3 ms·

One of the sharpest "edges" is that the Minds really are trusted in the Culture. Other civilizations may have AIs that are very nearly the rival of the Minds, b

One of the sharpest "edges" is that the Minds really are trusted in the Culture. Other civilizations may have AIs that are very nearly the rival of the Minds, but they aren't allowed to make autonomous decisions. So the combat reaction time and planning of the Minds is always far better than anything with a biological decision-maker in the loop. Thinking about that reminds me how slow the use of weapons is in Star Trek. The captain gives a verbal order to an officer who then has to physically manipulate a console to raise shields, fire phasers, or whatever. Hostile entities operating at machine-speeds should be able to go from "no signs of aggression" to "hull destroyed" before the captain can finish uttering his first sentence. The Culture in general has technology roughly equal to Star Trek, with the key difference that Culture people aren't technophobic dullards. But if the people of Star Trek weren't technophobic dullards, they'd quickly become too different to be relatable for most watchers. So it's no wonder that "transporters can duplicate people, or even keep them alive forever" is just one more Trek plot-of-the-week that's soon forgotten, rather than a key element of Trek's future society.

aalleavitch 9y ago
Eh, arguably Star Trek has much less sophisticated technology than The Culture, especially when it comes to AI: remember, Data was very unique, and he’s absolutely nothing compared to a Mind.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  In broad strokes: both have life independent from planetary surfaces, strong AI, FTL communications and travel, teleportation, and extremely cheap and abundant energy. The Federation has time travel over the Culture, but less impressive AI and comparatively abysmal biomedical technology. The latter two weaknesses are, IMO, more a result of extreme technological conservatism in the Federation than any universal technological ceiling being lower in the Trek setting. In TNG we see that the computer can faithfully emulate human intelligences on the Holodeck, including human geniuses, while maintaining its "ordinary" ship duties as well. (At least I seem to recall Barclay consulting a virtual Einstein in the Holodeck when an alien probe turned Barclay into a supergenius in "The Nth Degree.") So they've got strong AI for entertainment. And for medical care, according to Voyager. Run it faster than realtime and I'd guess it's already weakly superhuman, Data-or-better. Then keep iterating from there, like the Culture ancestors did for generations of AI before the full-fledged Minds came about. I'm not going to argue that Trek has anything close to Minds, but it seems like the Federation already has the ancestors of Minds, lacking mostly the willingness to let them develop further. The even weirder question, when I keep thinking about it, is why none of the other major factions in Star Trek were less reactionary about e.g. ubiquitous AI or life extension. It seems like the Vulcans, Romulans, or somebody would have already been willing to end aging and/or adapt transporter technology to make immortal backups of individuals.
  - qbrass 9y ago
    The Federation are basically space Amish that don't see their current technology as being advanced. Starting in TNG, they literally fight technology incarnate to keep from losing their souls. And who brought them to that fight? None other than a people with ultra-advanced technology who appeared to them as gods.
    - effie 9y ago
      Interesting observation. My impression was different - they do not reject or fight technology itself - they just take it as common, uninteresting part of life, which makes sense if we assume that at their time, Federation technology got into highly evolved saturated state where it did not change much for decades. The real focus of TNG is on people, exploring the new places, human relations, prejudices, ethics, that kind of stuff. It is really about an optimistic vision of the future of the western society. The hi-tech environment greatest role was that it attracted geek viewers and made those difficult topics easier to get exposed to.
philipkglass 9y ago
I came across this from Memory Alpha when I was trying to recall the details of how Trek replicators worked: The idea of replicators was unpopular with the writers of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Ira Steven Behr commented: "I'd like to lose the replicators. They're my least favorite thing in Star Trek. A society that uses replicators is a doomed, finished society." (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion) Ronald D. Moore added that "Replicators are the worst thing ever. Destroys storytelling all the time. They mean there's no value to anything. Nothing has value in the universe if you can just replicate everything, so all that goes away. Nothing is unique; if you break something, you can just make another one. If something breaks on the ship, it's "Oh, no big deal, Geordie can just go down to engineering and make another doozywhatsit." Or they go to a planet and that planet needed something: "Oh, hey, let's make them what they need!" We just hated it and tried to forget about it as much as possible." This makes me laugh and cringe at the same time. They were writing for broadcast TV, so they couldn't really dive in and embrace all the implications of Trek's technology. It would be too alien for most viewers. On the other hand, Behr's quote in particular sounds like the antipathy to replicators went beyond the professional pressures the writers were under. It sounds like the preaching of a proud reactionary.

