What first: FTL Travel or True AI?

[cbrunny]

In Star Trek, Warp Drive was invented/discovered far before True AI was created.

Zefram Cochrane created the first human FTL engine and successfully flew it at FTL speeds in 2063.

Noonien Soong created Data at some point in the year(s) before 2338. Data was discovered in 2338, so presumably was within a decade of that encounter. I don't recall if it is ever explicity said that Data is the first true AI ever created, but he does have the first positronic brain. In an episode in Season 3 of TNG, Data constructs a daughter for himself who also has a positronic brain. The Admiral has a bit of a fit over the idea of Data and his daughter being on the same ship due to the scientific value of the positronic brain.

So... in real world... are we closer to a True AI - something similar to Data - or FTL travel?

Seems to me that real Earth is far closer to True AI than FTL. Certainly the time gap between Star Trek's Warp and AI at 275 years seems pretty nuts.

EDIT: err.. apparently Soong created one pre-Data as well in the form of his wife. But same time range, most likely.

 

[Zeze]

It still boggles my mind how 'slow' FTL is due to the sheer MFing size of the universe.

Even if we achieved FTL today, its application strictly for space travel is not all wish-granting. You can't even travel to other intelligent life planets without you pretty much giving up your entire life on a space ship or you've been long dead and your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand children finally arrives.

By that point, that child lacks complete context as to why that destination planet was so mindblowing to begin with, seeing as he knows nothing of Earth.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I personally feel that FTL travel (if it can even exist in our reality) is dependent on a 'clutch', or some singular discovery/invention/'one neat trick!' that just sorta unlocks it. A lot of sci-fi incorporates this (the Mass Effect is a good example), and it's basically the Deus Ex Machina of sci-fi/science fiction when it comes to this kind of thing.

AI seems to be entirely incremental, baby steps moving forward until we finally 'level up' to the AI, probably from some final discovery/really novel programming method.

 

[cbrunny]

It still boggles my mind how 'slow' FTL is due to the sheer MFing size of the universe.

Even if we achieved FTL today, its application strictly for space travel is not all wish-granting. You can't even travel to other intelligent life planets without you pretty much giving up your entire life on a space ship or you've been long dead and your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand children finally arrives.

By that point, that child lacks complete context as to why that destination planet was so mindblowing to begin with, seeing as he knows nothing of Earth.

I take your point, but remember that the 'F' stands for 'Faster'. Assuming the light-speed barrier can be broken, it isn't that unreasonable to assume that whatever method was used to break the barrier could be used to go beyond the barrier.

That being said, travelling at the speed of light would still take something like 13 minutes to get to the sun, which is pretty slow in relative terms as you've suggested.

In an episode of Star Trek Enterprise, they do a bit of a flashback episode in which Archer is a test pilot on the first human ship to go faster than warp 2. They fly it out to Jupiter over the course of a few minutes - a distance that is farther than the distance between the sun and the earth, but not the point. What irks me about that scene is that there are no stars between the earth and jupiter, yet the "warp" travel still shows stars moving past the ship at a very quick rate. The relative positions of those stars would change, but none of them would travel past the ship, and none of them would move anywhere near that far.

Interesting too that Star Trek gets past the limitation you've pointed out by having Warp speeds as non-linear.

 

[Zeze]

but not the point. What irks me about that scene is that there are no stars between the earth and jupiter, yet the "warp" travel still shows stars moving past the ship at a very quick rate. The relative positions of those stars would change, but none of them would travel past the ship, and none of them would move anywhere near that far.
.

Teehee, I appreciate threads like this, but you sound like a TOTAL geek here. "EXCUSE MEE, (touches glasses rim) THERE ARE NOOOO STARRRS BETWEEN EARTH AND JUPITER. WORST ST EPISODE. EVER.

 

[cbrunny]

Teehee, I appreciate threads like this, but you sound like a TOTAL geek here. "EXCUSE MEE, (touches glasses rim) THERE ARE NOOOO STARRRS BETWEEN EARTH AND JUPITER. WORST ST EPISODE. EVER.

My wife groaned when I complained about it to her too.

