These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Lack of Technology to Reduce Crew Size
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-06-19 11:28:48 UTC
Scherezad wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
H1de0 wrote:
In theory each A.I. is able to reach a point of transcendence beyond which it's learning abilities would become limitless (or, using mathematical terms, grow exponentially) thus surpassing Your crew chief in a matter of (consider this a very careful estimate) days.

In practice we are constrained by CONCORD directives brought up earlier which strictly prohibit designing self-aware A.I. constructs.


If such an AI ever came into existence it would determine the only weak point in the ship left - us. We would become obsolete, which we will never allow. CONCORD are absolutely right to restrict this. I'll stick with my crew thanks. Did you know that women with a healthy body fat ratio are best suited to space travel? It almost makes me believe there is a god...

Oh goodness, this stuff.

Artificial intelligence studies is not about fabricating consciousness (why would we do that?), or creating superintelligences (why would we do that?). There's no reason to worry about a shipboard AI deciding to kill its Capsuleer or crew (why would it do that?) if that system is designed properly - hence my problems with the Creodron development model. Information Science is about solving complicated problems, that's all.

An inferencing engine is not alive in the sense that we are, it has no drive to protect itself or 'kill all hu-mans' or whatever, it has no drive to 'ascend'. It has a set of utility functions, a semantic structure, a knowledge base, and an inferencer.

Please, stop watching so much Caille sci-fi! It's not real!


But I love Caille sci-fi! Especially tight leather space suits, and I refuse to listen to anyone who tells me they are not practical for space flight.

As to the more serious issue of AI what you are describing is not in my opinion such a system. The inferencing engine is a complex set of functions etc and will accomplish a given task extremely well. It is limited to operating within the limits of it's sub-routines and reference data however, and can never make the leaps of logic, or react to inputs outside of it's understanding in the way a human crew can.

Many view their crew as a necessary evil, I view them as an absolute necessity. My crew and ship operate as a single unit and the performance of that unit is all the better for it. I have an excellent set of crews and rarely lose them, but I should point out that they also rarely leave my employ. They also keep me grounded in what little humanity remains to me as a capsuleer and that is the most vital function of all.
Lord Kailethre
Tengoo Uninstallation Service
#22 - 2015-06-19 12:48:31 UTC
We should make some AI's in tight space leather suits and have them design an AI for our ships. It can also wear tight space leather.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-06-19 12:56:07 UTC
Lord Kailethre wrote:
We should make some AI's in tight space leather suits and have them design an AI for our ships. It can also wear tight space leather.


Oh you tease....
Lord Kailethre
Tengoo Uninstallation Service
#24 - 2015-06-19 13:23:35 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Lord Kailethre wrote:
We should make some AI's in tight space leather suits and have them design an AI for our ships. It can also wear tight space leather.


Oh you tease....


I do. But you're most welcome for the idea!
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#25 - 2015-06-19 14:36:00 UTC
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
[..] since the beginning of the Empyrean Age, I can think of no appreciable technology to reduce the crew size of capsuler controlled vessels.
[..] Only frigate class hulls are yet designed for autonomous capsuleer control, and even this is only if you avoid modules or the specialized platforms.
Apart from the T2 development, which has led to a reduction in crew requirements, especially in specialized platforms like the interceptor, which can be fully equipped and functional without crew, there have not been many improvements in this field.

But 2 major ones (capsuleers/T2) in a span of 12 years is quite impressive. We can't really expect to have breakthroughs every five years, as much as I would like that.

Coordination Channel for Consolidated Space Rescue Cooperation

Open Letter to the Aidonis Foundation Directorate
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#26 - 2015-06-19 16:10:22 UTC
You will have to excuse me if I am a little blunt in my reply, sir! I apologize in advance. I have answered where I feel it best to do so.

H1de0 wrote:
It is true that the merit of creating intelligent, autonomic systems is not granting them the gift of self-awareness but supplying them the ability to learn, adapt and evolve with the problems they face no matter how small and straightforward. The possibility of those systems ascending and gaining one grows in proportion to the level of task complexity and independence we imply on them.


No, it doesn't, sir. Self-awareness is not a function of an increase in learning or adaptability, and we don't use genetic or evolutionary techniques for anything but partitioned subsystems in our labs. The Creodron method does, but I've already voiced my concerns on that.

Self-awareness is a function of the brain associated with the centromedial nucleus and frontal neocortex. It's poorly understood! But learning and adaptation is not magic, and certainly does not lead to an inevitable emergence of awareness.

H1de0 wrote:
We can always limit that possibility by sandboxing the A.I. with a closed set of variables and/or logic resources but we are still creating an automata, a system that is designed to work stand-alone. There will always be the probability that, as the process of learning progresses with time, instead of following principles, the system will start creating it's own and prioritizing them.


