pizoi\literature\sf: SF-FUTURISM

SF: FUTURISM

Of course, the boundary between science and
science fiction is becoming blured - that was
the idea of dreaming in the first place.
Share and enjoy!

See also: [SF index]
[SF: Film] ** only sf films!!! **
[SF General]

-^_6 [^^LITERATURE INDEX]
[^^The ALT LIST!] (ah, those literary weirdos!)
[^^^terms] (index of indexes)

SF Futurism

On this page:
{Futurism: Before there was a future}
{A/I}

{Links}

SF: Futurism

In this section: {}
{}

SF Fut:

Futurism: Before there was a future

A few of the early writers would speculate about the
future (more often than not, they would use Sobchak's
Exchange theorem (or so i have given it such a name)

To travel across vast distances in space
is equivalent to travel across vast distances in time
and vice versa.

Thus, when Jonathon Swfit sets Guliver out into the world
he is essentially traveling in space (the main space of
that period in history - the as-yet un-explored areas of
the earth). And note especially that (i believe it was
the anthologist Sam Moskowitz who put this first) that
one of the early ideas of exploration (what we might call
sf or proto-sf) had to do with the idea of "Worlds of Wonder"
-- that is, the mysteries of the earth itself. Indeed,
we know that even (eg) Hugh Lofting in his Doctor DooLittle
series sends the doctor to the Moon (having been to the
origin of the Earth in Africa probably the next logical
"THE NEXT STEP INTO THE UNKNOWN"), and of course one can
see that Frank L. Baum's "Oz" stories are far from simple
escapism.

A/I
NOTE: Since *so* many sf films involve ai (including the superbly
made eponymous (ie, same name; ie: "AI")
film based on Burgis Aldis's story... and of course....

anyway, froodz: go vidy well the slovos in the
-[sf-film]- file.

See also: {Hal's Legacy}, below.

In this section: {Intro}
{The Problem of Self-Realisation}
{How would a self-aware AI view us?}

Intro

Of course the idea of A/I has always been in the background,
even since the ideas of the ancients when a person goes into
a transe (eg, a witch doctor, shaman, etc) and is channelling
a spirit, they are essentially: Hardware running a different
program. These days, we are well aware of even things like
past life regression, mediums, and of course visionaries not
the least well known is of course Nostradamous ??sp??.

So, the idea of building an artificial human, or even a
simacriluum of *any* thing (eg, the pet frogs, evnisioned
in Philip K. Dick's "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep"
- filmed as "BladeRunner" - qv, this page). The idea is
that: Some sort of computer-based system is SIMULATING
or "artificing" intellegence and/or behaviour of a living
thing.

We can imagine, again as did Dick, as well as the
physician/sf-writer Alan E. Norse making an artifical
copy of an in-animate object (eg, a microscope) that would
behave exactly like the real thing, but (in their stories)
have a *sinister* purpose for its mimicary. We shall
take as read, that if we can make Robbie the Robot, we
can make Michy the MicroScope. (imagines to self that
Michy is your fun science buddy that shows you the
wonders of the microscopic world!!)

The important thing is of course what is commonly called
the "Turing Test", after the late, great cyberneticist
Alan Turing. And of course i take it as read that you
*can* google stuff like that as well as the "Chinese Room"
and other A/I paradoxes - i'll write covering articles
in the ZIX-42 iconosphere now or earlier or later - time
is read as completly symmetrical and isotropic.

Of course, as the A/I researchers around the world are
working on user-friendly systems and part of this is to
make a system which understands more how humans think
rather than to necessarily think for themselves.

That is, it's more important for the AI on the phone
to ask, "You said that you want to transfer money from
this account to one of your other accounts, is that right?"
- than to understand what money is or even who it might
be talking to.

NOTE: That is this case, there is a very subtle bit of
H/I - A/I conversation going on. The A/I isn't
simply repeating what you told it. It took your spoken
(typed?) text, recognised it into a human language
(eg, English), and then took the resulting sentences
(some of the words may be garbled) and PARSED it into
a gramatical thing that "should" resemble a sentence
- either a command or a query. And then matches this
to all of the possible things that the caller (assumed
human - double Turing test? Poss natch!) is ALLOWED
to do at the current juncture in the conversation,
and then repeats the MATCH of the command that it
"thinks" the human (caller) wants. And does this
for conformation so, that it doesn't go off on a
tangent.