 

[Paratus]

There is a theory for a functional warp drive consistent with general relativity that is being investigated.

It does have some shall we say significant issues to actually creating a working prototype, but some investigation is actually occurring.

 

[Mike64]

FTL seems pretty self-explanatory, but how would you define "AI" in this context?

 

[Ruptga]

Do I think we will achieve something that stands a good chance of being physically impossible before we replicate something that we have 7 billion examples of to study? Probably not.

 

[Mike64]

something that we have 7 billion examples of to study?

That number strikes me as grossly inflated, unless one defines "intelligence", artificial or otherwise, rather narrowly...:hmmm://

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

but how would you define "AI" in this context?

A consciousness that we create artificially, beyond what our biological processes can do naturally. An artificial person's mind (no matter the 'shell'). Proving that will be tricky the first time it happens.

Do I think we will achieve something that stands a good chance of being physically impossible before we replicate something that we have 7 billion examples of to study? Probably not.

Devil's in the details, and we may actually have an easier time creating something we don't have any preconceived notions about than create something that we 'know' what it is 'supposed' to look like. See CGI pixar character vs uncanny valley beowulf, see early attempts at flight mimicking birds, etc.

 

[Mike64]

A consciousness that we create artificially, beyond what our biological processes can do naturally.

I'm not getting phrase I bolded at all. Isn't the idea behind AI to create something that in fact does what our biological processes do naturally (though of course exceeding the limits of our own biology-in-its-present-form wouldn't disqualify such a "being")?

we may actually have an easier time creating something we don't have any preconceived notions about than create something that we 'know' what it is 'supposed' to look like.

I'm inclined to agree with that. Though I'm not at all sure we'll ever really manage it, except maybe in the very distant future, in a context I simply can't project for. Or perhaps inadvertently, if /when we start tinkering with "cybernetic*" technology to any real extent. (Though at that point, the question, at least in a practical (and maybe legal) sense, would arise whether it had in fact been "created" rather than having "evolved" ....)
_______________
*I mean that in the sense of mixed organic and "inorganic" manufactured technology (e.g., something along the lines of "neural nets" constructed/grown at least partially with actual neurons...), not the "enhancement" of existing naturally existing intelligence..

 

[Yakk]

Depending on how you define AI, and with the massive European University cooperative effort being put together, I'm definitely going with a working "True" AI before FTL.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm not getting phrase I bolded at all. Isn't the idea behind AI to create something that in fact does what our biological processes do (though of course exceeding the bounds of our own current biology wouldn't disqualify such a "being"), but in a "manufactured" form rather than naturally existing one?

Sorry, to clarify, I meant 'making babies' without the sex part. We can create life/intelligence/whatever right now with fairly simple and intuitive means. Creating it with silicon, 'in a computer', by generating artificial organs and zapping it with electricity, whatever... would be artificial (as opposed to the natural way we do it). I wasn't implying that it had to supercede us in any way to be considered AI. In all likelyhood it'll start much 'simpler' than us, until it begins learning at a geometric rate of course.

To your point about cybernetics, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future we sort of end up creating some weird version of AI, more similar to a GITS style 'move the consciousness into a machine' kind of thing first, just as a side-effect of replacing everything in the body. Appendages are easy, a few organs are easy, other stuff is hard but may not be impossible to replicate. We may very well end up with the hardware for AI before the software as it were, in the form of a functional artificial brain.

 

[Mike64]

Sorry, to clarify, I meant 'making babies' without the sex part.

Ah, OK. In retrospect, I see how that sentence could be read that way, too....

 

[Mike64]

We may very well end up with the hardware for AI before the software as it were, in the form of a functional artificial brain.

That's a very good point, though it raises the further/additional question of separating "intelligence" from "instinct" and "reflex" (though exactly how one might do that, I couldn't even begin to say, since I've never given what I guess I'd call the philosophical underpinning of "intelligence" in this context much thought.)

