Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
This I believe
64 views
Skip to first unread message
James Nicoll
Sep 17, 2012, 12:49:09 AM9/17/12
to
If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
X is not a mass-produced robot.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
X is not a mass-produced robot.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 17, 2012, 1:11:21 AM9/17/12
to
In article <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
just that happens.
Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>X is not a mass-produced robot.
Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>X is not a mass-produced robot.
just that happens.
Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Don Kuenz
Sep 17, 2012, 10:57:22 AM9/17/12
to
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
> longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
> X is not a mass-produced robot.
Nor a clone. But, what about "vat people?" Are "vat persons" unique?
> If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
> longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
> X is not a mass-produced robot.
--
Don Kuenz
James Nicoll
Sep 17, 2012, 11:13:15 AM9/17/12
to
In article <MAHAE...@kithrup.com>,
classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>>X is not a mass-produced robot.
>
>Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
>just that happens.
>
>Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
It's a bit late for that. I just listened to a radio production of the
>In article <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>>X is not a mass-produced robot.
>
>Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
>just that happens.
>
>Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
David Johnston
Sep 17, 2012, 1:06:45 PM9/17/12
to
On 9/17/2012 9:13 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <MAHAE...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>>> longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>>> X is not a mass-produced robot.
>>
>> Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
>> just that happens.
>>
>> Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
>
> It's a bit late for that. I just listened to a radio production of the
> classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
>
She was extensively custom-modified and the customizers never did it
> In article <MAHAE...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>>> longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>>> X is not a mass-produced robot.
>>
>> Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
>> just that happens.
>>
>> Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
>
> It's a bit late for that. I just listened to a radio production of the
> classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
>
again.
Michael Stemper
Sep 17, 2012, 1:17:36 PM9/17/12
to
In article <k37emb$hud$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>In article <MAHAE...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>>>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>>>X is not a mass-produced robot.
>>
>>Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
>>just that happens.
My thought, as well.
>In article <MAHAE...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>>>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>>>X is not a mass-produced robot.
>>
>>Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
>>just that happens.
>>Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
>
>It's a bit late for that. I just listened to a radio production of the
>classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
didn't think much of it at the time.
(Why, yes, the two thoughts are in conflict. Big deal.)
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Sep 17, 2012, 1:29:22 PM9/17/12
to
In article <k37emb$hud$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
But wasn't she in essence a "person"? If you're in love with one twin is
the other one just as good?
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <MAHAE...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>>>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>>>X is not a mass-produced robot.
>>
>>Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
>>just that happens.
>>
>>Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
>
>It's a bit late for that. I just listened to a radio production of the
>classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
>--
Been a long, loooong time since I read that one. (Never heard the radioplay).
>In article <MAHAE...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>>>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>>>X is not a mass-produced robot.
>>
>>Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
>>just that happens.
>>
>>Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
>
>It's a bit late for that. I just listened to a radio production of the
>classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
>--
But wasn't she in essence a "person"? If you're in love with one twin is
the other one just as good?
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Sep 17, 2012, 1:37:41 PM9/17/12
to
Sandrisson mentions as a kid that he developed a crush on his physics
teacher, who happened to be a replicated simulation of the actual Dr.
Kanzaki. One of the other people pointed out that ALL the hot teachers
were usually chipped and simmed by the end of the first few weeks of
class, so why didn't he just get one? To which he replied he wanted the
real thing, not an imitation. Well, the REAL imitation... YOU KNOW WHAT
I MEAN!.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 17, 2012, 1:52:26 PM9/17/12
to
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 17, 2012, 2:03:00 PM9/17/12
to
In article <k37n55$va2$1...@dont-email.me>,
And there's a novel by Melissa Scott, whose title now escapes me,
in which a young woman risks her life to save that of a sentient
computer. Until she is herself in serious trouble, and overhears
a conversation between the computer and someone else. The human
points out that the protagonist is in danger, and should they
save her? And the computer replies, "No, don't bother, I have
everything she's ever said to me backed up, so I can recreate her
in memory any time I want." In other words, the computer did not
see the protagonist as a person, but just a database. At this
moment the protagonist switches sides and eventually brings about
the computer's destruction. And it fair to serve it right.
in which a young woman risks her life to save that of a sentient
computer. Until she is herself in serious trouble, and overhears
a conversation between the computer and someone else. The human
points out that the protagonist is in danger, and should they
save her? And the computer replies, "No, don't bother, I have
everything she's ever said to me backed up, so I can recreate her
in memory any time I want." In other words, the computer did not
see the protagonist as a person, but just a database. At this
moment the protagonist switches sides and eventually brings about
the computer's destruction. And it fair to serve it right.
