A year that can best be described as a good example of the Curate's Egg. Bad, but needing to find something good about it because, otherwise the horribleness of it all just gets you down. Time as they say to turn lemons into lemonade.
An opportunity to try and makes the best from all the bad happening around us. So Merry Christmas one and all.
.png)
Best wishes for Christmas and the New year.
ReplyDeleteCheers. Have a great day and lots of lovely presents too.
DeleteYou surely nailed it. In davy brin's blog.
ReplyDeleteThat is a bunch of old farts with levels of testosterone so low that their bechavior became indestinguishable from women's. (Sorry, but no harm intended, in women it is by design and for a great benefit of continuation of life)
That is what makes it funny to read, as they still talk about topics (like politics or scifi) that women rarely (if ever) show any interest.
Not sure that you'll be fond of such shady comment.
But for very least I would bet on your curiosity as an autor -- to know more about how it happens in-between people. Especially under cover of public lies and posterity. Am I wrong?
Well, about your business.
I cannot thrug it off. That concurent feelings.
I myself fond of mecha world.
But same time my experience as engineer screams at me at every point of it.
From mechanics of bipedal motion (why not 4, 6, or more legs??? -- for lower profile and redundancy, and all... but well, that way it would ruine all fleur of chevalery of MW, because it clearly are refurbishing of a dream about medieval bravery)
Armor/armor-piercing ratio. You probably know that modern tank guns can bust 1M of steel.
That mean that NO armor can be created, suitable for mecha.
Well, even if it'll be created -- there'd be NO need in such a big veriety of guns. Only one calibre to suit it all.
As modern 120 mm cannon against modern tanks.
But still, I'm open, and waiting for someone to think about Real World scenario...
or some scifi/fantasy world setup, which could make MW possible.
With all mechanical and social problems resolved.
Isn't it'll be great?
It sure would.
DeleteThe mecha in my books are more like over-sized power armor, and their advantage lies in mobility, and the ability to kneel and go prone. They don't replace conventional AFVs, rather they are for mobility in dense terrain.
If you read my books, or play wargames, then you will find more info here and over on my othr wargame blog.
Well, let's start from main canon. I mean Torston's.
DeleteInner Sphere, Clans, all that.
How do you think, what possible breadcrumbs could lead from our or like our world to that setup?
Econimically and socially.
Separately interesting phenomen of General Kerenski.
How it come to such an idea that well-breed soldiers are better than recruits?
While all our contemporary wizdom screams about need of masses-based army. Where profis can be only sceleton.
Exploring idea "MW is just like medieval knoghts".
It's quite transparent. Knight's armor was inpenetratable for contemporary weapon. Plus mobility of a mounted rider...
But under closer inspection it looks differ.
Really, there was weapon, like long bows and arbalets.
And knight, especially as lone rider, was easy pray even to a peasants. If they done courageous/desperate enough.
So, it looks more like conventional, than natural. Knighthood.
Granted to us by social and economical traits of that time.
Fot example medieval Japan created quite different type of knighthood. Based on personal training more, than equipment.
I haven't touched on that at all. I'm still in the sixty years in our future stage of developing a setting, rather than trying to create a future history set thousands of years ahead of now.
DeleteSo my concerns are more what do walking armoured fighting vehicles bring to the table?
And secondly, how large must they be to allow us to build them, but constrained by the need to be useful, and not just magnets for all the fire.
I'm not creating a world like BattleTech. Nor is it the world of Starship Troopers. Rather, it's power armor on steroids, because the dreams of an Iron Man suit are just that, dreams. Too small to carry the fuel, power cells etc, and too small for all the actuators to enhance strength and speed etc, and too small to carry enough armour and weapons to be combat effective.
So the Ape suits from Starship Troopers were inspiration. But even they are not possible to build. So what can we build?
I'd argue that the Scopedogs from the anime Armored Troopers VOTOMS are the nearest thing to plausible power armor I've seen realized.
As for the knights or samurai. Cool as they are, they are an answer to this problem from an age of limited technology. Have you ever read John Brunner's Jagged Orbit? It features as a sub-plot power armor that changes the balance of power.
Caveat only read if you like reading SF, it's not a book about power armor per se.
\\I haven't touched on that at all. I'm still in the sixty years in our future stage of developing a setting, rather than trying to create a future history set thousands of years ahead of now.
DeleteThere pretty much no difference here.
As MW setup could work same good here on Earth. That is just setting's eye-candy that it happen in all that different worlds. Our little blue dot have enough veriety of terrain and people crafty in war-games.
