Robert Carnegie wrote:

>On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:23:10 UTC+1, Default User wrote:
>> Chris Buckley wrote:
>>
>> >As I said in my original response, the Governor could very well
>>be an >AI. It's hard for me to see how it couldn't be, though I
>>could make >such a case if I needed to.
>> It doesn't take an "AI" to receive inputs and use decision
>>criteria to perform actions. It does work independently of
>>Murderbot even in the absense of a HubSystem to control it, but
>>many programs can. >I agree that what you're calling a SecSystem
>>probably exists to help >MurderBot. But I see no evidence that
>>MurderBot is not in complete >control of it; no evidence that the
>>SecSystem can have its own goals >in opposition to MurderBot's.
>>That makes it much less likely that it >is an AI, IMO. But now
>>we're getting into uninteresting questions of >the definition of
>>an AI. I don't agree with that. I think the text makes it clear
>>that it's all Murderbot's hybrid brain, which the bot portion is
>>multi-tracked with a lot of processing power. More importantly,
>>when its brain is offline, nothing much happens other than buffer
>>reponses.
>> Lynn keeps assumming these "systems" in Murderbot that are never
>> mentioned in text, not even a suggestion. The modules that are
>>there, Governor, the various assessment programs, are mentioned.
>
>To muddle this further, let's talk about consciousness. ;-)
>
>The Murderbot identity that narrates the story may be
>the ego, as it were, of the SecUnit.
>
>Some other modules in the SecUnit may have another
>independent consciousness. Or be not conscious,
>depending on their function and need for independent
>operation.

Nothing like that is indicated by the text. The candidates that are
mentioned are the Governor, Risk Assessment Module, and Threat
Assessment Module. They all are capable of taking in situational data
and doing things. But nothing indicates anything like self-awareness or
consciousness.

Brian

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:16:56 PM UTC-4, Default User wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> >On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:23:10 UTC+1, Default User wrote:
> >> Chris Buckley wrote:
> >>
> >> >As I said in my original response, the Governor could very well
> >>be an >AI. It's hard for me to see how it couldn't be, though I
> >>could make >such a case if I needed to.
> >> It doesn't take an "AI" to receive inputs and use decision
> >>criteria to perform actions. It does work independently of
> >>Murderbot even in the absense of a HubSystem to control it, but
> >>many programs can. >I agree that what you're calling a SecSystem
> >>probably exists to help >MurderBot. But I see no evidence that
> >>MurderBot is not in complete >control of it; no evidence that the
> >>SecSystem can have its own goals >in opposition to MurderBot's.
> >>That makes it much less likely that it >is an AI, IMO. But now
> >>we're getting into uninteresting questions of >the definition of
> >>an AI. I don't agree with that. I think the text makes it clear
> >>that it's all Murderbot's hybrid brain, which the bot portion is
> >>multi-tracked with a lot of processing power. More importantly,
> >>when its brain is offline, nothing much happens other than buffer
> >>reponses.
> >> Lynn keeps assumming these "systems" in Murderbot that are never
> >> mentioned in text, not even a suggestion. The modules that are
> >>there, Governor, the various assessment programs, are mentioned.
> >
> >To muddle this further, let's talk about consciousness. ;-)
> >
> >The Murderbot identity that narrates the story may be
> >the ego, as it were, of the SecUnit.
> >
> >Some other modules in the SecUnit may have another
> >independent consciousness. Or be not conscious,
> >depending on their function and need for independent
> >operation.
> Nothing like that is indicated by the text. The candidates that are
> mentioned are the Governor, Risk Assessment Module, and Threat
> Assessment Module. They all are capable of taking in situational data
> and doing things. But nothing indicates anything like self-awareness or
> consciousness.

I find this endless arguing over the minutia of a wholly fictional, made-up
robot kind of pointless. It's entirely possible that the author isn't' entirely
self-consistent, and has spent less time worrying about it that you two have.

