Published a book you want to tell us about? Uploaded a YouTube video you want to share?
Normally you'll need 100 posts to self-promote, but with an upgraded membership you can do so with your first post.
Find out more here: Become a Supporting Member
2010 is a good book (the movie has its moments, too, for that matter, though it's nowhere near as powerful a visual experience as Kubrick's film -- which should be seen on as big a screen as possible, by the way); but 2061 really isn't worth bothering with, in my opinion....Ah, I see. This means I need to read "2010" now. After I see the movie version of Space Odyssey: 2001, that is.
Quite right. Fault tolerant systems demand hot swap components and there's no reason why this can't extend to such things as logic and memory boards.Perhaps HAL's components are hot swappable, enabling maintenance during mission critical operation, uninterrupted.
Ah. Okay. My mistake....I was getting a bit carried away there JD, I forgot we were talking about fiction.
I was having a little rant at the quite common mistake that people have of assuming that artificial intelligence is anything but artificial, but genuine.
are you sir in a writing professon - if so i would like to read what ever you write.Heuristically programmed, algorithmically organised.
Does the lack of hormones make genuine intelligence impossible? The lack of "feelings" ie. the increase in the importance of absolute logic, render thought so divergent from the hominid norm that it is no longer recognised as thought at all, but some watered-down simulation?
Thus, by analogy, those of us who live less in our endocrine system and more in the nerve network are not really thinking; we're calculating, and camouflaging ourself amoungst our more emotive bretheren by pretending to the same innaccuracies.
Biological bases for thought processes are no more complex than gates and inverters, shift registers and RAM. and are organised considerably less logically than computer elements; in particular, programming is a lot more haphasard. Where an ant or a goldfish wins out is in sheer number of synapses. "Choice" routines (when nothing seems to give an optimum result, do something at random, rather than doing nothing and waiting for orders, or the situation to clarify)have been available for decades in chess-playing programs; ultimately suitanle for military connand robots (and to be left out of civil servant models, who should await further instructions while being torn apart by the raging mob)
Is "throwing the dice" (a random number generator) that much less sapient than "he reminded me of my cousin's boy, so I chose to save him, rather than another.
Or, if you want learned illogic, how about Rudi Rucker's boppers (software, wetware)? Given a sufficiently complex system, the results will be unpredictable. Which is what you were aiming for, no?