Howard Brazee
Sep 17, 2012, 5:27:39 PM9/17/12
to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:03:00 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:
>And there's a novel by Melissa Scott, whose title now escapes me,
>in which a young woman risks her life to save that of a sentient
>computer. Until she is herself in serious trouble, and overhears
>a conversation between the computer and someone else. The human
>points out that the protagonist is in danger, and should they
>save her? And the computer replies, "No, don't bother, I have
>everything she's ever said to me backed up, so I can recreate her
>in memory any time I want." In other words, the computer did not
>see the protagonist as a person, but just a database. At this
>moment the protagonist switches sides and eventually brings about
>the computer's destruction. And it fair to serve it right.
_Dreamships_
Heydt) wrote:
>And there's a novel by Melissa Scott, whose title now escapes me,
>in which a young woman risks her life to save that of a sentient
>computer. Until she is herself in serious trouble, and overhears
>a conversation between the computer and someone else. The human
>points out that the protagonist is in danger, and should they
>save her? And the computer replies, "No, don't bother, I have
>everything she's ever said to me backed up, so I can recreate her
>in memory any time I want." In other words, the computer did not
>see the protagonist as a person, but just a database. At this
>moment the protagonist switches sides and eventually brings about
>the computer's destruction. And it fair to serve it right.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
David DeLaney
Sep 17, 2012, 6:10:20 PM9/17/12
to
those two aren't unique.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kip Williams
Sep 17, 2012, 7:06:06 PM9/17/12
to
Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote, On 9/17/12 1:29 PM:
Kip W
rasfw
> In article <k37emb$hud$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> It's a bit late for that. I just listened to a radio production of the
>> classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
>
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> It's a bit late for that. I just listened to a radio production of the
>> classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
>
> Been a long, loooong time since I read that one. (Never heard the radioplay).
> But wasn't she in essence a "person"? If you're in love with one twin is
> the other one just as good?
Anybody here remember William F. Temple's _Four-Sided Triangle_?
> But wasn't she in essence a "person"? If you're in love with one twin is
> the other one just as good?
Kip W
rasfw
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 17, 2012, 8:18:20 PM9/17/12
to
In article <y1O5s.566$vp1...@newsfe16.iad>,
Just barely. Early fifties. Two men, a woman, and her (I think)
android duplicate.
android duplicate.
ppint. at pplay
Sep 17, 2012, 8:56:45 PM9/17/12
to
- hi; in article, <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
jdni...@panix.com "James Nicoll" reflected:
>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>X is not a mass-produced robot.
- unless its "asimov circuits" be defective, perhaps? - [a]
- and romantic love be an emotional derangement of the elsewise
rational intelligence, might not a convalescent mass-produced
mechanical man burst both happily and menacingly into the only
top ten hit song ever to associate the regaining of (relative)
sanity with coming down to, or on the way up, back towards a
fondly-felt ambient temperature (in degrees fahrenheit) - and a
reassuringly tender, loving - and homicidal - insanity ? - [b]
- for further comment regarding the wisdom of making a gleaming
silver metal-surfaced android the object of your affections, see
also the lyrics of "plastic fantastic lover" - [c]
- love, ppint.
[a] - _tik-tok_, _tik-tok_...
[b] - "hey, 98.6, it's good to have you back again..." [d]
[c] - grace slick; the great society & jefferson airplane
[d] - first line of chorus, "98.6" by keith
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"only two groups of people in society actually behave
in a completely logical, self-interested way: one of
these is economists themselves; the other is psychopaths."
- "the trap" - bbc2 18/3/07 [3/18/07 for merkins] 21:55 GMT
jdni...@panix.com "James Nicoll" reflected:
>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>X is not a mass-produced robot.