I mean to say, what exactly would a a newly created "artificial intelligence" "look like" anyway? Would it be the equivalent of a full-formed being at its inception (like Athena, sprung from Zeus' forehead in one version of her mythology) that could of course learn/build upon its existing knowledge but would be a recognizable "intelligent being" at the moment of its creation, or would it be a much more rudimentary "baby" that "knew nothing" when it first came into being but is capable of "learning" (and of course storing "knowledge") in a way that defines it as "intelligent" rather than merely "programmable"?

Animal babies seem more more or less to be the latter, though with an underpinning of biologically-based reflexes and, for lack of a better word, "predispositions" inherited from millions of years of natural selection. But wouldn't a "manufactured" intelligence (presumably) be a much more "blank slate"...

 

[cbrunny]

FTL seems pretty self-explanatory, but how would you define "AI" in this context?

true enough. in my op i did mention the positronic brain similar to Data in Star Trek, but really that's just a launch point for the conversation. I don't really know what form it would take. Would likely depend on how you define "Intelligence" then "Natural/Non-Artificial Intelligence", with "Artificial Intelligence" representing the "not-Natural/Non-Artificial" version of that.... whatever that means. haha

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I personally feel that FTL travel (if it can even exist in our reality) is dependent on a 'clutch', or some singular discovery/invention/'one neat trick!' that just sorta unlocks it. A lot of sci-fi incorporates this (the Mass Effect is a good example), and it's basically the Deus Ex Machina of sci-fi/science fiction when it comes to this kind of thing.

AI seems to be entirely incremental, baby steps moving forward until we finally 'level up' to the AI, probably from some final discovery/really novel programming method.

I love Mass Effect's story on it. We randomly discover something that allows us super travel and find out that other species did the same but we were late to the game.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But wouldn't a "manufactured" intelligence (presumably) be a much more "blank slate"...

I think AI will more likely become an emergent phenomenon. Some research group will be working with novel programming techniques, some new kind of relational database system, whatever, and at some point the AI will simply take over the existing system. It will come about from the program itself as opposed to us building the 'blank slate' that then just automagically starts learning, all Fifth Element style, and most likely completely unexpectedly.

I love Mass Effect's story on it. We randomly discover something that allows us super travel and find out that other species did the same but we were late to the game.

This is the most likely scenario to me. There's some secret mass effect/subspace/programmatic coding within PI-like-clutch that we'll stumble across, which every other spacefaring species in our reality either stumbled across or stole. Although late is relative, we'll have plenty of worlds to 'annex' post-discovery I'm sure

 

[cbrunny]

So... in the SETI project, they're looking for Intelligence. But the plan is also going to Mars and searching for signs of possibly non-Intelligent life, right? That being simpler versions of "natural" life.

I can easily see the first AI's being simpler constructs, as someone pointed out above. I suppose this approach would not be that dissimilar to the first FTL travel being just marginally faster than light, with advancements to follow from the same approach in a more complex implementation.

 

[cbrunny]

This is the most likely scenario to me. There's some secret mass effect/subspace/programmatic coding within PI-like-clutch that we'll stumble across, which every other spacefaring species in our reality either stumbled across or stole. Although late is relative, we'll have plenty of worlds to 'annex' post-discovery I'm sure

Tangent:

that really bugged me about Star Trek Enterprise. All other species (pretty much) were at more or less the same technological level as the Humans. Made no sense. There's about two centuries between a Warp 5 engine and a Warp 9.9 engine, which is an extremely narrow slice of time on a universal/evolutionary scale. Even supposing that all species started warp flight at the exact same time, it is still so unlikely that all tech would line up from that point forward.

 

[Mike64]

I love Mass Effect's story on it. We randomly discover something that allows us super travel and find out that other species did the same but we were late to the game.

And then there's Stanislaw Lem's take on "humanity". It's been many years since I read that particular story, but iirc, the gist of it was that we petition a sort of universal congress for recognition as an "intelligent species", but it turns out (to the chagrin of the race to which the lowly spaceship worker mentioned below belonged) that we weren't "naturally evolved" nor "intelligent" at all, but merely the evolutionary by-product of a disgruntled spaceship cook's (or was it sanitation worker's) "illegally dumping" of refuse (iirc, after spitting in it for good measure) on an uninhabited backwater of a planet which eventually evolved into a species too backward to even realize it hardly fit the "conventional" definition of intelligence at all...

