40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey

On Apr 3, 5:38*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:31*pm, Al wrote:





On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:41 am, wrote:
BTW, I have no doubt that Clarke understood the difference between
hardware and software -- but vast majority of moviegoers did not.

There is much more to 2001 that left moviegoers baffled beyond the
notion of hardware and software. Also, it is not the responsibility of
the filmmaker to have every member of the audience be trained in a
sense to understand his or her film. The best that they can do is
enlighten and in hopes of that they have the viewer do further
reserach on things. I believe that Clarke did that for computers in
1968.

In the novel there is an interesting passage by Clarke:
"Probably no one would every know this: it did not matter. In the
1980's had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically
-- self-replicated-- in accordance with an arbitrary learning program.
Artificial brains could be *grown *by a process strikingly analogous
to the development of the human brain. In any given case, the precise
details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be
millions of times too complex for human understanding."
A. C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey, ROC edition, trade paper back,
2005, bottom page 92 - top page 93).

Clarke is almost giving the description of an AI that is 'grown' and
not pieced together and then programed.
Almost as if one simulated biological evolution on a very fast time
scale, not surprising that HAL's emotions
where not programed but arose from some complex process in analogy
with human consciousness, thus HAL
could have gone bonkers for no good reason at all!

But did he go bonkers or did he decide that for the best outcome of
the mission the humans had to go? Surely when humans see other humans
or anything else killing humans they equate the killer with being nuts
(war excepted). But from HAL's perspective was he nuts or just being
mission-oriented? Clearly HAL did not have Asimov's "robot rules"
programmed into him. However he was a spaceship computer on a mission.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is true, Asimov was upset, but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI,
and I have always wondered if
Clarke and Asimov reconciled this?
After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W
Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI
had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those
three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him)
was a bit stuck in the past.

On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, Al wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:38 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Apr 3, 5:31 pm, Al wrote:

On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:41 am, wrote:
BTW, I have no doubt that Clarke understood the difference between
hardware and software -- but vast majority of moviegoers did not.

There is much more to 2001 that left moviegoers baffled beyond the
notion of hardware and software. Also, it is not the responsibility of
the filmmaker to have every member of the audience be trained in a
sense to understand his or her film. The best that they can do is
enlighten and in hopes of that they have the viewer do further
reserach on things. I believe that Clarke did that for computers in
1968.

In the novel there is an interesting passage by Clarke:
"Probably no one would every know this: it did not matter. In the
1980's had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically
-- self-replicated-- in accordance with an arbitrary learning program.
Artificial brains could be grown *by a process strikingly analogous
to the development of the human brain. In any given case, the precise
details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be
millions of times too complex for human understanding."
A. C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey, ROC edition, trade paper back,
2005, bottom page 92 - top page 93).

Clarke is almost giving the description of an AI that is 'grown' and
not pieced together and then programed.
Almost as if one simulated biological evolution on a very fast time
scale, not surprising that HAL's emotions
where not programed but arose from some complex process in analogy
with human consciousness, thus HAL
could have gone bonkers for no good reason at all!

But did he go bonkers or did he decide that for the best outcome of
the mission the humans had to go? Surely when humans see other humans
or anything else killing humans they equate the killer with being nuts
(war excepted). But from HAL's perspective was he nuts or just being
mission-oriented? Clearly HAL did not have Asimov's "robot rules"
programmed into him. However he was a spaceship computer on a mission.

That is true, Asimov was upset,

Being a long time reader of SF and of Asimov, I would like to have a
citation to that point. I have just re-read the 1968 portion of his
autobiography and I found no such mention.

but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI,
and I have always wondered if
Clarke and Asimov reconciled this?

Why would Asimov have insisted that Clarke's work follow his ?

After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W
Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI
had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those
three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him)
was a bit stuck in the past.

Given that Asimov wrote successful robot stories well past 1968,
this doesn't quite follow...

Andre

Andre Lieven wrote:
That is true, Asimov was upset,

Being a long time reader of SF and of Asimov, I would like to have a
citation to that point. I have just re-read the 1968 portion of his
autobiography and I found no such mention.

I don't have a citation, I'm afraid, but I do have a recollection
(almost as good) of Asimov describing how he loudly exclaimed "They
broke First Law!" after HAL did the crew in. It might well have been in
the introduction to one of his F&SF essays in the late 1960's/early
1970's. IIRC, he explained that his extreme aversion to depictions of
intelligent machines running amok stemmed from his reluctance to see the
public's Frankenstein complex fed.

(Lord only knows how he reacted to The Terminator almost twenty years
later :-)

--
Dave Michelson

On Apr 6, 12:04*am, Andre Lieven wrote:
On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, Al wrote:


That is true, Asimov was upset,

Being a long time reader of SF and of Asimov, I would like to have a
citation to that point. I have just re-read the 1968 portion of his
autobiography and I found no such mention.