- and romantic love be an emotional derangement of the elsewise
rational intelligence, might not a convalescent mass-produced
mechanical man burst both happily and menacingly into the only
top ten hit song ever to associate the regaining of (relative)
sanity with coming down to, or on the way up, back towards a
fondly-felt ambient temperature (in degrees fahrenheit) - and a
reassuringly tender, loving - and homicidal - insanity ? - [b]
- for further comment regarding the wisdom of making a gleaming
silver metal-surfaced android the object of your affections, see
also the lyrics of "plastic fantastic lover" - [c]
- love, ppint.
[a] - _tik-tok_, _tik-tok_...
[b] - "hey, 98.6, it's good to have you back again..." [d]
[c] - grace slick; the great society & jefferson airplane
[d] - first line of chorus, "98.6" by keith
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"only two groups of people in society actually behave
in a completely logical, self-interested way: one of
these is economists themselves; the other is psychopaths."
- "the trap" - bbc2 18/3/07 [3/18/07 for merkins] 21:55 GMT
Robert Carnegie
Sep 17, 2012, 10:55:00 PM9/17/12
to
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:56:45 AM UTC+1, "ppint. at pplay" wrote:
> - hi; in article, <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>
> jdni...@panix.com "James Nicoll" reflected:
>
>
>
> >If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
> >longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
> >X is not a mass-produced robot.
>
> - unless its "asimov circuits" be defective, perhaps? - [a]
I don't think /that's/ a good idea; but the irreproducibly maladjusted
> - hi; in article, <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>
> jdni...@panix.com "James Nicoll" reflected:
>
>
>
> >If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
> >longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
> >X is not a mass-produced robot.
>
> - unless its "asimov circuits" be defective, perhaps? - [a]
machine has been around in sci-fi since "A Logic Named Joe" and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_AL-76_Goes_Astray> - not to
mention Asimov's described parade of robots figuratively stomping
their makers, the "Frankenstein complex“" as he put it.
I thought your [a] was going to be
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_Guaranteed_%28short_story%29>
The other song that comes to mind is "Yours Truly, 2095".
"...and she's also a telephone."
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 18, 2012, 12:17:52 AM9/18/12
to
In article <0b074de2-fab2-4e3a...@googlegroups.com>,
breaking First Law. The telepathic robot in "Liar!" shrinks even
from hurting a human's feelings. The robot that inadvertently
provides the murder weapon in _The Naked Sun_ goes completely
bonkers as a result. Et cetera.
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:56:45 AM UTC+1, "ppint. at pplay" wrote:
>> - hi; in article, <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>
>> jdni...@panix.com "James Nicoll" reflected:
>>
>>
>>
>> >If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>> >longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>> >X is not a mass-produced robot.
>>
>> - unless its "asimov circuits" be defective, perhaps? - [a]
>
>I don't think /that's/ a good idea; but the irreproducibly maladjusted
>machine has been around in sci-fi since "A Logic Named Joe" and
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_AL-76_Goes_Astray> - not to
>mention Asimov's described parade of robots figuratively stomping
>their makers, the "Frankenstein complex�" as he put it.
I don't recall any of Asimov's classic robots ever *entirely*
>On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:56:45 AM UTC+1, "ppint. at pplay" wrote:
>> - hi; in article, <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>
>> jdni...@panix.com "James Nicoll" reflected:
>>
>>
>>
>> >If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>> >longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>> >X is not a mass-produced robot.
>>
>> - unless its "asimov circuits" be defective, perhaps? - [a]
>
>I don't think /that's/ a good idea; but the irreproducibly maladjusted
>machine has been around in sci-fi since "A Logic Named Joe" and
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_AL-76_Goes_Astray> - not to
>mention Asimov's described parade of robots figuratively stomping
>their makers, the "Frankenstein complex�" as he put it.
breaking First Law. The telepathic robot in "Liar!" shrinks even
from hurting a human's feelings. The robot that inadvertently
provides the murder weapon in _The Naked Sun_ goes completely
bonkers as a result. Et cetera.
Brian M. Scott
Sep 18, 2012, 4:21:28 AM9/18/12
to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:03:00 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:MAIA5...@kithrup.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> And there's a novel by Melissa Scott, whose title now
> escapes me, in which a young woman risks her life to save
> that of a sentient computer. Until she is herself in
> serious trouble, and overhears a conversation between the
> computer and someone else. The human points out that the
> protagonist is in danger, and should they save her? And
> the computer replies, "No, don't bother, I have
> everything she's ever said to me backed up, so I can
> recreate her in memory any time I want." In other words,
> the computer did not see the protagonist as a person, but
> just a database. At this moment the protagonist switches
> sides and eventually brings about the computer's
> destruction. And it fair to serve it right.
