# Seems like SF is taken seriously these days



## TheTomG (Aug 23, 2011)

BBC news article on Intel hiring SF writers (I think you have to be pretty notable though heh) to help them decide the future course of their technologies:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14587868


----------



## iansales (Aug 23, 2011)

The US government created a thinktank of sf writers back in the 1970s, iirc. Legend has it that's where the Star Wars programme came from.


----------



## Metryq (Aug 23, 2011)

Is this really anything new? Many sci-fi writers start as scientists or engineers, and many inspire readers who then follow careers in science and engineering. Conceptual artists for movies are sometimes industrial designers.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Aug 23, 2011)

*Asimov's three laws of robotics still seem good?*

1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2)A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3)A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.


----------



## iansales (Aug 23, 2011)

Those laws never made sense to me. Robots can only do what you program them to do because they're, well, robots.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Aug 23, 2011)

iansales said:


> Those laws never made sense to me. Robots can only do what you program them to do because they're, well, robots.



But if I ever beat _HAL_ at chess (that'll be the day) I'd like to be sure he's a good loser ...


----------



## Metryq (Aug 23, 2011)

Asimov's robots are artificial intelligences, not the sort of "dumb" machines we use today. So perhaps the idea is not so far fetched. However, I feel that Asimov's intention was to quantify _human_ morality in some simple and symbolic form for stories. 

If one takes the Laws literally, one might argue that they are faulty. In some of Asimov's own stories the Laws had to be modified or re-prioritized in order to get the robots to do what was desired. Roger MacBride Allen's _Caliban_, set in Asimov's robots universe, addresses the idea that the Laws enslave humanity because robots will not permit "necessary" risk. The Will Smith movie _I, Robot_ is modeled very closely on _Caliban_, but arrives at the "_Colossus_" conclusion that man must be protected from himself. James Hogan's _The Two Faces of Tomorrow_ is refreshing in that the first AI goes to war with mankind because it does not initially recognize us as an intelligence. 

"Laws" of robotics assumes a "top down" approach to AI, instead of the more probable "bottom up" method described in _The Two Faces of Tomorrow_. In that case, Laws could not be written until the AI was defined and understood. And as depicted in Daniel Wilson's _Robopocalypse_, we may not have the time to put such laws into action.


----------



## Metryq (Aug 23, 2011)

RJM Corbet said:


> But if I ever beat _HAL_ at chess (that'll be the day) I'd like to be sure he's a good loser ...



"Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a wookie."


----------



## TheTomG (Aug 23, 2011)

iansales said:


> Those laws never made sense to me. Robots can only do what you program them to do because they're, well, robots.



That applies to traditional programming, indeed. But as we move on to neural nets, learning algorithms, and brain-like processors from Intel, we will be teaching our robots, not programming then - and we won't be in direct control of what they learn.

So some fail-safes may need to be built in, in case our plastic pal who's fun to be with picks up the wrong message from the experiences we give him / her / it, and that's where the laws might come in - what fail-safe can you build for a machine whose behavior is learned and you no longer know exactly what it will do next?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Aug 23, 2011)

TheTomG said:


> ... So some fail-safes may need to be built in ...



Yes. Or Joe can program his robot to murder Mike then self destruct leaving no evidence? (Makings of a story here?)

But that's just Asimov, who wrote about it when it was still just an idea in a sci-fi writer's brain. Star Trek's Gene Rodenberry came up with some ideas as well, although I can't really think of one right now, except perhaps the cell-phone thing ...


----------



## Metryq (Aug 23, 2011)

RJM Corbet said:


> Star Trek's Gene Rodenberry came up with some ideas as well, although I can't really think of one right now, except perhaps the cell-phone thing ...



That sounds like the same kind of stretch Samsung is making right now in regard to the iPad/Galaxy case:

*Samsung cites Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' movie as prior art against iPad design patent*

More than one documentary/article on futurists has credited the _Star Trek_ communicator for the clamshell cell phone design. It's entirely possible that some cell phone designer was inspired by the show, but the design is also practical. The bifold shape is more compact when closed, yet affords better positioning between mic and earpiece when open. The communicator antenna-cover also protects the controls, as with the cell phone. Only in hindsight does one notice that the communicator cover is suggestive of today's embedded, fractal antennae. 

But incidental form factors like the _Star Trek_ communicator, or the _2001_ data pad are the least of what Intel and other tech companies are looking for. The iPad's success is not accidental. Jobs and company have been working toward this day for years. What makes up the majority of user time on domestic computers? Socializing and entertaining: e-mail, Web surfing, playing games, watching movies, etc. People do much more with computers, but the time is ripe for a device that does those things well in a smaller, cheaper form factor. Of course, the device is also "generic" enough to do many other things via lightweight apps. But the iPad alone isn't enough. Apple built up the iTunes Store and the rest of the "eco-system." None of this stuff is revolutionary, and each step may have looked minor. Together they are "visionary."

I'm sure that's the sort of long range planning Intel plans for those sci-fi writers. What do we need to build in the next five to ten years so that people can wear computers, and how will this affect the way they work and play?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Aug 23, 2011)

Metryq said:


> ... I'm sure that's the sort of long range planning Intel plans for those sci-fi writers. What do we need to build in the next five to ten years so that people can wear computers, and how will this affect the way they work and play?



I was watching some tv programme on Microsoft technology where this guy slides the image of a red ball along a computer screen (it was a tabletop sort of thing) then he slid the ball _off _the screen and had this red ball of sort of laser light in his hand, about as big as a golf ball.

Next he tossed the ball from hand to hand, then he tossed it to another person who tossed it back to him. Then lastly he went over to another screen on the wall and touched the screen with the ball, and the ball became re-integrated in the on-screen display.

Amazing stuff.

Then there's the idea of the bank has your fingerprints, so instead of a credit card you just go to the machine and it reads your print ...


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 23, 2011)

RJM Corbet said:


> Then there's the idea of the bank has your fingerprints, so instead of a credit card you just go to the machine and it reads your print ...


Sounds like the phrase, "Hand over the money!" will have a whole new meaning.


----------



## Christopher Lee (Sep 2, 2011)

Ursa major said:


> Sounds like the phrase, "Hand over the money!" will have a whole new meaning.




Haha, Oddly i found this to be much funnier than it should have been...


----------