I distinctly read that in maybe F&SF or heard Asimov say it at a
Worldcon,
what I remember was he said he was initially annoyed but on further
thought
said he did not mind.


but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI,
and I have always wondered if
Clarke and Asimov reconciled this?

Why would Asimov have insisted that Clarke's work follow his ?

After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W
Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI
had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those
three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him)
was a bit stuck in the past.

Given that Asimov wrote successful robot stories well past 1968,
this doesn't quite follow...

I am afraid I am not found of many of Asimov's works of fiction after
1968,
robot or other wise. His works from the 40's and 50's are gems ..., he
did
not go as badly into the dumper as Heinlein's later works, but younger
SF
writers had and were leaving them behind.
Except for Rendezvous with Rama even Clarke's fiction into decline.

On Apr 6, 10:16 am, Al wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:04 am, Andre Lieven wrote:

On Apr 5, 11:16 pm, Al wrote:

That is true, Asimov was upset,

Being a long time reader of SF and of Asimov, I would like to have a
citation to that point. I have just re-read the 1968 portion of his
autobiography and I found no such mention.

I distinctly read that in maybe F&SF or heard Asimov say it at a
Worldcon, what I remember was he said he was initially annoyed but on
further thought said he did not mind.

Its interesting that that thought didn't make it into his
autobiography,
which was quite... extensive.

but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI,
and I have always wondered if
Clarke and Asimov reconciled this?

Why would Asimov have insisted that Clarke's work follow his ?

After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W
Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI
had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those
three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him)
was a bit stuck in the past.

Given that Asimov wrote successful robot stories well past 1968,
this doesn't quite follow...

I am afraid I am not found of many of Asimov's works of fiction after
1968, robot or other wise. His works from the 40's and 50's are gems ...,
he did not go as badly into the dumper as Heinlein's later works, but
younger SF writers had and were leaving them behind.

He often felt as much, even in the 60s, and a friend, IIRC, Judy Lyn
Del Ray bucked him up back them by telling him " Asimov, when
you write SF, you are the field. "

Except for Rendezvous with Rama even Clarke's fiction into decline.

I'm not sure that I would agree. I grant that he did a lot of
collaborations
later in his life, but I liked many of those, as well, especially The
Light
Of Other Days, with Stephen Baxter.

For all of the Big Three, no matter what one can say about their
later works ( And, with Heinlein, I found The Number Of The Beast
to be quite awful. ), their earlier works defined the field of SF for
a long time, and for that work, they all well earned their Grand
Master status.

With us who are still here understanding that the field doesn't
stop for any writers...

Andre

On Apr 5, 11:16*pm, Al wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:38*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Apr 3, 5:31*pm, Al wrote:

On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:41 am, wrote:
BTW, I have no doubt that Clarke understood the difference between
hardware and software -- but vast majority of moviegoers did not.

There is much more to 2001 that left moviegoers baffled beyond the
notion of hardware and software. Also, it is not the responsibility of
the filmmaker to have every member of the audience be trained in a
sense to understand his or her film. The best that they can do is
enlighten and in hopes of that they have the viewer do further
reserach on things. I believe that Clarke did that for computers in
1968.

In the novel there is an interesting passage by Clarke:
"Probably no one would every know this: it did not matter. In the
1980's had shown how neural networks could be generated automatically
-- self-replicated-- in accordance with an arbitrary learning program.
Artificial brains could be *grown *by a process strikingly analogous
to the development of the human brain. In any given case, the precise
details would never be known, and even if they were, they would be
millions of times too complex for human understanding."
A. C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey, ROC edition, trade paper back,
2005, bottom page 92 - top page 93).

Clarke is almost giving the description of an AI that is 'grown' and
not pieced together and then programed.
Almost as if one simulated biological evolution on a very fast time
scale, not surprising that HAL's emotions
where not programed but arose from some complex process in analogy
with human consciousness, thus HAL
could have gone bonkers for no good reason at all!

But did he go bonkers or did he decide that for the best outcome of
the mission the humans had to go? Surely when humans see other humans
or anything else killing humans they equate the killer with being nuts
(war excepted). But from HAL's perspective was he nuts or just being
mission-oriented? Clearly HAL did not have Asimov's "robot rules"
programmed into him. However he was a spaceship computer on a mission.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is true, Asimov was upset, but then HAL was NOT an Asimvion AI,
and I have always wondered if
Clarke and Asimov reconciled this?
After all Asimov's law were rooted in the 1940's, and John W
Campbell's ideas, by 1965 ideas about AI
had undergone nearly 20 years of evolution, ..., and well..., on those
three laws, Asimov (as much as I love him)
was a bit stuck in the past.

The only problem there is how utimately does the decision for a robot
to kill a human become justified? It is an ethical dilemma akin to
euthanasia and abortion but even moreso because the question lies in,
which human programmed a computer to kill another human and what gave
him that right?