No, that's not how it works either. Learning systems can indeed create their own rules, but these are generated according to a metaontology, which is what the system designer deploys. This isn't flexible. If it were, the system wouldn't fit a problem space and couldn't navigate that space to a solution set!

H1de0 wrote:
I understand You can be tired of the argument popping up with every occasion (believe me I am to) and please do not feel offended by me contradicting but I do not think we have the comfort of allowing ourselves to underestimate this kind of outcome dr. Scherezad.


H1de0 wrote:
Nevertheless there will always be the (in)famous "what if?" question..


That "what if" question isn't a question at all - it's sloppiness, brought on by developers who are racing to market and not caring about product safety. It's the stupid black-box Creodron method. There's no mystery here! It's bad science and sloppy engineering, it's unethical production! This is not a foregone conclusion of any intelligent system, it's designed in!

We really can't win! We are told that our work will never amount to real, powerful problem solvers, while at the same time our advances are implanted in brains, conduct thorough medical diagnoses with greater accuracy than human doctors, and scour the depths of the exabytes of data to deliver the perfect article as answer to a search, in under a second.

At the same time, we are the villain of every holoreel out of Caille that involves a computer, where every intelligent system introduced gains intelligence somehow and goes marauding for some reason. We're mad monsters, birthing evil gods.

For once I would like to see us portrayed, not even in a good light - just a neutral one.
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#27 - 2015-06-19 16:22:58 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
As to the more serious issue of AI what you are describing is not in my opinion such a system. The inferencing engine is a complex set of functions etc and will accomplish a given task extremely well. It is limited to operating within the limits of it's sub-routines and reference data however, and can never make the leaps of logic, or react to inputs outside of it's understanding in the way a human crew can.


Um... Well, sir, you are free to feel this! I will continue to work with my research group in development of them! I assure you sir, these components do in fact make up flexible, intelligent, explorative, learning, inquistive systems. Operating within parameters of course! But humans have parameters as well.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Many view their crew as a necessary evil, I view them as an absolute necessity. My crew and ship operate as a single unit and the performance of that unit is all the better for it. I have an excellent set of crews and rarely lose them, but I should point out that they also rarely leave my employ. They also keep me grounded in what little humanity remains to me as a capsuleer and that is the most vital function of all.


I love my crew, and do everything I can to keep them safe! They're very talented, they are resourceful, they are intelligent, each and every one of them is a treasure.

And each and every one of them deserves better than to be a cog grinding away in a war machine. How many crewmembers are desperate, looking for a big payout to retire? With no other options? How many people are forced into this dangerous, monotonous, terrifying work due to the circumstances of their lives? For how many of our crewmembers is the job a joy in and of itself, and for how many is it a way to get the money they want to bring them to better lives?

If they love the job, I have no issues with them joining me out in the stars - I'm thrilled to have them. But they're a minority I feel, among a sea of people who are just looking for a big paycheque, out of greed or desperation. The right thing to do is to make that crewman's position voluntary and let them do things less dangerous, more rewarding. Clinging to them for "performance" reasons is wrong, and we are better than that.

We owe them better. That is one of the reasons I do my work.
Makoto Priano
Kirkinen-Arataka Transhuman Zenith Consulting Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#28 - 2015-06-19 16:23:17 UTC
A brief intercession off comms, pilots.

Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#29 - 2015-06-22 16:56:54 UTC
Samira Kernher wrote:
Here's a simpler way of reducing crew casualties:

Restrict independent pilots from manufacturing, purchasing, and installing military-grade arms for their ships. That never should have been legal to begin with.

Treat the cause, not the symptom.

I'll sign after this.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#30 - 2015-06-22 17:04:29 UTC
Makkal Hanaya wrote:


I am not asking for crew-less Titans here. That would be ridiculous. Still, imagine the number of lives not lost if cruiser class hulls could be controlled by only a capsuleer or battlecruisers crews could be halved.

Ah, you see, these cruisers to planetary vehicles are like titans to rookie ships.

I have two ideas about reducing crew size:
- First: is that it is limited by CONCORD directive omega one five, we can't create AI-grade automation.
- And second. More like advice: those, who want to reduce number of their crewmembers, should never fly minmatar ships.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2015-06-22 20:03:36 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
Makkal Hanaya wrote:


I am not asking for crew-less Titans here. That would be ridiculous. Still, imagine the number of lives not lost if cruiser class hulls could be controlled by only a capsuleer or battlecruisers crews could be halved.

Ah, you see, these cruisers to planetary vehicles are like titans to rookie ships.