And... that way it could fix many pecular nonsequturs of a series.
Like instant space travels, lots of planets ready to support homo sapiens from get go, little scale brawls, cultural monoformity and etc.
\\So the Ape suits from Starship Troopers were inspiration. But even they are not possible to build. So what can we build?
As an engineer. One who is interested in futurism, not just repeating old gimmicks with possibly new refinments. That is not question what we will be able to build in future. Even near future.
Labs already working on some pretty futuristic stuff just now. Like syntetic mussles for example.
But social and economical realities -- that is thing that can change the way that future builds will be used and change very drastically. Look at WW 1 & 2 in compare to all previous wars.
Mass-production changed pastoral tough bloody man-to-man fighting into mass-murder frenzy.
For now, I see it like sad truth that what awaits us is world of a "screachers" than battlesuits. Small, deadly, venomous little robotics to kill or terrorise non-combatants. That's why I see it much preferred to think and talk about that decadent topic of MW.
\\I'd argue that the Scopedogs from the anime Armored Troopers VOTOMS are the nearest thing to plausible power armor I've seen realized.
Just googled for it.
Em-m, elementals?
\\Caveat only read if you like reading SF, it's not a book about power armor per se.
I like SF. Very much.
But also conscious of that that as a genre it pretty much dead. After things like "Life and death of Solomon Gursky" and "Accelerando". Where it come to logical conclusion of technological evolution -- nanotechnology and AI, all-powerfull, changing the very essence of what human are. It losing way to show "brave and bright" future, as we losing possibility to emphatise with it, being set in a place of man of future.
I see it interesting today -- retrofuturistic topic -- how to imagine reaction to our current, or slightly in-future world of someone from previous ages...
What Jule Vern would say after seeing, riding helicopter... or even some quadrocopter/flying car. :)
Scopedogs are not exactly BT Clan Elemental. You pilot a Scopedog, not wear it. Here's a link:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_DAYTGnglw&list=PLAM3lWHaq5H2ehP7aR4LhUj3s-6wez0mt&index=4
As for Accelerando this was a DNF, it's not my cup of tea. Not heard of the other book and a quick search produced links that led to uninteresting reviews. Sorry.
If you trawl this blog you will find lots of stuff about my passion for mecha and wargaming.
\\Scopedogs are not exactly BT Clan Elemental. You pilot a Scopedog, not wear it. Here's a link:
DeleteAs I said I googled for it.
That is minor technical detail IMHO, unless you'd be interested in elaborating/discussing further why that is important.
I just saw wiki page with descritption, and list of *changable* weapon striked me: pack of missiles, long gun, mortar... a-a-and, direct attack arm or something, as they called it.
As well as overal description as being dispensable unit.
Well, our real world battlesuits is in its infancy.Most closer to that are;
Thingy called "scorpion". You know, enormous magazine in a racksack,
and a gattling gun... just asking to be peered with some decent military grade armor, and for at least passive exo-sceleton to hold that weight.
Also, that suits that bomb squads using when approaching danger.
Idea to make something like assault squad armor. For police/spec-ops. Is somewhere in the air.Well, it was recurring theme... since the times of Geracles gutted Nemeian Lion. :)
But classical mecha design -- it's directly from 80-th.
(Relatively) small but powerfull powersource -- nuclear or termonuclear. That the same time defines minimal possible size of mecha-monster.
And.
Idea that there cannot be made robot that can do, reliably, a footwork. That's why need for a human-pilot, and human-like shape of a mecha.
Well, even my top of the list author -- Stanislav Lem was not able to withhold himself from envisioning himself at helm of such nifty thing. Though his leviathan was even bigger. 1000 tons.
\\As for Accelerando this was a DNF, it's not my cup of tea. Not heard of the other book and a quick search produced links that led to uninteresting reviews. Sorry.
That's exactly my point.
And sorry for incorrect ref. That was "The Days of Solomon Gursky".
My only excuse that I have had problem with finding that piece myself. As I have had read it in a borrowed scifi magazine long ago. Well, "The Days of Solomon Gursky -- Ian McDonald’s new tale, which begins with a passionate love story and takes us to the end of the universe and beyond, is set against the same background as his 1995 novel Terminal Café (Bantam). The author’s latest SF novel, Kirinya, is just out from Gollancz (UK). It’s a sequel to Evolution’s Shore, a book that Bantam published in paperback early last year. Mr. McDonald is currently writing Stupid Season—his first mainstream novel."
Well, I do not propose to read it. That's just as example.