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So... in the SETI project, they're looking for Intelligence. But the plan is also going to Mars and searching for signs of possibly non-Intelligent life, right? That being simpler versions of "natural" life.

I can easily see the first AI's being simpler constructs, as someone pointed out above. I suppose this approach would not be that dissimilar to the first FTL travel being just marginally faster than light, with advancements to follow from the same approach in a more complex implementation.

Well, I think the best-case Mars plans is to look for 'stuff that was once either life or the soup that comes just before life'. SETI is kind of a hail mary/moonshot to look for evidence of life which would be presenting themselves the same way we do (or did, before we started backing down from massive amounts of omnidirectional radio signals). SETI will likely evolve into something else before very long (next 10 years), possibly focusing more on unique 'unknowns' we start teasing out of our galaxy as new telescopes come online.

I actually thing the FTL thing, if/when it happens, will start with a bang. Like, we won't discover how to 'just' go faster than FTL, it'll be like 'oh, we can now make wormholes to anywhere in the universe if we have enough power.. okay' or 'oh I get it now, you just do this and you can now travel at arbitrary speeds', we won't so much be limited to an actual speed anymore.

that really bugged me about Star Trek Enterprise. All other species (pretty much) were at more or less the same technological level as the Humans. Made no sense. There's about two centuries between a Warp 5 engine and a Warp 9.9 engine, which is an extremely narrow slice of time on a universal/evolutionary scale. Even supposing that all species started warp flight at the exact same time, it is still so unlikely that all tech would line up from that point forward.

Same, though to be fair only a few species were represented as such. For every 'Romulan/Klingon' species, there was also a trans-dimensional-god-level species that only interacted with our show's cast out of a curiosity, or because they were studying them like some kind of lesser life forms. I more saw the 'everyone's the same' species as more like the local tribes fighting over land (galaxy quadrant), while the really advanced species were looking at things at more of a pan-galactic scale, large scales of time (all at once), different dimensions, etc. If you look at it that way, it's more like seeing the difference between a bow and a crossbow, or iron vs steel. Like yeah we got to the party late, Romulans already made disruptors and had warp 7 or w/e, but we figured it out and caught up to their crossbows pretty quick.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And then there's Stanislaw Lem's take on "humanity". It's been many years since I read that particular story, but iirc, the gist of it was that we petition a sort of universal congress for recognition as an intelligence where upon it turns out that we weren't "naturally evolved" at all, but merely the evolutionary by-product of a disgruntled spaceship cook's (or was it sanitation worker's) "illegally dumping" of refuse (iirc, after spitting in it for good measure) on an uninhabited backwater of a planet which eventually evolved into a species too backward to even realize it hardly fit the "conventional" definition of intelligence at all...

I'm a huge fan of the Prey (game) storyline, where we're actually the results of another species biologically seeding starsystems from a massive generational ship/fleet which makes cycles around the galaxy, continually harvesting/reseeding planets to feed their species. They used biomass to build ship systems and more individuals (biomechanical species), and basically hoovered planets as they made laps. Actually gave a valid reason for the species to 'invade' the planet rather than bombard it with mass drivers from the asteroid belt as well, which was a big plus for me.

 

[Mike64]

For every 'Romulan/Klingon' species, there was also a trans-dimensional-god-level species that only interacted with our show's cast out of a curiosity, or because they were studying them like some kind of lesser life forms.

There are also quite a few "glimpses" of differently-evolved-rather-than-super-evolved, more advanced species, but few to no full episodes involving them. But my take on that is just that the majority of the show's audience simply wouldn't be interested in storylines in which humanity (especially "American"-type humanity) and/or its closely analogous allies aren't/can't be shown to be "superior" one way or another to those they interact with (if not physically or technologically, then "morally", for example....)

 

[VtPC83]

Human level and above human level AI will be first. That should be coming in the next 20-50 years. FTL travel will take longer and if humans are still around then the AI will probably help (or on its own) design and create it.

AI Reading-
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html