May be ask her? I'm reminded of when Dorothy (I think) was asked by a fan
where she found out so much about the Elysian Mysteries, and her questioner
as devastated that the answer was 'I made it up'.

pt

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 06:08:20 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:16:56?PM UTC-4, Default User wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:23:10 UTC+1, Default User wrote:
>> >> Chris Buckley wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >As I said in my original response, the Governor could very well
>> >>be an >AI. It's hard for me to see how it couldn't be, though I
>> >>could make >such a case if I needed to.
>> >> It doesn't take an "AI" to receive inputs and use decision
>> >>criteria to perform actions. It does work independently of
>> >>Murderbot even in the absense of a HubSystem to control it, but
>> >>many programs can. >I agree that what you're calling a SecSystem
>> >>probably exists to help >MurderBot. But I see no evidence that
>> >>MurderBot is not in complete >control of it; no evidence that the
>> >>SecSystem can have its own goals >in opposition to MurderBot's.
>> >>That makes it much less likely that it >is an AI, IMO. But now
>> >>we're getting into uninteresting questions of >the definition of
>> >>an AI. I don't agree with that. I think the text makes it clear
>> >>that it's all Murderbot's hybrid brain, which the bot portion is
>> >>multi-tracked with a lot of processing power. More importantly,
>> >>when its brain is offline, nothing much happens other than buffer
>> >>reponses.
>> >> Lynn keeps assumming these "systems" in Murderbot that are never
>> >> mentioned in text, not even a suggestion. The modules that are
>> >>there, Governor, the various assessment programs, are mentioned.
>> >
>> >To muddle this further, let's talk about consciousness. ;-)
>> >
>> >The Murderbot identity that narrates the story may be
>> >the ego, as it were, of the SecUnit.
>> >
>> >Some other modules in the SecUnit may have another
>> >independent consciousness. Or be not conscious,
>> >depending on their function and need for independent
>> >operation.
>> Nothing like that is indicated by the text. The candidates that are
>> mentioned are the Governor, Risk Assessment Module, and Threat
>> Assessment Module. They all are capable of taking in situational data
>> and doing things. But nothing indicates anything like self-awareness or
>> consciousness.
>
>I find this endless arguing over the minutia of a wholly fictional, made-up
>robot kind of pointless. It's entirely possible that the author isn't' entirely
>self-consistent, and has spent less time worrying about it that you two have.

Fun discussions are where you find them.

>May be ask her? I'm reminded of when Dorothy (I think) was asked by a fan
>where she found out so much about the Elysian Mysteries, and her questioner
>as devastated that the answer was 'I made it up'.

Oh, yeah, /that/ example is going to encourage them to ask.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <dbf68af2-83da-4e31-b55d-9b749fe8898bn@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>May be ask her? I'm reminded of when Dorothy (I think) was asked by a fan
>where she found out so much about the Elysian Mysteries, and her questioner
>as devastated that the answer was 'I made it up'.

(Hal Heydt)
An exchange of letters, I think. The fan was interested in
sources for the Mysteries and wondered where Dorothy had found
them. Dorothy hadn't, because--so far as she could tell--there
weren't any.

On 3/08/23 01:08, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
>
> I find this endless arguing over the minutia of a wholly fictional, made-up
> robot kind of pointless.

There is no argument. Dimwire is inventing his own version of the bot.
Default User is quoting the entirely self-consistent author.

It's entirely possible that the author isn't' entirely
> self-consistent, and has spent less time worrying about it that you two have.

Titus G wrote:

>On 3/08/23 01:08, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>snip
>>
>> I find this endless arguing over the minutia of a wholly
>>fictional, made-up robot kind of pointless.
>
>There is no argument. Dimwire is inventing his own version of the bot.
>Default User is quoting the entirely self-consistent author.

Certainly one of the advantages to e-books is the ability to search
within and find descriptions of objects and events without relying on
all-too-fallible memory and interpretation.

The problem that was annoying me the most was him making an assumption,
then "proving" it with another assumption. Like the internal MedSystem.
He assumed that ART's MedSystem, designed for humans, would be unable
to communicate with Murderbot.