I myself do not try to find more of such to read. Deem it as pointless.
"Accelerando" was a little bit better. But both pieces have same problem. Story started with introduction of a character(s) and whereabouts. Not bad.
But then, BOOM!, we are in the middle of the last technological revolution -- this or that type of nano-technology -- all-mighty tech that makes us people all-powerfull, capable of doing anything.
And we start doing anything
But, same time, loosing the very image of a human.
\\If you trawl this blog you will find lots of stuff about my passion for mecha and wargaming.
DeleteWhy did I decided to say something? If not in result of such trawl. ;)
If not because serfing through gave me a good vibes of intelligent and passionate thinking.
Well, weapon evolution have some patterns.
Like oscilating from "new hot thing" -- becoming weapon of elite.
Then in a step, becoming ordinary trooper boomstick.
Then goes obsolete.
Like with knight's armor -- for elite and cream of society.
Then reduced to ordinary cuirass.
Then disapeared.
But here is a big problem for mecha/powersuits.
Can it be mass-produced?
Hordess of warriors in mechas running on each other. Em, I think that would give nothing but disgust to a mecha-fun.
But same time.
Weapon of elite? Such a big and expensive.
That is not possible.
The same as handmade tank. Industrial engineering just do not work like that. Anything designed must be mass-produced.
Individual exemplars of a craftsman's work have no value.
Well, that is from point of view of contemporary tech.
Who knows what could startle us in a Future? But that is most interesting question that could be asked around it, IMHO.
I agree. Combat Armor suits would be mass produced. No argument there. I also think they'd be deployed where the ability to kneel, go prone, and climb over obstacles are assets in bringing a small armored fighting machine able to carry larger caliber weapons is where they would shine.
DeleteI'm hoping to bring a set of rules that focus on command and control, different levels of technology, and asymmetrical combat that is fun to play. Based in my near future setting that provides the background to my three novels.
We are coming to a realm of your sacred power as an autor to dictate to the world of your imagination to be arbitrarily suiting your and only your ideals.
DeleteI do not dare to argue about it.
So, it gives me an uneasy task of evenly splitting our discussion -- to continue bubbling about sides of it I'd like to discuss,
while not overstepping.
What to do?
What I was talking higher is more like about why mechas are not feasible in our world.
There just no military tasks and/or techological prerequisites.
Well, unless some paradigm shifts would happen.
Given that. Could you explain what paradigm shift(s) you envisioned for your Universe?
If you'd found it entertaining, of course.
I myself can only refer here to historical examples -- how inter-WW generals tryed to devise theory of a future battles.
And how that dictated the way war machines was built.
Idea of "armored chavalery" that proved itself busted in otherwise not that bad French tanks.
Ingenious american inventor, that was booed in his country. But whose visionary construct was used in otherwise incapable of producing anything good country over seas.
Well, given how current world history unfolds... surely there'd be only one firm-producer of such armors.
Plus possible a rival, copycat. From other country overseas.
Separate question.
DeleteI saw your posts about Robotech.
So. Maybe you are one who can clear to me that mistery.
I was seeing something called Robotech, as a hour or so length movie. (an par with Robotix, Transformers and such titles).
That was lo-o-ong ago, of course.
But when today I trying to find exactly that flick, I found only Japanese version (definite difference I remember vividly -- it's festival of bikinies, instead of karaoke contest in J. version)
It makes it look like parallel unverse travel.When you remember things a little bit different than everybody else remember.
But I am sure there is some realworld explanation.
Good question. Caveat answer from memory.
DeleteIt was either a European tape of Macross Do You Remember Love relabeled as Robotech, or a film compiled from three episodes of Robotech that received a limited video release.
The former was blocked by HG in the USA.
\\or a film compiled from three episodes of Robotech that received a limited video release.
DeleteNot first three, it seems.
As it was ending with final transformation into gigarobot and fistpunching of a guts of enemy's flagship... which then opened inside and bursted with pack of rockets -- ludicrous scene, though still stangely enticing, so I wanted to rewatch it again.
Seems like I need to search for VHS rips. Thank you.
No problem. Glad to be of assistance.
Delete🎅🎄 Merry Christmas!
ReplyDeleteThank you. Hope you have a lovely time.
DeleteBelated Xmas Wishes
ReplyDeleteNo worries. We had a good one. Still enjoying the remaining holidays too. Hope you had a good time too.
DeleteWell, pardon (or ignore) my engineer's habit here.I cannot thrug it off that easily.
ReplyDeleteSo.
