The future...

[T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)]

To Brian,

>Who says that AI's can't be "programmed" to be smart with info gained by 
>other AI's.  Before you comment on that loaded line, I'd like to say that I 
>do see where this discussion is leading.  It is headed into a dead end

It was not my purpose at all to kill the idea, since it was hypothetical
from the start. I just wanted to make clear that I thought the AI would
either be smart or they wouldn't. In that small exchange of thoughts, you
implied that AIs wouldn't need an individual learning process. I must say
though that programming the AIs with a mixture of "knowledge/experiences"
from older AIs is something I had not yet though of, but sounds like a very
good idea.
I guess the makers of Startrek had tought of that too, when creating the
Cyborgs with their collective memory.

>so I'll restate something someone else said.  We don't have a _clue_ as to
what 
>AI capabilities will be, so there is no real point in arguing about them. 

As I already said, they will be smart or they won't. No point to argue about ;)

> There are perhaps more variables to contend with in the development of 
>Automated Robot Civilizations (ARCs) than there are in the designing of a 
>manned, roundtrip, high speed starship.

>It is so frustrating being stuck in the 1990s while trying to design a ship 
>whose technology is really at least 100 years beyond our reach.  But since 
>the tech is 100+ years away, we have to make some assumptions, which I 
>believe include ARCs.  Do you agree?

Yes, although I for mining and other large scale projects I "see" that AI
controlled nanotechonolgy will be even more ultimate than plain robots. But
too look at it from a completely different viewpoint, I "see" that there
will be new sources of energy, that have just started bubbeling or will
start in the years to come. These new sources will bring with them physics
that we could not dream of yet.

Timothy