention without repaying the inventor. Thus, advancement would slow to the pre-industrial rate where people invent for emotional/intellectual reasons rather than for economic reasions. Why invent a new gizmo when you can copy somebody else's?
 

Spertallica

Rear Admiral
That sounds more like a free rider problem as opposed to tragedy of the commons- free riding being when one party invests the resources to attain a benefit that others thereafter can use for free.

Tragedy of the Commons is when there is a finite resource that a group of individuals all use, where increased individual use benefits the individual at the expense of the group. For instance, a popular example is that of a cow pasture shared by a group of farmers. The pasture can only support a certain number of cows, and going over that number renders the field barren. Each farmer has an individual interest in how many cows he can keep on the pasture- the more cows he has, the more money he makes. Therefore, each farmer, acting in his own self interest, will try and cram as many cows as he can on to the field, because he doesn't pay the price of putting another cow on, the group of farmers does. However, because there are now so many cows on the field due to all the farmers cramming cows onto the field, the pasture is now rendered barren, and everyone loses.

Getting somewhat off subject here, but necessity and demand are the parents of invention, IMO, not IP law. The market would still facilitate new inventions even without state granted monopolies because the inventing party is in the best position to exploit the new invention. While that would probably mean that the purchase of an initial invention might cost a bit more (as the inventor will want to be compensated for his creativity), it would ultimately drive down prices and might even increase the number of inventions available- after all, patent law prohibits one from using another's patented invention to invent something else without obtaining the permission of the original inventor to use his invention.
 

kutla2003

Lieutenant Commander
Worf said:
Technology is neutral. It can be used for both good an bad. Usually when R&D happens, it's for "good" (I'll leave the definition up to you) purposes, but it can be perverted (and it often is). Eventually, either the technology will suffer from the tragedy of the commons (where a common something eventually gets overused to the point of uselessness), or someone comes up with a really "evil" use for it.

Practically every bit of technology has some negative downside to it. It may not have been apparent when it was invented, but it does exist.
This is partly true in my opinion but I don't think whether an object is good or evil is completely balanced when it comes to weapons technology.

Nearly all major technological advancements have come about through warfare and the various arms races through out the ages (i.e. the computer, the jet engine, etc.), this is a good thing and has advanced the human race by massive amounts. It has allowed people to travel round the world in the space of a day (quicker if the concord was still running) or play Wing Commander on their computer. :D

But while I don't believe that weapon (or any technology) can be inherently good or evil, I don't believe that weapons can be used to do any good even if deployed for a good cause. Weapons kill, that is their only purpose, the sole reason for their existence.

It’s true that you sometimes have to fight and sometimes it’s right to do so (who knows what would have happened if no one had stood up to Hitler) but for the most part it’s just the pointless waste of life.
 

Cargoman

Spaceman
Spertallica , GOP.COM says 15 billion over 10years ,
edworkforce.house.gov (Democratic Staff) says 12-60 billion
over the same time frame . Both however are refering to
Pell Grants , don't know if that is any help to you (helped me a lot) .

Sorry for the long delay , stupid job and family interfering with my
lesure time .

What I'm saying is we need to fund the needed research to prove
or disprove the program in it's current form .
 

Zebum

Spaceman
Wake said:
And someone asked about the Eurofighter and why it was a waste of money. Basically, politics and economics of the different countries got in the way of it's production. It will probably never be produced and it wasn't the greatest fighter in the world to begin with. I'm not sure what countries were involved but I can say France wasn't because they were busy designing a very similar aircraft, and if England was involved they opted out for the JSF.
You don't seem to know what your talking about here. Typhoon (as the production model is called) has actually already entered service with the RAF in operational training squadrons and is a fantastic fighter. It has a different purpose to the the f-22 as it is not so much designed for stealth/air superiority, but for multi role including ground attack. The UK never opted out of the eurofighter project for the JSF, that is a seperate project. The JSF or joint combat aircraft as it is known here, will be the replacement for the harrier for both the Royal Navy and the RAF, while the typoon is the replacement for tornado and jaguar.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Computers are not evil. Software is evil.

You can have a good terminator and a bad terminator, both the same model, with a different software running.
 

Aplha 1-1

Spaceman
Delance said:
Computers are not evil. Software is evil.

You can have a good terminator and a bad terminator, both the same model, with a different software running.
True, or there wouldn't have been Terminators 2 and 3 at the cinema :D

As for the Red Queen (the AI from Resident Evil) being evil? I didn't think it did anything evil at all only obeying what the situation called for. Would YOU open the doors of a virus filled bunker if doing so risked infecting an entire city?
(and besides, anybody who knows the storyline of ResEvil would tell you it wasn't the virus in the bunker that killed racoon city but thats another story...)
 
Top