I see a fork, a branching in possibilities. Stemming from realworld circumstances.
Battlemech/(battle robot?)/battlesuit can appear in a two flavours/scenarious.
On a battlefield.
It must withstand shelling of a heavy mortar or bombs/missles.
Ouch, that one is tough demand. Razor sharp debries and 20-50-100 pounds of explosive.
Barely, but I deem it as possible.
Direct hit of cumulative/armor-piercing round of a tank gun -- that must be avoided at all cost.
Mobility on a battlefield.
That's a big problem here.
How to make it *better* than some wheeled unit? That can ride through even rough terrain at speed of dozens of miles/kms per hour???
And even more speed if there is a road.
And not be a helicopter/hovercraft?
That is tough for my imagination.
Something like that martian's tripods of Wells maybe?
Hard to scare with shelling, as it's core high under ground.
Effective walking, easy to overstep any obstacle.
Damn. :)))
Another one is urban fight.
Much less possibility of damage from heavy rounds.
So, anti-7.62-military-grade bullets armor.
That's what nowaday armor jackets can provide even.
Foots are more reliable than wheels.
But there is big problem -- it should be able to trudge inside buildings to be of any use in battle.
To hide from direct attack, from air especially.
To ambush effectively.
Or to ward off guerillas out of it.
Cannot help it. I forced to rise my hand in favour of a battle robot here.
It can be made even smaller.
Can be made with less or even without armor at all.
With sensors that will be able to look into each nook and cranny.
And with remote human operator to boot.
See, that is hard to make it battletech-like. Our world.
Only possibility, though slim, I see in situation...
when armor jackets and heavy infantry weapon spread that widely,
so ordinary set of firearms will not be effective anymore.
Plus modern development of batteries and robotics/powersuits.
So that'll facilitate return of mounted rider -- 4-wheeled "horse" with hardened battlesuit soldier on it -- tied to it with powercord. Or... small support robots which will haul rounds/weapon change/batteries.
What social and economy changes should facilitate such setup? Dunno.
But I'm ready to give my brain to discuss it.
Your thoughts are similar to mine. The background conceit was that four legged robots were ridden, and this then led to purpose built vehicles.
DeleteThe reason why robots don't dominate in my setting is purely legal.
I posited a series of unfortunate events that led to autonomous robots being banned, which left semi-autonomous platforms that weren't as effective as having a human in the loop.
\\Your thoughts are similar to mine. The background conceit was that four legged robots were ridden, and this then led to purpose built vehicles.
DeleteDo you reffering to Boston Dynamics robots?
Well, meant it a little different.
Triad of ordinary, though specially rebuilt wheeled vehicle.
With powercells/batteries or ordinary hybride.
Some small-scale dispensable battlefield robots -- to carry laggadge and etc.
And a warrior. In a battle suit.
Well, maybe I do overthinking it.
It's just engineering habit to have all loose ropes knit in a tight boon. :)
\\The reason why robots don't dominate in my setting is purely legal.
That was that in a history too. Im times of WW One.
When u-boats of germans at first tryed noble rule of "conquering" ships instead of sunking em.By rising from deeps close to that ships and commanding to surrender.But very fast captains of that ships started firing back.So it fall out of hand into horride realm of imminent war-crimes.
So, variant that suits both: your imagination and my engineering quirks it's police/spec-ops battle suits. Isn't it?
Well, basic techs are here.
Ceramic and kewlar for armor jackets.
Exo-skeletons.
Robotics.
Question is (for me here, for sure) what spark will ignite it to complete invention of proto-mecha...
Weight. Carrying all that weight even using an exoskeleton will be tiring. Sitting in a cockpit and letting the vehicle move itself will allow the pilot to concentrate on the task.
DeleteThat's what sparked the suits in my novels.
Thank you for the interesting comments. If you would like to send me your email address via the blogger comment box, I will send you a copy of Bad Dog in your preferred format as a small thank you.
Parting gift? :)
DeleteI understand that I overusing your generosity to talk with a stranger. Especially one who looks like trying to criticize your work.
Can you believe me that I doing that not because of some indecent motives? Only curiosity. And would be liking it more to be able to be more pleasant, more gentlman-like counterpart.
That is only... I pretty much well know what questions I would like to discuss. Even if that is tough and/or uneasy questions. But, to know limits of other people -- that cannot be know in before, a priori? Without trying that limits. If only there'd be any other way.
If you see a problem, some logical inconsistency in that said higher -- I would be most greatefull if you'd point it out. Without any hesitation or sparing my feelings. I mean it.