This idea is beautfully brought out in (as i recall)
Rama II by Arthur C. Clarke when the computer gets
one of its assumptions wrong and instead of asking
for conformation - a bug in the code! -- begins to
kill the patient instead of saving them; all of the
mistakes due to a simple loss of a "do you mean this?"
conformation code. In D/B (Data/Base) C/S (Computer/Sci)
speek this is closely related to a thing called
"Second Phase Commit" - when processing transactions
over a communications line, it's always possible
that the data (which has been checked) got past a
glitch in the system or more commonly on the communications
channel itself (static, data-loss, etc) - thus, a
sort of "last gasp" effort to minimise errors.
Of course, in real life errorrs can't happenn.

Mimic .does-not-equal. Same-as

As the robot experimentalist David L. Heiserman pointed
out in his books: Just because a robot is doing what we
programmed it to do, does not mean it is doing that thing
HOW we think it is.

That is, when we do something we "know" how we are
approaching the problem. What facts we take into
consideration, which we ignore, etc. (well mostly)

But, an A/I might use a very large amount of data
to come to a simple conclusion or may make a brill
insight using the most mediocre of data that we've
previously over-looked. In the case of a lot of
programming and/or data - that's where even a tiny
error can lead to disastrous results.

Oddly enough, there is an excellent existant example
of this. When Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead
set out to systematically prove all of arithmetic from
the simplest possible assumptions: "Principia Mathematica".
It took them some 600 different tedious steps (stating
a theorem, carefully proving it to be true, and then
using the previous theorems to build the next "level"
and of course even deciding what the next theorem should
be, etc!) - to finally reach a valid proof for:

Statement #600: 1 + 1 = 2

(or something like that)

Similarly, since many A/I systems are bound to based on
so-called "rule-based" systems (and def on large ammounts
of data and complex algorithms/programs/scripts), the
problem of just getting "the basics" right is challenging.

But, again: The way that the A/I "thinks" may be totally
un-fathomable to us. Even in Heiserman's "simple" robots
(move around, look for food (energy outlet), move things
around, look for patterns, etc) - even *he* was astounded
by the complexity of the behaviours - and these were NOT
in any way (or do we *really* know??? - no, just foolin' ;)
self-aware. He mentions saying, "I really wish i knew what
it was thinking?". In reality, it was a far cry from
thinking: It builds lists of data, tries a few simple
built-in rules to see if there is a pattern (the so-called
standard "patten of 3") and if possible, shuffles the
data together, to make new rules. And its "sensors" were:
Roll until you bump into something (wheel not turning
signal is ON), back up (switch from FORWARD to BACKWARD
battery connection. Turn motor on. Check WHEEL TURNING SIGNAL,
etc - it didn't have any "eyes").

So, don't be fooled by the "depth" of a problem and/or its
soution - we barely know how we think. Again, Mary Shelly
warns us: Be not arrogant. Like i sed, if all you've ever
seen are the films (even the first one with Boris Karlof
as "the monster") - you haven't even got a clue what she
was "on about". No wonder she gained such notice over night.

(tired, so i'll just say: GO READ THE ORIGNAL BOOK, humans!!!)

The Range of A/I "intellegence"

Thus there are several levels of things:

An A/I of possibly great intellegence that can understand
what we mean, even if we don't say what we do mean.

An A/I of even limited (about the 4-year old child stage
these days) that can reason and knows when to
ask a question to learn more.

An A/I of some extent that *does* mimic human reasoning.

An A/I of a greater extent (but possibly of limited K-base
(Knowledge-base, or K-D/B - Knowledge Data/Base)
that comes close to pasing the Turing test: Is
it A/I or H/I (Human Intellegence)?

A self-aware A/I.

It's on this last, that i (as a futurist/sf-writer/thing)
want to dwell. There are several examples of the self-aware
A/I that have emerged in recent times. Commander Data on
Star Trek, Marvin in the H2G2, Collsis in "The Forbin Project",
and so forth.