The MedSystem was able to operate on MB, and that was due largely to
ART and it's brain the size of a planet being able to make adjustments.
I think any other incompatibilites would be trivial. And at that,
certainly the "feed" would be there when MB is conscious. Clearly MB
has sensors throughout its body, but its brain is what handles the
inputs.

I was quite puzzled as to where the ideas were even coming from.

Brian

pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>I find this endless arguing over the minutia of a wholly fictional,
>made-up robot kind of pointless. It's entirely possible that the
>author isn't' entirely self-consistent, and has spent less time
>worrying about it that you two have.

I didn't like what I perceived as giving a wrong impression to the
readers here. People seemed to get the idea that it was like works
they'd read with multiple AI personalities communicating. Which would
be fine, but not what's going on here. There's not even a divide
between the bot and human brain portions. They are one.

I recall a line from a story that went something like, "It's just as
easy to get these things right."

Brian

onsdag den 2. august 2023 kl. 15.08.23 UTC+2 skrev pete...@gmail.com:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:16:56 PM UTC-4, Default User wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 21:23:10 UTC+1, Default User wrote:
> > >> Chris Buckley wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >As I said in my original response, the Governor could very well
> > >>be an >AI. It's hard for me to see how it couldn't be, though I
> > >>could make >such a case if I needed to.
> > >> It doesn't take an "AI" to receive inputs and use decision
> > >>criteria to perform actions. It does work independently of
> > >>Murderbot even in the absense of a HubSystem to control it, but
> > >>many programs can. >I agree that what you're calling a SecSystem
> > >>probably exists to help >MurderBot. But I see no evidence that
> > >>MurderBot is not in complete >control of it; no evidence that the
> > >>SecSystem can have its own goals >in opposition to MurderBot's.
> > >>That makes it much less likely that it >is an AI, IMO. But now
> > >>we're getting into uninteresting questions of >the definition of
> > >>an AI. I don't agree with that. I think the text makes it clear
> > >>that it's all Murderbot's hybrid brain, which the bot portion is
> > >>multi-tracked with a lot of processing power. More importantly,
> > >>when its brain is offline, nothing much happens other than buffer
> > >>reponses.
> > >> Lynn keeps assumming these "systems" in Murderbot that are never
> > >> mentioned in text, not even a suggestion. The modules that are
> > >>there, Governor, the various assessment programs, are mentioned.
> > >
> > >To muddle this further, let's talk about consciousness. ;-)
> > >
> > >The Murderbot identity that narrates the story may be
> > >the ego, as it were, of the SecUnit.
> > >
> > >Some other modules in the SecUnit may have another
> > >independent consciousness. Or be not conscious,
> > >depending on their function and need for independent
> > >operation.
> > Nothing like that is indicated by the text. The candidates that are
> > mentioned are the Governor, Risk Assessment Module, and Threat
> > Assessment Module. They all are capable of taking in situational data
> > and doing things. But nothing indicates anything like self-awareness or
> > consciousness.
> I find this endless arguing over the minutia of a wholly fictional, made-up
> robot kind of pointless. It's entirely possible that the author isn't' entirely
> self-consistent, and has spent less time worrying about it that you two have.
>
> May be ask her? I'm reminded of when Dorothy (I think) was asked by a fan
> where she found out so much about the Elysian Mysteries, and her questioner
> as devastated that the answer was 'I made it up'.
>
> pt

It is not really unclear - Lynn is just wrong. It is strange that the series is much better than he makes it seem - even though he clearly likes it.

/Jens

overbeck...@gmail.com wrote:

>It is not really unclear - Lynn is just wrong. It is strange that the
>series is much better than he makes it seem - even though he clearly
>likes it.

Yeah. I don't want to pick on him about the issues with the reviews,
but I worry about him driving potential readers away with these. I
mentioned previously that I avoided the series for long time because I
had the wrong idea about it from some other review or reviews.

Brian