\\Weight. Carrying all that weight even using an exoskeleton will be tiring.
From engineering standpoint that is not problem at all.There just need to be some very limited "artifical muscle" implanted.Really, such things have long history and invented long ago -- as "speed boots" and etc devices.
Nowaday that is fiberglass jumpers. For regular people entertainment or as prostetics.
Well, that way anything fancy like running or jumping would not be possible.But, with such a weight it is most unwise things to do.
While, imagine such things use for a light infantry? Like doubling speed of movment without additional strain on human muscles.
Plus, some regular acrobatics stunts.
Making battlefield kind of circus... in a good sense.
Well, you can use that in your book. To depict some guerilas, or that same Russians. Who, while unable to comprhend, copy real tech, are crafty enough to counter it with own poor man tricks. ;)
\\Sitting in a cockpit and letting the vehicle move itself will allow the pilot to concentrate on the task.
Well, that makes it semi-autonomous robot anyway.
And in our day and age there is categorically NO reasons to not make it working remotely.
It could be some separetable capsule with a pilot. That can be stationed outside of battle grounds, though still near, for a better latency.
PS Being able to have such a free-minded conversation that is pleasure in itself. Rare thing in our times indeed.
But I will think about your generous offer -- to find some time for such a reading.
Not a parting gift, a welcoming gift.
DeleteAs for the remote control, this is where I think we differ in our assumptions. My assumption is that anything under remote control can be disrupted by electronic warfare. This will make any remote platform vulnerable.
The only reason this hasn't become obvious is that remote platforms haven't been deployed in a near-peer or peer level opponent. When it does, my belief is that this vulnerability will render remote platforms a useful tool, but unless there is a breakthrough in generalized artificial intelligence will require a human.
Now, we move from engineering into the hard problem of 'consciousness.'
It's not that I don't think that generalized artificial intelligence is possible, I just don't think that we have the understanding of 'mind' that would be required to create a GAI... yet.
If and when we do, then we will cross the event horizon beyond which it is impossible to make any sensible predictions, because our ability to describe the consequences and the second order consequences is like the ancients describing trips to the Moon in chariots pulled by swans.
Or Jules Verne describing travel to the Moon via a ship out of a cannon. He got some things right, and other things wrong. Now of course, this is where SF thrives. The what ifs?
One last point.
If you contact me it shows trust in revealing who you are to me. All the best.
\\As for the remote control, this is where I think we differ in our assumptions. My assumption is that anything under remote control can be disrupted by electronic warfare. This will make any remote platform vulnerable.
DeleteGood viable argument.
Only, if electronic warfare is so powerfull -- it will destroy inner circuitry the same good as interrupt communication.But our nowaday techs are not that hopeless.That's why I told about reattachable capsules and wired connection too. (communication with lasers for example, is quite secure and uninterruptable) Also, it obviously will not be ordinary WiFi, prone to disruption and hacking.
That'll be a grid of multi-frequency, low-power, thoroughly chifered (even with quantum chifers for example... nobody know what it'll be, but that is good idea for handwaving it in a scifi ,for sure).
Also, there is such possibilities, such technologies... that that communication will not be seen even. Indestinguishable from random electronic noise.
As it was historically in WW1, when germans suddenly became unable to overhear couterpart's communication -- because they used outdated sparks radios, while them started using more advanced base-wave radio.
Well, today. That is separate battlefield. Will only grow in future. Who knows in what direction.
Other way around it could be good setup for a separate setting.
Like in Heinlain's Space Troopers -- when super-advanced tech forced to return back to spears and arrows. :)
\\...but unless there is a breakthrough in generalized artificial intelligence will require a human.
What for? I mean what tasks would that AI will be needed? As situation on a battlefield is not that complex to nned some advanced intellect.
And more interesting question -- how exactly do you see that GAI?
Sorry, that thing really and greatly intriguing me.As engineer, I would like to be able to build such thing. Or use it to do sme work.
Very interesting.
Technically speaking, we already have it.
From bots in a games... well, that's little bit primitive.
But also we have ML, Machine Learning and artifical neuro-nets.
So, if only organizations like Pentagon would decide to use it,
they'd have all possible resources to train that kind of AI.
As a bots in a computer games... well, I think they already doing that, secretly of course.
\\It's not that I don't think that generalized artificial intelligence is possible, I just don't think that we have the understanding of 'mind' that would be required to create a GAI... yet.
Em, do you know such a name -- Stanislav Lem?
\\If you contact me it shows trust in revealing who you are to me. All the best.
