Lundse wrote:I am just saying those distinction were not relevant to the Jihad. All machines which simulated the mind of man were destroyed, the closest things which are allowed is apparently servoks and fencing-machines.
And I wrote nothing to imply that I thought the distinction relevant to the Jihad, either. But not ALL of the machines were actually destroyed: the BG hid and kept some of theirs, for their records. How widespread that knowledge was within the Sisterhood, especially at the time period in question (it's obviously an open secret by the time of Heretics, for example), is an unanswerable question, but it would be a nice hypocrisy by those in the know to claim that no machine could be trusted while relying on non-thinking, non-conscious machines for data storage and processing. To me it seems that at least some people were making some sort of distinction.
But I am not convinced that Frank had any clear distinctions in mind - when he wrote "computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots", I believe he was being comprehensive, not describing three distinct and precise categories of machines which in no way overlapped.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I prefer to think the words have meaning. We disagree.
And I do not think his warning against trusting tools to think and guide us is concerned with niceties such as whether the advice comes from a moving robot or a mainframe in a basement, nor whether the machine in question does only data processing, simulates human thinking or appears actually conscious.
(And I don't think he believed machines could ever be conscious either, see Without Me, You're Nothing for details).
Well, if you mean in the real world, yes, that seems right, based on what he wrote in WMYN. But if you're going to bring in non-Dune books, don't you need to mention Destination: Void (1966) and its sequels, in which he portrayed artificial consciousness as a real possibility in a fictional universe?
(Seriously, some of what he wrote in Without Me, You're Nothing is still relevant, but much is woefully outdated. His basic assumption is that computers will always be dependent on the same basic architecture and method of processing that they used then (still use now), which is debatable in the real world but rather untenable in a fictional setting ... especially one 10,000 years in the future.)
The bug turned and faced the floating red eye, thought Hmm, is that really an eye or a seriously inflamed anus?
"Follow me well, pretard pest," he warned, using a voice mode which said: You are not a discussant, have never been a discussant, cannot be a discussant. "When I want to hear from you I'll pull your chain. Otherwise shut up and fuck off."
unfunny pest wrote:01010100011010000110010100100000011001100110111101110101011011100110010001100001011101000110100101101111011011100010000001101111011001100010000001110100011010000110010100100000011000010111001001100111011101010110110101100101011011100111010000100000011010010111001100100000011001100110110001100001011101110110010101100100