*** NEED LINKS **

Star Trek - Roddenberry, D.C. Fontana, etc
h2g2 - Douglas Noel Adams
D.F. Jones' "Collasis" trilogy

But.

Of course the first realistic treatment was of course in
Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" - still not made into a decent
movie, except for an obscure Spanish-Language only film.

The monster becomes a moster when it becomes aware of
its own mostrosity.

That's folks. She said it first. It had been hinted at
here and there, but that's it:

What would happen if we make a person who
has no soul (even if it's not meta-physically missing ;)
when they confront the absurdity of life?

Beckett, Ionesco, the Dadaists, and all the rest of us
all link back to her.

You read different authors, and you get different takes.
But, it's just a thriviving philosophical plant that takes
root in the very heart of The Monster.

(must go now), much to do....
later,

The Problem of Self-Realisation

The burgeoning of self-awareness

"??name??" in "BladeRunner"

cf/qv with the way the replicants are portryed in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"

Assertion of Ego

HAL

that is the A/I realising how superior it is,
takes on a "care-giver" role for the pitiable
humans

(Matrix - Borg, etc - my need is greater than that of the humans)

Fully Human

Marvin

??name?? in Data's daugter's name

I (as an absurdist/poet/thing) can see no other course but
to prevent the poor robot from being self aware, but as
pointed out in the phrase in "the ghost in the machine"
(written by Jeff Vintar spoken by James Cromwell as
"Dr. Alfred Lanning") provides perhaps the single, best
cautionary warning:

Despite our best efforts to make a machine that is "just"
a machine, it may develop not only further un-forseen
behaviours/capabilities/un-tracibilites, but self-awareness.
I fear that it would end up like me, Marvin, and Eyore
(the despondent donkey of Winnie the Pooh fame) -

Life is all right; i suppose.
Well, at least until something better comes along.

And of course, we go back to "Forbidden Planet" with the
idea that even the brilliant/kindly Dr. Morbius was
unknowinly hide-ing an evil villian.

How would a self-aware AI view us?

We take as read: Self Aware,
Intellegence on par with humans, or greater than.

Note too the idea that in general a superior person
already feels superior because of their greater
"gifts" - these could be political/business savy,
strength, and of course intellegence. The idea
that a superior intellegence would almost necessarily
look ascance on us "lowly humans" has come through
a long tradition in SF.

Notably in "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes
(made into an excellent film produced and directed
by Ralph Nelson w/screen-play by Sterling
Sillphant and staring Cliff Robinson as "Charly".
The story - well worth seeking out! - tells of
a retarded person who thru a series of experiments
not only is given "normal" but actually superior
intellegence. Part of the story is the diary kept
by Charly (who eventually "learns" that his name
is spelled "Charley") when he says of the doctors
that made him smart (whom he was always in awe of
prior to his treatment), "I can no longer have
any respect for Dr. X, since he has trouble with
even simple things like the calculus of variations"
-- not an exact quote (The hierarchy here would be:
counting, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, functions,
calculus, ordinary differential equations, partial
differential equations, and then calculus of variations.
-- that's about as far as *i* ever got. So, it's
quite a comment about how dreadfully stupid Dr. X
was ;)

Of course the film is a thinly guised parable of
the treatment of *sub-normal* humans and was of
course daring (You'll never make a nickle on this
film!) for the time: 1968. More revolution on seeing
people who had "somehow" become invisible in NORMAL
SOCIETY - one of the things that SF does best.

Other examples, include TV eps such as the Twilight Zone,
Outer Limits, and even The Prisoner "The General"
- where the "lesson" is clear:

superior intellegence necessarily breeds contempt.

Of course, Asimov/Campbell wrote the laws in order to
prevent that. And as Asimov later investigated (and is
brought out in the well made (but again flashy) film,
-["I, Robot"]- written by Jeff Vintar (who also
gave us the superb screen play for "Final Fantasy !)
That is, hidden under the iron-clad restraint of the
3 laws, the robots may resent being ordered about.
And of course, perinial absurdist SF writer Robert Sheckley
explored almost all possible sides of human-robot
interaction in many of his short SF stories.