Oh, that one. I think what (and how) I'm talking about -- much more revealing.
Like that ancient phylosopher said "talk, so I'd see you".
Like for example that I'm foreigner, whose commandement of English far from perfect. And Etc.
I know of Stanislaw Lem [;-)] Solaris in particular. I do need to read some more, and have a list.
DeleteI knew English wasn't your first language, and my guess would be that you are Polish, but only on the basis that you used Lem rather than the Strugatsky's.
AI is one of my specialist interest because of my background in psychological evidence based practice. I read a lot of neuroscience research during my training. AI algorithms are really good at what they do until a confounding variable generates an P ≠ NP event.
Though war is about destroying the enemies ability to continue, it is not just about letting loose autonomous machines of destruction. And, war is the very definition of a confusing environment that generates a problem outside of the parameters of the algorithm, which is why there is a big difference between AI as used versus GAI that would be needed.
So, while the engineer may say we can let loose AI without a human in the command loop, the problem is that you are giving up command decisions at point of contact. Precisely at the point you need to prevent unwanted destruction. So, yes. If you goal is total chaos and destruction, let loose the AI engines of war.
In my opinion, that will happen, but when it does there will be such a backlash that AI war machine will be treated as Mutually Assured Engines of Destruction.
The primary reason I asked you to contact me is because blogger is not a great platform for such long discussions. For instance, I've had to compile your posts into a separate document to keep track of the conversation. A task that would be easier for me as an email.
\\I know of Stanislaw Lem [;-)] Solaris in particular.
DeleteOh, yes. Solaris.
That is sad truth that Lem's presence in English is far-far from complete.And Solaris is not best of his works, though most recognized for sure.
Thing is, he is not scifi writer per se, but the phylosopher of a Future. Diamond rarity kind of writer.
Fumbling through his "Summa Technologeae" right now. :)
\\I knew English wasn't your first language, and my guess would be that you are Polish, but only on the basis that you used Lem rather than the Strugatsky's.
For you to know. Lem was born and was living in Lviv. That makes him quite naturally. A Ukrainian.
Well, he is Human of the World, granted to all us by Heavens (though he would not admit it, ever).
Strugatsky's... good guys. But their stance little bit overhyped, because they was like that...
Do you know that parable? About how some new king sent to a older despot his messanger with a question "How to rule for so long?".
But that despot did not said a word. Only took that messanger to a walk. Walk around field of weat. Where he was stopping from time to time to cut some sprout that grow higher then peers.
\\AI is one of my specialist interest because of my background in psychological evidence based practice. I read a lot of neuroscience research during my training. AI algorithms are really good at what they do until a confounding variable generates an P ≠ NP event.
That is quite Lem'ian to say.(I hope)
Solaris was elaborate envisioning of it, per se.Question(s) how we formulate terms and notions, and use em to build our understanding of sciences and even World itself. Like, here you used AI as "AI algorithms". But in time of Lem that was more directly. AI as our own brain. ;)
\\Though war is about destroying the enemies ability to continue, it is not just about letting loose autonomous machines of destruction.
Quite humane of you.
But war... it is not humane endeavour.
And, well, machines will do (only) what we'd order em to do. (and "strategy of burned out ground" do not need AI to be invented... that is strategy that invented even before us) While giving em right to devise strategy... that is exactly what Lem's "Golem XIV" was about. In and out. Plus some more -- shortcutted rephrase of his own stance.
\\So, while the engineer may say we can let loose AI without a human in the command loop, the problem is that you are giving up command decisions at point of contact. Precisely at the point you need to prevent unwanted destruction. So, yes. If you goal is total chaos and destruction, let loose the AI engines of war.
Interesting thought.
I myself would bet on that, that AI would be more restrained.That is like practical joke they depicted in "Futurama". Where general starts bragging about how he won over killing machines -- "Very simple" he said: "That killing machines have built-in counters of killed, so I was sending my soldiers against them in such packs, that that counters became overflown and machines stopped".
Well, I think, Lem, would devise "Wars of the Future"... and would show how that is all stoopid and do not worth a time spent even on thinking about it. While standing before much more enticing and important questions. Like ontological ones.
Well, still, he depicted it quite vividly. In his "Inwincible". And especially "Fiasco".
Well. Apparently. That was too far farfetching hope -- to find someone to discuss Lem, while talking about MW.
DeleteAs well as my hesitation to reveal my identity seems like was approved yet one time. Going all out with who you are and from where you are automaticly sticking prejudges uppon you.
