>>13154193>Why even argue if you allegedly don't care about science fiction in the first place?because space combat isn’t that speculative - humans fight and will fight over space and we have nearly all the technology to do so right now. so it’s a conversation about applying what we know. We know less about this theoretical type of AI than we knew about space travel 100 years ago.
> Also biological and mechanical are human distinctions. A biological mechanism is a machine just as much as a computer chip. If general intelligence is possible on the one it's possible on the other, the only question is one of systems architecture.the properties of matter come from their structure. There’s no reason to believe that organic molecules aren’t necessary for intelligence. There’s no reason to believe that consciousness and intelligence isn’t an emergent property of complex arrangements of organic matter. There’s no reason to believe that classical computers aren’t going to only ever be good at specific types of “thinking”.
Making stupid grand statements that computers just Are going to be more intelligent and just Are going to be better at combat because... well you haven’t said why, except that they’re faster. Well the fast ones we have currently are also quite vulnerable and dumb. I’m more impressed by the intelligence of Roman water clocks.
You can’t just handwave away human crew because Muh AI if you’re not even going to describe how the AI functions, it’s capabilities, it’s physical structure, it’s power requirements, how it gathers and interprets information, etc. How does that even become a conversation? it’s like a child on the playground talking about how his imaginary friend could beat up darth vader