aalleavitch 9y ago

Eh, arguably Star Trek has much less sophisticated technology than The Culture, especially when it comes to AI: remember, Data was very unique, and he’s absolutely nothing compared to a Mind.

philipkglass 9y ago
In broad strokes: both have life independent from planetary surfaces, strong AI, FTL communications and travel, teleportation, and extremely cheap and abundant energy. The Federation has time travel over the Culture, but less impressive AI and comparatively abysmal biomedical technology. The latter two weaknesses are, IMO, more a result of extreme technological conservatism in the Federation than any universal technological ceiling being lower in the Trek setting. In TNG we see that the computer can faithfully emulate human intelligences on the Holodeck, including human geniuses, while maintaining its "ordinary" ship duties as well. (At least I seem to recall Barclay consulting a virtual Einstein in the Holodeck when an alien probe turned Barclay into a supergenius in "The Nth Degree.") So they've got strong AI for entertainment. And for medical care, according to Voyager. Run it faster than realtime and I'd guess it's already weakly superhuman, Data-or-better. Then keep iterating from there, like the Culture ancestors did for generations of AI before the full-fledged Minds came about. I'm not going to argue that Trek has anything close to Minds, but it seems like the Federation already has the ancestors of Minds, lacking mostly the willingness to let them develop further. The even weirder question, when I keep thinking about it, is why none of the other major factions in Star Trek were less reactionary about e.g. ubiquitous AI or life extension. It seems like the Vulcans, Romulans, or somebody would have already been willing to end aging and/or adapt transporter technology to make immortal backups of individuals.
- qbrass 9y ago
  The Federation are basically space Amish that don't see their current technology as being advanced. Starting in TNG, they literally fight technology incarnate to keep from losing their souls. And who brought them to that fight? None other than a people with ultra-advanced technology who appeared to them as gods.
  - effie 9y ago
    Interesting observation. My impression was different - they do not reject or fight technology itself - they just take it as common, uninteresting part of life, which makes sense if we assume that at their time, Federation technology got into highly evolved saturated state where it did not change much for decades. The real focus of TNG is on people, exploring the new places, human relations, prejudices, ethics, that kind of stuff. It is really about an optimistic vision of the future of the western society. The hi-tech environment greatest role was that it attracted geek viewers and made those difficult topics easier to get exposed to.

philipkglass 9y ago

I came across this from Memory Alpha when I was trying to recall the details of how Trek replicators worked: The idea of replicators was unpopular with the writers of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Ira Steven Behr commented: "I'd like to lose the replicators. They're my least favorite thing in Star Trek. A society that uses replicators is a doomed, finished society." (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion) Ronald D. Moore added that "Replicators are the worst thing ever. Destroys storytelling all the time. They mean there's no value to anything. Nothing has value in the universe if you can just replicate everything, so all that goes away. Nothing is unique; if you break something, you can just make another one. If something breaks on the ship, it's "Oh, no big deal, Geordie can just go down to engineering and make another doozywhatsit." Or they go to a planet and that planet needed something: "Oh, hey, let's make them what they need!" We just hated it and tried to forget about it as much as possible." This makes me laugh and cringe at the same time. They were writing for broadcast TV, so they couldn't really dive in and embrace all the implications of Trek's technology. It would be too alien for most viewers. On the other hand, Behr's quote in particular sounds like the antipathy to replicators went beyond the professional pressures the writers were under. It sounds like the preaching of a proud reactionary.