About topic at hand. Curious thought (yet one), inspired by Lem... while MechWarrior Universe was patchy and not well-connected with Reality. There is one truth that looks like stemming from general principles of evolution -- creatures become big, and even huge, only when there is big enough environment (whales in ocean, mammoth in mammoth's stepps, dinosaurs in Pangeia).
But then, still, there is a big question -- why they "universal"? Well, maybe that universality is because of trilobites-like veraety -- because there is just no other options, nobody else to be different.
See. That's interesting thing to do -- to try to percieve some deeper truth behind any written text. But same time it shows that that texts is not Reality.Because Reality, allows such in-depth mining.While texts, even biggest and most elaborate, have problem wuth metaphisical closure -- questions one not allowed to ask.
As you know it yourself.
I'm going to say it is worse than that. Not only can't you see reality as it is, human beings are adept at fooling themselves, because as Feynman once said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
DeleteThe first thing we do is imagine we know more than we do. Imagining ourselves as experts in subjects because we know how to think about it rationally.
I know that I don't know what I don't know. Furthermore, what we say is not what we do, and what we think we believe is often at odds with how we behave. This has been a most interesting conversation, and please feel free to comment more.
There's no intention on my part to cut or end this conversation, regardless of how clumsy I find the format.
\\I'm going to say it is worse than that. Not only can't you see reality as it is, human beings are adept at fooling themselves, because as Feynman once said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
DeleteOh, Feynman. Yet one great guy.
Though, if maybe you saw it anywhere -- it seems like profi-scientists (so to say) do not venerate him much?
Dunno what a reason? Envy?
\\The first thing we do is imagine we know more than we do. Imagining ourselves as experts in subjects because we know how to think about it rationally.
That's clearly not about me. :)))
"I know that I know nothing" (c).
And if that citing is not enough to signal appropriate virtue,
there is much more important reasons -- things I'd want to build is too farfetched, so it'll be stunningly foolish and shooting one's leg to claim knowledge (like about AI and stuff) where is none.
And, Lem's own teachings. I mean, idea of "ultimate comprehension/understanding".
\\This has been a most interesting conversation, and please feel free to comment more.
Oh, that is NO PROB.
\\There's no intention on my part to cut or end this conversation, regardless of how clumsy I find the format.
Well, though, there is one problem.
For conversation I need to see some connections. Some lose ends where I can add something. Apparently I am not of that people who can egoisticly talk about anything they want (about themself mostly) without remorse to a feelings of ones who listening em. (though it can look like that, superficially)
Toom timid. :)
Another word, I need a topic(s), to dig my teeth into.
Have something, complex and extraordinary, you'd like to talk about?
Well, I have at least one such, egoism-driven -- can you say something about my written English?
I mean, I know about loosy errors in my lexic -- that is pittyfull, as there is grammar checking, but I decided let it be -- for me to be more responsible and conscious of my mistakes, instead of throwing it on machine.
But overly, how my writing looks like?
Is there some rough edges, or something?
Without spairing my feelings of course.
Tip about workarounding this mess.
ReplyDeleteIn your brawser there is function "Search on this page" -- Ctrl-F.
Then you just add something like I right now -- "6 J", for 6 of January,
to know if there is some up to dates.
Well, there is other systems where it made not that clumsy.
Like Livejournal where comments are hierarchical.Also there is better managment of "friends" so it's easier to traverse it to find new "friends".
Still, of all systems I saw, there is none that too much better.
That's because of technology limitations.
And... it seems like big corp networks like FB more trying to *limitate* what kind of information and how will be served to you, instead of making it comfortable and comprehensive.
Thank you for trying to help, but that's not the problem I have, and if I did, I already know how to use Control F. Sorry to be blunt.
DeleteIt's probably just me, but the font choice for this blog's comments is appalling.
I could fix it, if I could be bothered, but the cost benefit ratio of time versus effort to payoff makes it not worthwhile to do so.
Then there's the problem of clarity.
Your English is far better than my, whatever language you speak, would be. That said, your English is hard to parse. Syntax and grammar issues mean I find myself having to metaphorically grit my teeth to follow the threads.
I can see why David Brin responds to your posts the way he does.
TL;DR: Broken English hard to read.
\\Thank you for trying to help, but that's not the problem I have, and if I did, I already know how to use Control F. Sorry to be blunt.
DeleteAbs no problem, sister.(hope I got it right, stylistically, to mimic how religious people talk) That is my problem too.Both, with being uneasy toward clumsy techs/dudes and with being blunt. No, blatantly blunt. :)
\\It's probably just me, but the font choice for this blog's comments is appalling.
