11-07-2017, 06:18 AM | #211 |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Meifumado
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
Was this the thread that was discussing encryption methods and randomness generators?
Apparently, lava lamps help with that- https://sploid.gizmodo.com/one-of-th...-wa-1820188866
__________________
Collaborative Settings: Cyberpunk: Duopoly Nation Space Opera: Behind the King's Eclipse And heaps of forum collabs, 30+ and counting! |
11-11-2017, 09:56 PM | #212 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
Quote:
Quote:
As I said, I simply picked an infantry setting for a convenient example, the same limitations and logic apply elsewhere. Now, if you have true 'strong AI', then computers can make judgement calls, and the question changes to 'reliability, trustworthiness, and loyalty'. But we have no slightest idea of how to create such an entity right now. It's just as much a technological handwave as any other aspect of a space setting.
__________________
HMS Overflow-For conversations off topic here. |
||
11-11-2017, 10:00 PM | #213 | |
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
Quote:
Treknology might actually produce space fighters that made sense, for that matter. Hollywood esp. likes space fighters for the same reason they like Old West gunfights (which rarely ever happened the way the movies portray) or one-on-one sword fights. It's individual, a one-on-one engagement, it makes for good drama.
__________________
HMS Overflow-For conversations off topic here. |
|
11-11-2017, 10:03 PM | #214 |
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
I have no such confidence, on an open-ended timescale.
__________________
HMS Overflow-For conversations off topic here. |
11-11-2017, 10:07 PM | #215 |
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
No, it's a very dumb automaton.
We run into a problem because 'artificial intelligence' is one of those terms that keeps getting redefined the mean something else. The SFnal sense of it as 'artificial person' is actually what the experts originally tended to mean when they said it, modulo details. Over time, the professional use of the term morphed into 'expert systems' and specialized programming applications, as the ideal of the SAI predicted by Moravec and others kept receding into the future. (At one point in the 1970s, Moravec confidently predicted human-level AI by 2000.) Now it's used to mean a mess of different things, even by the professionals, none of which has much to do with actual conscious intelligence. Which is also why it's unlikely we'll see the human element removed entirely from combat any time soon.
__________________
HMS Overflow-For conversations off topic here. |
11-12-2017, 02:50 AM | #216 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
11-12-2017, 08:39 AM | #217 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
Dominion War era "fighters" in Trek are more like patrol or torpedo boats anyway. They are long range, relatively large, and don't have carriers.
Last edited by sir_pudding; 11-12-2017 at 09:16 AM. |
11-12-2017, 09:15 AM | #218 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
Quote:
In TOS the answer was a definite "no" and that was the case in Lensman and neither had little attack ships.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
11-12-2017, 12:37 PM | #219 | |
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Land of Enchantment
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
Quote:
Well, first, your "displaced human choice" argument. There is no computer about which you cannot claim that, so it's moot. It's an attempt to define your way to winning the argument. The whole point is that humans (or committees of expert humans) program a series of 'best practices' into the algorithms, and the computers execute them better than any human could. So that's exactly what we're talking about. More to the point, take medicine as just one example- there have been computers programmed with diagnostic algorithms and they dramatically out-performed human diagnosticians. And, as a surgeon, I can almost see the day where I'll be replaced with a robot; at least right now the robots are more like waldos that I control. But full automation probably won't be widely implemented in my lifetime since it's a much harder problem than just diagnosis; it won't be much longer than that, though. (It actually has already been done, experimentally, in simulated cases using pigs.) And, of course, as has already been pointed out ALPHA beat the pants off of the human pilots against whom it was tested. In every field where this has been tried the result has been the same. The computer had better 'judgement' than the human. Or, at least equivalent but much faster judgement than the human, which also has it's benefits in combat. All you need humans for are decisions that aren't majoritively data-driven. In this argument, that's "war or not war?" A human must be the one to decide when to engage in hostilities, but once that decision is made the computers will be much better at executing the hostilities. In a situations less than total war, yes, clearly humans will have to be rather more involved in deciding political questions, such as "how much collateral damage are we willing to tolerate", "is that freighter a valid target", "etc.
__________________
I'd need to get a grant and go shoot a thousand goats to figure it out. Last edited by acrosome; 11-12-2017 at 07:06 PM. |
|
11-12-2017, 01:18 PM | #220 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?
A human pilot is only exercising "displaced choice" too, that is why he needs rules of engagement, and authorization for use of force.
|
|
|