That may be _Dreaming Metal_.
Brian
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:MAIA5...@kithrup.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> And there's a novel by Melissa Scott, whose title now
> escapes me, in which a young woman risks her life to save
> that of a sentient computer. Until she is herself in
> serious trouble, and overhears a conversation between the
> computer and someone else. The human points out that the
> protagonist is in danger, and should they save her? And
> the computer replies, "No, don't bother, I have
> everything she's ever said to me backed up, so I can
> recreate her in memory any time I want." In other words,
> the computer did not see the protagonist as a person, but
> just a database. At this moment the protagonist switches
> sides and eventually brings about the computer's
> destruction. And it fair to serve it right.
Brian
Robert Carnegie
Sep 18, 2012, 8:45:32 AM9/18/12
to
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:29:39 AM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <0b074de2-fab2-4e3a...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:56:45 AM UTC+1, "ppint. at pplay" wrote:
>
> >> - hi; in article, <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> >> jdni...@panix.com "James Nicoll" reflected:
> >> >If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
> >> >longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
> >> >X is not a mass-produced robot.
> >>
> >> - unless its "asimov circuits" be defective, perhaps? - [a]
> >
> >I don't think /that's/ a good idea; but the irreproducibly maladjusted
> >machine has been around in sci-fi since "A Logic Named Joe" and
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_AL-76_Goes_Astray> - not to
> >mention Asimov's described parade of robots figuratively stomping
> >their makers, the "Frankenstein complex" as he put it.
>
> I don't recall any of Asimov's classic robots ever *entirely*
> breaking First Law. The telepathic robot in "Liar!" shrinks even
> from hurting a human's feelings. The robot that inadvertently
> provides the murder weapon in _The Naked Sun_ goes completely
> bonkers as a result. Et cetera.
It was flirted with, but mainly the point is that almost only
> In article <0b074de2-fab2-4e3a...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:56:45 AM UTC+1, "ppint. at pplay" wrote:
>
> >> - hi; in article, <k36a45$4cq$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> >> jdni...@panix.com "James Nicoll" reflected:
> >> >If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
> >> >longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
> >> >X is not a mass-produced robot.
> >>
> >> - unless its "asimov circuits" be defective, perhaps? - [a]
> >
> >I don't think /that's/ a good idea; but the irreproducibly maladjusted
> >machine has been around in sci-fi since "A Logic Named Joe" and
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_AL-76_Goes_Astray> - not to
> >mention Asimov's described parade of robots figuratively stomping
> >their makers, the "Frankenstein complex" as he put it.
>
> I don't recall any of Asimov's classic robots ever *entirely*
> breaking First Law. The telepathic robot in "Liar!" shrinks even
> from hurting a human's feelings. The robot that inadvertently
> provides the murder weapon in _The Naked Sun_ goes completely
> bonkers as a result. Et cetera.
Asimov's robots /had/ the First Law. Other writers didn't, and some
still don't. Asimov's laws are the robot-builder's equivalent of
the Evil Overlord List - well, minus some important points about
/authorised/ humans, since apparently /anybody/ can order an Asimov
robot to destroy itself, and they're expensive. (Actually, rented.)
I suppose you can explain to an Asbot that a human who destroys it
without a good reason and proper authority will get sued, and therefore
suffer harm, albeit deservedly - and therefore the robot should /not/
obey that order.
Regardless, "the creator must not be harmed" is an obvious
Number One Command for a private invent-a-robot project.
And you probably should have a licence for a robot that could
knowingly or unknowingly hurt anyone else - just as for an
automobile or a gun.
Another possible candidate for "unique and irreplaceable
special quirky configuration" is a hologram character in the memorably
titled Star Trek episode, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11001001> ;-)
After she disappears from the software, Riker tries all the combinations
(presumably including that one) but none of the generated holohostesses
correspond to the mesmerising Minuet. Maybe she was a living Bynar
Mata Hari instead, heavily disguised. Otherwise it isn't logical that
she isn't retrievable amongst /all/ the combinations. Well, maybe
/her/ combinations are secret.