Oh... than I can lead you to something more profound.There is thing called CSS (Casscaded Styles Sheets) that governs how all that things will be shown in your browser.
And, your browser allow you to edit that things.
#comments {
padding: 0px;
font-size: 110%; <-- 140
font-weight: bold; <-- normal
Also, there is a way to add your own styles for pages.Not all browsers support it though.
That is tedious, but not hard. Like many nowaday techs.
\\Syntax and grammar issues mean I find myself having to metaphorically grit my teeth to follow the threads.
I got it.
Thank you. That is a big help.
Only, and only if you'd find some interest to do that, could you point at some example(s)?
I am committed to improve my English. There only that problem that there are too little feedback for successfull corrections. That's why I was so selfishly blunt with my request.
(I gave myself work to double check it with grammar tools... dozen of syntax lapses was found.Is it trully an issue?
So, can it be there some problems with style... or my attitude... to be the real problem here?)
\\I can see why David Brin responds to your posts the way he does.
Oh, but that is utter mistake.
Brin "responds" to my posts that way because he is uttery a coward -- one who unable to admit his own mistakes because of fear that that imaginary mantle of being wise, no all-wise, will fall from him and reveal utter profanity. And that is while he himself bombastically proclaiming need to be "reciprocally accountable", need to be open to admitting own errs, need to know science, et cetera, et cetera. Isn't that is hell'a hilarious. And hypocritical.
Like, that time when he was babbling about "cooling lazer" -- absolutely ANTI-scientific idea -- lazers are such things that PRODUCE lots of heat during its work, by design. That is like idea that highT stove can be used as a fridge. :)
One who could build one such thing in a step would be able to make Perpetuum Mobile -- enough said for anyone who even remotely remember school physics. Funny thing to see from one who babbling so much about science this, science that.
And if only that was once. Or two.
But I observing him for years now... and basicly EVERY of his factual claims are just like that -- absolutely anti-thetic to the truth. That is kinda puzzling, isn't it?
Well, true reason of my animosity toward D.B. it's his dirty-dirty-nasty talks -- that time when he allowed to himself to blurt out about millions of my fellow Ukrainians (among which was many jews to boot, that made it effectively anti-semitic slur too) deceased in WW2, that that is "victim bragging".
I understand that you are people from a countries far-far away. And do not have moral obligations toward my dead.But I, cannot ignore such moral burden bestowed on me. As there is NOBODY else to think about and to comemorate their brutaly broken lives.
If you email me via the blogger contact form, I will help you by sending you back all your posts with edits to help you write better English.
DeleteDone.
DeleteIt can apear in a spam-box. Or something else could happen.
DeleteGo figure this clumsy-clutsy techs.
I've got it. I cut and pasted your comments into an email, and then spent some time removing formatting code, and I can now start work on the writing. But you need to be patient. It will take me a few days.
DeleteForgive my impatience.
DeleteI am somewhat from generation of IM (instant messaging).Also, I know too well how systems that ought to work do not work.So, that is not about you, but only about me and circumstances.
Funny thought.
Seems like my brain have found plausible solution to a puzzle of MW. Of how to find such a world, such circustances, that pecularities of (classic) MW would be resolved.
And that is... under water.
Really. 100ton monster capable of doing "jumps"? no air dominance? short ranges of weapon and etc.
That is all possible under water.
As if for scifi setting -- global warming rised oceans to that level, that only few of terrain remains under the Sun, but most of the old world luxuries are under 10 to 100 m of water.
So, people devised mobile platforms to crawl under water.
And soon enough they started wars...
Hope you'd find that amusing too.
_BSOD_
DeleteThat feeling of rising from slumber of dreaming.
When memories of distant places and distant times looking real, but reality differs.
Reality is just soothing whitness of medbox chamber.
"Why medbox? Don't remember." Habitual rising hand to a forehead gives only mild "clank".
Oh, spacesuit. Why am I in a spacesuit?"
Mundane revelations interrapted by quiet wispers of a servos. And following apearance of an ugly noseless face through doorway.
Medbox docbot. Of course. Designers devised that cranky doodle of a face to eliminate even slightest chance of uncanny valley effect(s). The same as with that notorious noise of a servos -- nobody would like anybot quietly lurking behind one's back.
(this and that happening, unweiling plot)
Suddenly, that spiking armor-piercing feeling of realisation that I'm dead and dead for a long-long time al...
_BSOD_
That feeling of rising from slumber of dreaming...