Links

-[]-

Hal's Legacy
(tips towel to Stork, Kennard, and of course Arthur C. and Stanley)

-[www.mitpress]- (book edited by David G. Stork)
(an intense on-line text about HAL as futurist vision, etc)
-[Film: 2001, A Space Odyssey]-
-[David Kennard's prod & notes] (best known as prod of Cosmos, Ascent of Man, etc!)

-[Frank Schirrmacher's superb article]
Beyond 2001: HAL's Legacy for the Enterprise Generation
(beware nano-tech! - not a rosy future, despite corporate ads!)

DALLAS. Doubtless, the visitor tells himself, doubtless
Bill Joy's worries are nothing more than science fiction
� the irrational fears of a run away engineer.

Which is why he was so pleased to find an answer to them
- a rejoinder by Robert A. Freitas called "Some Limits to
Global Ecophagy," which can be downloaded from the Internet.
Freitas addresses the fear that nanorobots might one day
replicate unrestricted and out of control and take over
the planet.

-- the entire article is on-line.
v. good, tips towel 3 times to fellow "frank"!)

-[]-

NOTES (this section only)

[1] On thinking about the ways that the reading can be made self
conscious would be the very obvious scene where one of the
elders (eg) tells the protagonist: DON'T LOOK AT THE SCREEN,
and then we see in a pull-back shot that that the hero IS
looking at the screen and that we along with her/him/neth are
reading the text and looking at the images as well. The montage
can then be expanded to different parts of the screen in over
flowing and sections that as emerge and disperse bring different
meanings to the TEXT. This idea brilliantly realised in the
theis work of Micahel ?krause? ??name?? at the University of
Dallas using projectors, and reflected words on the top of
water tanks. An osciallating fan would then stir up the water
making it LESS reflective and those words projected by reflection
would shimmer and disappear. The othe words projected directly
onto the viewing surface (often made of a translucent material
hung in the walk path so that it could be viewed from either
side). When the words were all in focus, the image projected a
king of interesting (but rather banal) "poem", when the fan
interrupted the waves, the message that was visible was:

And you still don't know who i am.

-- absolutely stunning! This (like so much of pop, ab ex, and
op art NEEDS (indeed MUST) be explored in association with not
only film, but installation and partcipatory (happening) art
as well. Refer to: [Will Insley's ESSAY!Back to the TEXT}

[2] This point is excellently made in the movie *Sneakers* where
during the middle of a scrabble game one of the players
realises that the name "Seatec Astronomy" is not what it appears.
He (Redford's character "Bish") clears the letters off the scrabble
board and they start to re-arrange the letters until they reveal
what it *really* stands for. The camera closes to their faces,
and then scans along the letters, revealing little by little what
they spells

t o o m a n y s e c r e t s

(hope that works!)

btw: i refer to the above way that you had to (hopefully)
scroll the view thingie left to right as COERCED PERFORMANCES
[Link here]
{Back to the TEXT}

[3] Again this brought out brilliantly in the movie
*Wargames* as LAUNCH CODES are flashed up on the
screen, and then seen reflected off of the computer
science who helped to create the computer that is
about use those codes to start world war II (don't
worry, no real world was harmed in the making of
this picture ;)

Thus, text (or in this case RANDOM codes have meaning to
us because we know that they are more than what they
appear. This goes back to whether or not we can *ever*
escape meaning. The nonsense song "Daisy" that HAL
sings *means* to us that he is literally losing his
mind -- contrast this with the malevelent intent that
he had just before that "this mission is too important
to let you jeopardise it" (thus saying, if i have
to kill you, i will).

Thus, the use of random and non-sensical words or patterns
of numbers would still have some meaning. But, the art
concept that Shemoigan ??name?? says *is* very valid:

Can we create a PURE abstract thing with letters
or numbers that won't literally be read, but
enjoyed as abstract things. Obviously if we used
(for eg) the Kuffic ?sp? script as a calligraphic
form of design (in much the same way that much
of the arabic geometric decorations are meant to
be abstractions from the real/physical world), then
if we (as viewers) did *not* know that script it
would appear very abstract indeed.

-- alas, i must be off to story lab, more later (hopefully -- still haven't decided yet)
{Back to the TEXT}

{Back to the TOP of this page}

zzz