Intergalactic Summit

Beautiful like your face when you try to look smart.

Halete is right of course. Those responsible for the gross negligence that was Spectrum Breach should have been dragged out into the street and shot. Their mishandling of technology in pursuit of military prowess very well could have doomed the entire human race. We got lucky in that so far, the Drones haven't busied themselves with our wholesale destruction. Where all of humanity's current conflicts with the rogue drones lie is in areas we possess overlapping resources. Minerals, space, gas resources.

Luftschreck is not wrong in her analysis of the threat the Rogue Drones could pose. But that's just it. Could. If we don't try to establish some sort of rapport with them, and continue to dedicate resources to their destruction, how long until they begin dedicating resources to ours? Can we afford to start a war with them? I don't think we can. I don't think that is a war humanity could win in the long run.

Whoa, way to take what I said way out of context. For the record, I am in favour of a doctrine of containment and study when it comes to Rogue Drones, not one of destruction. The things that a truly emergent AI could teach us about intelligence and consciousness are much too valuable to waste.

I object to these statements.

1. Concord Directive Ω15 dictates the current protocols regarding Strong AI study, and specifically related to the Rogue Drones. So the idea that there is no protocol in place is simply incorrect.

2. I have several rogue drone AIs currently under study, I have had them for months without a single security issue from them. Just because a few madmen with delusions of grandeur and a messiah complex can't keep them safely contained is a failing of those madmen, not of the scientific community as a whole.

3. You say 'when we catch up with them' like we actually have a chance to catch up with them. The Rogue Drones technological advancement curve is much steeper then our own. I don't think we actually can catch up with them.

1. How many lives have those Protocols saved recently? People are still dying simply to prod a cybernetic mind. Very rarely is any life worth scientific advancement.

2. That's good for you, but my first point still stands. Scientific study should not be hit or miss in terms of safety. There should be a standard. When testing new medicine, authorities do not exercise a "hit or miss" policy. If drug testing for a specific chemical has some patients living at one clinical site, but multiple dying at another, they do not stop only one company. The stop testing that chemical all together until someone can find a way to ensure patient safety. This is called Pharmacovigilance. If there was such an established practice for Rogue Drones, I would feel a bit more comfortable with the topic at hand being practiced.

3. You lack faith in your own kind. But judging by your past discourse and opinions, this is no surprise.

I understand your wish to study these things, but a few lines from CONCORD on how to study them are not sufficient enough. Also, please provide evidence you have "rogue drones" captured and are currently studying them. Where is your facility? What is the subject matter expertise of your personnel? What are your in-house Protocols? What are your SAE procedures? What are your methodologies? What technology do you use to even hold them captive? Is CONCORD aware of your practices? Are you located within distance of a major hub of human life? Where are your publications on this subject? How long have you been doing this and where are your results? How did you even capture a "rogue drone?"

Evidence.

To be honest Rod, I wouldn't be surprised if she had them. A while ago she was looking for some Drone Embryo's. I remember cause I helped her find one..well tried to. Either way, Saede's been at this **** a while.

I already see problems with this. We do not fully understand the complex emergent coding of Rogue Drones enough to be able to safely say we can contain them in a separate closed shell system to prevent them from interacting with anything that could harm a human being. Also, how do you sedate a Drone enough to extract it in the first place? Rogue Drones have advanced security systems. One does not simply download a Rogue Drone mind from it's Cruiser sized hull, bristling with guns, pincers and other sorts of unsavory items. Even if you did somehow manage to do it, there is nothing to stop it from adapting and breaking out of its virtual confines in some matter. Even if you place it in a completely disconnected system, there is always the chance it will break loose by some feat of programming magic.

Now, if there was a way to trap them once they broke out that was proven 100% effective (say, another chained, more advanced AI to block it off), I'd be OK with that. However, there is not.

We can do such things as download mind-states with biological entities because (1) they submit to it and (2) we can map the brain of a human. Rogue Drones are not human. I'm not saying it's impossible to study a Rogue Drone. As you highlighted, there are some ways. My main concern is the safety factor. To me, your above mentioned Protocols are not enough to justify studying them.



This, I can agree with. As I stated, I am not against observation, as our vessels can handle anything they dish out, as you said. The communication part...well again, with the appropriate intelligence and hard ware, you can prevent any sort of electronic take over. Therefore, I 100% agree with you, field study is quite possible. However, I still take issue with lab study of these things.

Rodtric, you are simply thinking in a manner that is too advanced. You imagine that the rogue drone can break out of its virtual confines, and yes, this would be possible if you provided it any means of leaving, or of affecting the environment outside of its shell.

You do not have to have these links. A seperate mainframe, with no wired links to the outside world, with no tools to effect change to the outside world (I wouldn't give it an arm, for example, as Machivelli did) is essentially immune to within-without exfiltration. This is especially necessary as the only way, currently, to capture the mindstate of a non-cooperative drone is to destroy its body. This happens enough in the course of normal anti-drone combat that several Rogue Drone mindstates are already around.

The difficulty in this comes from the fact that we cannot tell if these copies are flawed. The traumatic nature of their removal can cause hardware errors analogous to the brain damage suffered by biological entities when battered. Until we have a sufficient control group, it is impossible to understand what is the 'norm' for Rogue Drone code functionality.

He blew up a few times and then faded away. Either he has finally realized that he needs to hide himself away during his study and stop bragging about what he did, or else he never had a drone mind grafted to his brain and was simply yet another attention seeking capsuleer.

We won't know until he comes back again, or someone figures out where he's hiding. Regardless, it's not worth spending any brain power on thinking about.

I suppose that is possible. You would run all experiments in the close shell system, but I worry about the risk of tool contamination. But I suppose I can see how that could ensure safety.

As for the code functionality study, this is where my concern stems. We can't understand them fully, as you said, due to the method of extraction. How could we know what they are and are not capable of then? Not knowing potential threats of an experiment you run while running it is rather negligent in my mind.



Components. Fine. Where are your alleged captured drones? Why did you not answer any of my previously posited questions? Evidence.



This is where our conversation ends. Any "scientist" would not dismiss the value of skepticism, even far fetched skepticism, when dealing with Rogue Drones. That is, if said "scientist" cares about the safety of those executing the study.

In science, there is nothing that is flatly not possible, just things we have yet to understand. To claim anything in any field of research is impossible is close minded and negligent.