New Sci-FI novels which...

[Omits]

...are only half believable by having human pilots and no AI. I would think AI would be in control of Space craft in the not too distant future so future novels should be based on mainly AI. I would like to see a novel exploring this.

 

[BAYLOR]

A Maze of Stars by John Brunner This is an older novel but I think it does your requirements .

 

[Swank]

Sorta. What are AI ships doing? Blowing up other AI ships?

The conflict in SF is depicting future versions of classic human action while avoiding the fact that classic human action might not have any reason to exist. There is something really silly about the idea of 'space marines', as well as pilots, mechanics, cosmologists, etc. Why would any of those jobs exist with AI and robots.


But plenty of books already exist where the ships are completely automated - like all of the Alastair Reynolds books. So what is it you aren't seeing about automated ships?


Of course, you can invent social or technical reasons why you still need human pilots. That's the entire basis of Dune, for instance. But it is silly to have pilots operating ships with otherwise amazing technology.

 

[Ray Zdybrow]

Interstellar dodgems?

 

[Omits]

Well Swank has got it. I've stopped buying books where humans do ridiculous things like 'her fingers flew over the keyboard'.. etc. Oil covered overalls!? There's no bridge on my Generation ship and it is driven by a community of sentient AI. We kid ourselves when we think we know what Hard Sci-Fi is.

 

[reiver33]

I think it will always be cheaper to send a human to do a job than a fully sentient, and autonomous, AI.

 

[Omits]

I think it will always be cheaper to send a human to do a job than a fully sentient, and autonomous, AI.

Can't see how. Stick a computer in a box w/o food and water and it will last a long time! Cheaper to develop.

 

[Swank]

I think it will always be cheaper to send a human to do a job than a fully sentient, and autonomous, AI.

In space?

 

[Astro Pen]

Jay Score, Eric Frank Russell er 1941 Ahead of the curve. Back then IT was the punchline of course

 

[SilentRoamer]

Ive seen this handled in interesting ways. I liked the mathematical theorems in David Zindells Neverness, then there are the issues with the potential of AI - which is handled really well in the Zones of Thought restrictions Vernor Vinge places in his Fire upon the Deep.
There is something to be said about space combat being a logical extension of air combat - the Praxis series by Jon Williams goes the other way - AI handles all of the missile and countermeasure launches and the space battle sequence as a result, whilst realistic for propulsion based explosive systems are tedious and boring. }
Others have mentioned other ways it is handled, interesting topic.

 

[reiver33]

Unless there is some fundamental change in the underlying technology (and I’m more than happy to stand corrected on this), the sophistication and complexity of hardware required to support a true artificial intelligence will be staggeringly expensive and require continued (human) maintenance. Unless you can develop smart system ‘drones’ to undertake repairs, or have two AI per ship, so that one can act as doctor for the other if required. That’s a lot more money, squared.

Human life support is a given, a known and quantifiable variable, with predictable costs over the long term. Plus I believe that the human ego will dictate having the final say, regardless of the advantages an autonomous agent would bring (in reaction time, ethical dilemma, indifference to casualties, etc.)

 

[Swank]

Unless there is some fundamental change in the underlying technology (and I’m more than happy to stand corrected on this), the sophistication and complexity of hardware required to support a true artificial intelligence will be staggeringly expensive and require continued (human) maintenance. Unless you can develop smart system ‘drones’ to undertake repairs, or have two AI per ship, so that one can act as doctor for the other if required. That’s a lot more money, squared.

Human life support is a given, a known and quantifiable variable, with predictable costs over the long term. Plus I believe that the human ego will dictate having the final say, regardless of the advantages an autonomous agent would bring (in reaction time, ethical dilemma, indifference to casualties, etc.)

What's staggeringly expensive about running a computer that isn't talking to the entire Internet?