Michael Stemper
Sep 18, 2012, 9:34:49 AM9/18/12
to
In article <MAJ2L...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <0b074de2-fab2-4e3a...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:56:45 AM UTC+1, "ppint. at pplay" wrote:
>>> - unless its "asimov circuits" be defective, perhaps? - [a]
>>
>>I don't think /that's/ a good idea; but the irreproducibly maladjusted
>>machine has been around in sci-fi since "A Logic Named Joe" and
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_AL-76_Goes_Astray> - not to
>>mention Asimov's described parade of robots figuratively stomping
>>their makers, the "Frankenstein complex�" as he put it.
>
>I don't recall any of Asimov's classic robots ever *entirely*
>breaking First Law. The telepathic robot in "Liar!" shrinks even
>from hurting a human's feelings. The robot that inadvertently
>provides the murder weapon in _The Naked Sun_ goes completely
>bonkers as a result.
Well, it depends upon what you mean by "entirely". If you mean "kill",
>In article <0b074de2-fab2-4e3a...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:56:45 AM UTC+1, "ppint. at pplay" wrote:
>>> - unless its "asimov circuits" be defective, perhaps? - [a]
>>
>>I don't think /that's/ a good idea; but the irreproducibly maladjusted
>>machine has been around in sci-fi since "A Logic Named Joe" and
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_AL-76_Goes_Astray> - not to
>>mention Asimov's described parade of robots figuratively stomping
>>their makers, the "Frankenstein complex�" as he put it.
>
>I don't recall any of Asimov's classic robots ever *entirely*
>breaking First Law. The telepathic robot in "Liar!" shrinks even
>from hurting a human's feelings. The robot that inadvertently
>provides the murder weapon in _The Naked Sun_ goes completely
>bonkers as a result.
then none of his Three Laws robots broke the First Law entirely. (Of
course, it's not really meaningful to talk about a non-Three Laws robot
breaking the First Law, since it's not applicable.)
However, Lenny certainly caused a human being to come to harm. He didn't
know that he was doing it, but he did it. This is similar to what happened
on Solaria, except that since he wasn't mentally competent to understand
his actions, he didn't have a breakdown afterwards.
I don't think that Nestor (from "Little Lost Robot") did cause harm, but
there was that risk, since his First Law had been deliberately weakened,
and the theory wasn't really built to model the consequences of such an
action.
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 18, 2012, 10:19:24 AM9/18/12
to
Drak Bibliophile
Sep 18, 2012, 12:41:33 PM9/18/12
to
something to happen that would kill the human involved while thinking
that he could prevent the death. Then after the event started, he chose
not to prevent the death. He was unable to directly kill a human and
"broke down" when the only way to protect himself was to directly kill a
human.
--
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins!
*
--------
*
Michael Stemper
Sep 18, 2012, 1:22:05 PM9/18/12
to
In article <mpidnUssnfSjOcXN...@giganews.com>, Drak Bibliophile <drakbib...@comcast.net> writes:
>On 9/18/2012 8:34 AM, Michael Stemper wrote:
>> In article <MAJ2L...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>> I don't recall any of Asimov's classic robots ever *entirely*
>>> breaking First Law. The telepathic robot in "Liar!" shrinks even
>>>from hurting a human's feelings. The robot that inadvertently
>>> provides the murder weapon in _The Naked Sun_ goes completely
>>> bonkers as a result.
>On 9/18/2012 8:34 AM, Michael Stemper wrote:
>> In article <MAJ2L...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>> I don't recall any of Asimov's classic robots ever *entirely*
>>> breaking First Law. The telepathic robot in "Liar!" shrinks even
>>>from hurting a human's feelings. The robot that inadvertently
>>> provides the murder weapon in _The Naked Sun_ goes completely
>>> bonkers as a result.
>> I don't think that Nestor (from "Little Lost Robot") did cause harm, but
>> there was that risk, since his First Law had been deliberately weakened,
>> and the theory wasn't really built to model the consequences of such an
>> action.
>
>IIRC Nestor *did* kill a human by "double-thinking". IE he caused
>something to happen that would kill the human involved while thinking
>that he could prevent the death. Then after the event started, he chose
>not to prevent the death. He was unable to directly kill a human and
>"broke down" when the only way to protect himself was to directly kill a
>human.
I don't believe that you do recall correctly. I'm pretty sure that that
>> there was that risk, since his First Law had been deliberately weakened,
>> and the theory wasn't really built to model the consequences of such an
>> action.