I have two ideas about reducing crew size:
- First: is that it is limited by CONCORD directive omega one five, we can't create AI-grade automation.
- And second. More like advice: those, who want to reduce number of their crewmembers, should never fly minmatar ships.


Fly Gallente...you know it makes sense
Ollie Rundle
#32 - 2015-06-24 06:50:17 UTC
Scherezad wrote:
We publish in a number of papers and certainly have a fairly large body of work we've made public. I'd be happy to chat about it. Feel free to drop me a line sometime.


Could you provide links to or alternatively send me some of these papers, Scherezad? I've got some projects you and your research team might be well suited for, but I'll need to independently verify the rigor of your previous work before I know for certain.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#33 - 2015-06-26 08:25:07 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Diana Kim wrote:
Makkal Hanaya wrote:


I am not asking for crew-less Titans here. That would be ridiculous. Still, imagine the number of lives not lost if cruiser class hulls could be controlled by only a capsuleer or battlecruisers crews could be halved.

Ah, you see, these cruisers to planetary vehicles are like titans to rookie ships.

I have two ideas about reducing crew size:
- First: is that it is limited by CONCORD directive omega one five, we can't create AI-grade automation.
- And second. More like advice: those, who want to reduce number of their crewmembers, should never fly minmatar ships.


Fly Gallente...you know it makes sense

No way, gallente stink worse than fedo!

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-06-26 09:06:41 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Diana Kim wrote:
Makkal Hanaya wrote:


I am not asking for crew-less Titans here. That would be ridiculous. Still, imagine the number of lives not lost if cruiser class hulls could be controlled by only a capsuleer or battlecruisers crews could be halved.

Ah, you see, these cruisers to planetary vehicles are like titans to rookie ships.

I have two ideas about reducing crew size:
- First: is that it is limited by CONCORD directive omega one five, we can't create AI-grade automation.
- And second. More like advice: those, who want to reduce number of their crewmembers, should never fly minmatar ships.


Fly Gallente...you know it makes sense

No way, gallente stink worse than fedo!


Actually I smell of vanilla body mist with a hint of aniseed if I've had a little too much absynth. Come over for a waft sometime, apparently it can be quite...intoxicating.
Nauplius
Hoi Andrapodistai
#35 - 2015-06-26 11:38:00 UTC
Solution: Crew your ships entirely with Minmatar slaves. Then you will not care how many of them die, because God is glorified in their destruction. Amen. Amarr Victor.
Lord Kailethre
Tengoo Uninstallation Service
#36 - 2015-06-26 11:56:56 UTC
Nauplius wrote:
Solution: Crew your ships entirely with Minmatar slaves. Then you will not care how many of them die, because God is glorified in their destruction. Amen. Amarr Victor.


Just... shut up. Okay?
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#37 - 2015-06-26 12:50:31 UTC
Nauplius wrote:
Solution: Crew your ships entirely with Minmatar slaves. Then you will not care how many of them die, because God is glorified in their destruction. Amen. Amarr Victor.

Crew ships with failing Minmatar slaves and they will go down in flames like other Nauplius boats. I wouldn't be surprised if I see you in a rifter now!

No, for myself I prefer good ships and professional crews, so they can survive combat and make crews of my enemies to die instead.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2015-06-26 12:58:56 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
Nauplius wrote:
Solution: Crew your ships entirely with Minmatar slaves. Then you will not care how many of them die, because God is glorified in their destruction. Amen. Amarr Victor.

Crew ships with failing Minmatar slaves and they will go down in flames like other Nauplius boats. I wouldn't be surprised if I see you in a rifter now!

No, for myself I prefer good ships and professional crews, so they can survive combat and make crews of my enemies to die instead.


This crew issue may be the first thing we have genuinely agreed on. Nothing beats highly trained professionals in such situations.
Aria Jenneth
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#39 - 2015-06-26 13:02:02 UTC
Nauplius wrote:
Solution: Crew your ships entirely with Minmatar slaves. Then you will not care how many of them die, because God is glorified in their destruction. Amen. Amarr Victor.

"P.S. - Bwahahaha."
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#40 - 2015-06-26 14:45:56 UTC
Ollie Rundle wrote:
Scherezad wrote:
We publish in a number of papers and certainly have a fairly large body of work we've made public. I'd be happy to chat about it. Feel free to drop me a line sometime.


Could you provide links to or alternatively send me some of these papers, Scherezad? I've got some projects you and your research team might be well suited for, but I'll need to independently verify the rigor of your previous work before I know for certain.


Thank you dearly for the request, sir. You can find some of my more recent neurobiology work here: Hilen Tukoss Thin-plate Study.

We publish a great deal more. That one's just my more recent. I would have gone on to discuss the implications of the implant fragments, but we ran out of space, and the details were too technical for that publication.