Ask A Character #6: Cohen
Q: 1) How do you think Silicon Valley would react to your revelation that successful AIs/robots have already been developed thousands of years ago on Silicon oxide tech?
2) How close are you developing a golem-powered economy? (I totally disagree with the other Lipwig who claims it would be a disaster. Why with modern literacy rates, everyone should have their own Being.)
Cohen: (1) Disbelief, then interest, then “hang on, you mean Beings? Never mind.”
The AI research field already knows Beings exist, and I’ve even shared plenty of data with tech people. It’s just that Beings aren’t exactly what Silicon Valley is trying to build.
For one thing, they’re not exactly easy to customize or revise — as I found out the hard way. Even I wouldn’t know how to code one from scratch. It would take some kind of once-in-a-millennium genius . . . or maybe divine inspiration.
Also, a Being can’t even do basic math as fast as a pocket calculator.
As for (2) . . .
Yeah, I know that book. The catch is, Their Golems Are Different. They’re visibly made of rock, they really have the temperaments of machines, and you can put a single person in charge of an entire army — or have a golem whose directions persist long after the death of its creator . . . ‘s civilization.
They’re like any other automaton in the real world, just chattier. You could build an automated society on that, easy.
Our Unshaped Beings run on deep emotional ties to a human being with a soul. They feel pain. They bleed. They cry. If you treat them like metal-and-C++ robots . . .
. . . sorry, I’m supposed to have a punch line here, but I’m feeling too much guilt right now to make it funny.
ad 1) goal of AI research is not to produce AI. It’s finding out how to make one. Reproducibility is important.
Also, Being is not really able to make Turing test without master. It is possible that they are somehow using something from their master to be more intelligent than they would be otherwise.
ad 2) Also, it seems that the number of potential beings is limited due to something like Pauli principle: you can’t have two being too similar.
Actually it’s been demonstrated that a Masterless Being can continue to hold a conversation, if poorly, in a lucid fashion – Pat asking Bianca for a contract, for example. While this was a low-grade conversation, and short, it nonetheless was within the parameters of the turning test as a suggestive, positive result.
True ; Patrik’s conversation was acceptable. The Raven one, on the other hand, wasn’t (see Interlude 1 page 7, http://erinptah.com/catperson/comic/interlude-one-page-7/ ). That was NOT lucid. Note that Patrik’s situation was special – his master didn’t died. But I looked now and see that the Cat did pretty well too, so maybe it was just Raven who was unable to make Turing test.
These questions are pointed at any and all relevant characters and the creator. Ok so going back Sparrow has been pulled into the battle realm on multiple occasions but so far as I can tell she hasn’t been affected by Lightning being battled. I am curious then if you plan to introduce 2 new characters, 1 person and 1 Being, at some point in the future? Or if not how does it work that neither seems to affect the other? Again any and all characters are welcome to chime in with relevant answers as well as the author/creator.
Tell me if I get this right then: Beings are more like soul-bound golems than programmed automatons.
Precisely.
Here on a re-read, and I have questions.
“Beings can’t do basic math without a pocket calculator.”
And yet, on this page, Kara Lynn was able to convert dollars to pounds at the current exchange rate in her head. Can someone explain???
http://www.bicatperson.com/comic/chapter-nine-page-22/
She didn’t do an exact multi-decimal-point conversion, just an estimate. It’s pretty easy to work out in your head if you approximate enough.