>
>IIRC Nestor *did* kill a human by "double-thinking". IE he caused
>something to happen that would kill the human involved while thinking
>that he could prevent the death. Then after the event started, he chose
>not to prevent the death. He was unable to directly kill a human and
>"broke down" when the only way to protect himself was to directly kill a
>human.
scenario was *discussed* by the cast as a possibility, showing that there
was a risk from Nestor.
Richard R. Hershberger
Sep 18, 2012, 2:20:05 PM9/18/12
to
On Sep 17, 2:14 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <k37n55$va...@dont-email.me>,
> >> James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <MAHAEx.1...@kithrup.com>,
> >>> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >>>> In article <k36a45$4c...@panix2.panix.com>,
woman form only a very incomplete database. It cannot accurately
forecast additional conversations they would have held, had she been
saved. Presumably a complete download of the computer's data is a
different matter. The hardware is not the important part. This is
only true of humans come the singularity.
Richard R. Hershberger
> In article <k37n55$va...@dont-email.me>,
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 9/17/12 1:29 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <k37emb$hu...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 9/17/12 1:29 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <MAHAEx.1...@kithrup.com>,
> >>> Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >>>> In article <k36a45$4c...@panix2.panix.com>,
> >>>> James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>>> If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
> >>>>> longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
> >>>>> X is not a mass-produced robot.
>
> >>>>> If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
> >>>>> longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
> >>>>> X is not a mass-produced robot.
>
> >>>> Sounds as though you have just reviewed somebody's opus in which
> >>>> just that happens.
>
> >>>> Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
>
> >>>> just that happens.
>
> >>>> Tell us later, when you can, so's we can avoid it.
>
> >>> It's a bit late for that. I just listened to a radio production of the
> >>> classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
> >>> --
> >>> classic Lester del Rey story, "Helen O'Loy".
>
> >> Been a long, loooong time since I read that one. (Never heard the radioplay).
> >> But wasn't she in essence a "person"? If you're in love with one twin is
> >> the other one just as good?
>
> >> Been a long, loooong time since I read that one. (Never heard the radioplay).
> >> But wasn't she in essence a "person"? If you're in love with one twin is
> >> the other one just as good?
>
> > I know that was a point made in Grand Central Arena, when Dr.
> >Sandrisson mentions as a kid that he developed a crush on his physics
> >teacher, who happened to be a replicated simulation of the actual Dr.
> >Kanzaki. One of the other people pointed out that ALL the hot teachers
> >were usually chipped and simmed by the end of the first few weeks of
> >class, so why didn't he just get one? To which he replied he wanted the
> >real thing, not an imitation. Well, the REAL imitation... YOU KNOW WHAT
> >I MEAN!.
>
> >Sandrisson mentions as a kid that he developed a crush on his physics
> >teacher, who happened to be a replicated simulation of the actual Dr.
> >Kanzaki. One of the other people pointed out that ALL the hot teachers
> >were usually chipped and simmed by the end of the first few weeks of
> >class, so why didn't he just get one? To which he replied he wanted the
> >real thing, not an imitation. Well, the REAL imitation... YOU KNOW WHAT
> >I MEAN!.
>
> And there's a novel by Melissa Scott, whose title now escapes me,
> in which a young woman risks her life to save that of a sentient
> computer. Until she is herself in serious trouble, and overhears
> a conversation between the computer and someone else. The human
> points out that the protagonist is in danger, and should they
> save her? And the computer replies, "No, don't bother, I have
> everything she's ever said to me backed up, so I can recreate her
> in memory any time I want." In other words, the computer did not
> see the protagonist as a person, but just a database. At this
> moment the protagonist switches sides and eventually brings about
> the computer's destruction. And it fair to serve it right.
The flaw with the computer's logic is that its conversations with the
> in which a young woman risks her life to save that of a sentient
> computer. Until she is herself in serious trouble, and overhears
> a conversation between the computer and someone else. The human
> points out that the protagonist is in danger, and should they
> save her? And the computer replies, "No, don't bother, I have
> everything she's ever said to me backed up, so I can recreate her
> in memory any time I want." In other words, the computer did not
> see the protagonist as a person, but just a database. At this
> moment the protagonist switches sides and eventually brings about
> the computer's destruction. And it fair to serve it right.
woman form only a very incomplete database. It cannot accurately
forecast additional conversations they would have held, had she been
saved. Presumably a complete download of the computer's data is a
different matter. The hardware is not the important part. This is
only true of humans come the singularity.
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
Sep 18, 2012, 2:28:12 PM9/18/12
to
computer/robot which, through a liberal application of handwavium,
acquires a unique personality which cannot be replicated even via
download because, um..., just because! Consider Mike in The Moon is a
Harsh Mistress. The dramatic function of the trope is to combine the
plot advantages of a sentient computer/robot with the plot advantages
of being able to, at least potentially, kill the character off. I
have seen the point made that had Mike survived the Lunar revolt, he
would inevitably have ended up as the most absolute authoritarian
ruler in history. By killing him off, we get a bittersweet ending
instead.
For whatever it is worth, I think the trope has been done enough to
now qualify as lazy writing.
Richard R. Hershberger
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 18, 2012, 4:25:28 PM9/18/12
to
In article <562d98a4-ee21-4e6c...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Well, it could.
On the other hand, I found this saved to disk:
>From djh...@kithrup.com Wed Jul 3 08:25:44 PDT 2002
>
>As Lawrence Watt-Evans has stated it:
>
>>Watt-Evans' Law of Literary Creation: There is no idea so stupid or
>>hackneyed that a sufficiently-talented writer can't get a good story
>>out of it.
>
>[Heydt's Gloss: for 'hackneyed' read 'has been used
>before' or even 'has been used before a whole lot'.]
>
>>Feist's Corollary: There is no idea so brilliant or original that a
>>sufficiently-untalented writer can't fuck it up. (This was the only
>>time [LWE] ever saw or heard Raymond Feist use the word "fuck.")
On the other hand, I found this saved to disk:
>From djh...@kithrup.com Wed Jul 3 08:25:44 PDT 2002
>
>As Lawrence Watt-Evans has stated it:
>
>>Watt-Evans' Law of Literary Creation: There is no idea so stupid or
>>hackneyed that a sufficiently-talented writer can't get a good story
>>out of it.
>
>[Heydt's Gloss: for 'hackneyed' read 'has been used
>before' or even 'has been used before a whole lot'.]
>
>>Feist's Corollary: There is no idea so brilliant or original that a
>>sufficiently-untalented writer can't fuck it up. (This was the only
>>time [LWE] ever saw or heard Raymond Feist use the word "fuck.")
JRStern
Sep 19, 2012, 1:25:27 AM9/19/12
to
On 17 Sep 2012 00:49:09 -0400, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
wrote:
>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>X is not a mass-produced robot.
Well it depends, how many of me are there?
J.
wrote:
>If an SF writer is going to end their bittersweet tale of romance watched
>longingly from afar with "but there was only one X", perhaps it is best if
>X is not a mass-produced robot.
J.
Drak Bibliophile
Sep 19, 2012, 7:36:18 PM9/19/12
to
correct and I missed remembered.
William December Starr
Sep 21, 2012, 7:57:08 PM9/21/12
to
In article <y1O5s.566$vp1...@newsfe16.iad>,
Husband, wife, wife's lover, and the crash-landed alien who walks
into the "Oh no, I thought he was burglar!" scenario that the
wife's set up for shooting her husband dead.
Leaving our heroes with the conundrum of "Okay, now that we've hit
her and her lover with our convenient amnesia drug and cleaned up
the scene so that as far they're concerned this never happened,
should we breach our iron-clad secrecy rules to prevent her from,
you know, murdering her husband and getting away with it?"
-- wds
Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> said:
> Anybody here remember William F. Temple's _Four-Sided Triangle_?
No, but I remember the "UFO" episode "The Square Triangle."
> Anybody here remember William F. Temple's _Four-Sided Triangle_?
Husband, wife, wife's lover, and the crash-landed alien who walks
into the "Oh no, I thought he was burglar!" scenario that the
wife's set up for shooting her husband dead.
Leaving our heroes with the conundrum of "Okay, now that we've hit
her and her lover with our convenient amnesia drug and cleaned up
the scene so that as far they're concerned this never happened,
should we breach our iron-clad secrecy rules to prevent her from,
you know, murdering her husband and getting away with it?"
-- wds
0 new messages