Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Mandy wrote:Shit.. people whacking each other over the head with calculators is more believable than what P&tB created.

dm1215 wrote:I always pictured it as man and machine beating the crap out of each other. Didn't the un-edited Lynch film show something along those lines in black and white sketches at the beginning.

Actually, if you watch that part in the film again, it says nothing about machines taking over but rather how humans became weak and lazy by their constant use, and how other humans used them as tools to enslave.

HUMANKIND...MADE WEAK AND LISTLESS BY REPEATED BASHINGS OVER THE BEAN WITH CALCULATORS!!!



You know, that (bashing over the head with calculators) would probably work for one of those Monty Python ladies auxiliary "Reenactment of the Battle of ..." things.

Kewl.

SandChigger wrote:HUMANKIND...MADE WEAK AND LISTLESS BY REPEATED BASHINGS OVER THE BEAN WITH CALCULATORS!!!

More likely it was "with the obvious."

Concerning who the actual combatants were:

My feeling strictly from reading the texts was that it was human vs human.
For some reason, it never dawned on me how many/most people would
naturally assume it was machines vs humans. Have we, the Cast Out, ever
reached a consensus on this point?

I don't think we've ever specifically phrased it in some sort of manifesto or anything, if that's what you mean.

Different people have different interpretations of what exactly "computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots" refer to, so a single statement of consensus might not be easy.

For me, computers, with no qualification, are non-sentient or less intelligent data processing machines; thinking machines are mainframe- or network-hosted AIs; conscious robots are AIs in "bodies" capable of more direct (and more directed) interaction with the physical environment.

Unless "AIs are people, too", you can count me out of the discussion. AIs that are "just programs", limited, "machine-like", and unable to overcome their initial instructions and to change are really unimaginative and basically of no interest. I don't want to believe that that's what FH, the same man who gave us Ship, had in mind.

If the machines were not in some way very close to human and perceived in part as a threat to human uniqueness, why would there be such a strong emotional and philosophical reaction to them? Whence the religious revulsion?

The Jihad was a war over ideas. I prefer to imagine the combatants as falling on both sides of the carbon/silicon divide.

I always got the same impression, man and machine together on the loosing side - not some terminator people vs robots to escape extinction scenario. What's that quote "men with machine to enslave other men" or something similar? Pretty much puts that question to bed in my books.

I do think that there was a big machine/robot element as well as humans on the loosing side, but nothing like KJABH came up with.

I wanted to address that quote because it's a bit problematic for my PoV, but chose to ignore it above. It seems to imply that the AIs could be controlled by humans, possibly by reprogramming.

Or maybe not. Just as there are any number of ways of coercing a person into doing what you want him or her to, why couldn't humans coerce an AI into complicity with some scheme? Explosive charges on its power source, infection with parasite or viral agents that need to be disarmed daily, etc., for example?

I don't think that the quote necessarily implies any real control over the machines. Men with Machines. The Machines may have just agreed with those men and helped them enslave others for their own reasons. Maybe that's a bit loose - but I don't think that that quote really proves that the humans were in control, just that they were at least equals with the machines. I can see how people interpret it in other ways though.

Explosive charges on its power source, infection with parasite or viral agents that need to be disarmed daily, etc., for example?

If you do want to go with the man controlling machine aproach - I think it would have been more "FH" for any coercion to have been psychological rather than brute force or threat of force. More likely that men convinced the machines that their cause was the right one, brainwashing etc. IMO.

Interesting. I've always read "with" there with...ahem, in an instrumental sense.

Interesting. When I first encountered that quote, many years ago, I never
considered that "men with machines" might refer to a robot or some other
self-propelled AI object. I always looked at "machines" in this context as
something like an asset. Again, these were just first impressions. Did FH
ever conclusively state that in the BJ era that were actually robots?

SandChigger wrote:Interesting. I've always read "with" there with...ahem, in an instrumental sense.

To be honest I also read it in that sense, I'm just playing the DA on this one pointing out that it could be taken other ways. Men with allies, men with machines, you get the idea. I don't think that quote rules out any of your ideas, or even causes any major difficulties with them. As I said though, if you prefer the coercion route, I think psycological influence would make a better book.

Spicelon wrote:Interesting. When I first encountered that quote, many years ago, I never
considered that "men with machines" might refer to a robot or some other
self-propelled AI object. I always looked at "machines" in this context as
something like an asset. Again, these were just first impressions. Did FH
ever conclusively state that in the BJ era that were actually robots?

Yes.
As Chig quoted, and now I quote him:

"computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots"

Kinda a "friends with benefits" thang, Thang?

(Spicelon?! Reading is, like, ... da poop! )

SandChigger wrote:(Spicelon?! Reading is, like, ... da poop! )

well, if i had my digi-texts with me, i could do a little more recon. i think i'm
doing ok for not having read any Dune in 5 years or so, NOT TO MENTION
squeezing in some posting while maintaining some semblance of working
while here at the office.

Oh...ya, POOP!

<my ex-wife described my powers of observation as "stunning." >

I blame Freak, for going around saying "There are no robots in Dune!"...when actually there are, right there in the Terminology!

SandChigger wrote:I blame Freak, for going around saying "There are no robots in Dune!"...when actually there allegedly are, right there in the Terminology!

fixed it for you. :D

That was my Tom Hanks "A League of Their Own" immitation ala "There's no crying in baseball!"

But the 'chigger's right, it does say there were robots, but there were no robot characters.

I've said before, I wouldn't have minded the legends series and the sequels so much if the robots did not have characters and were left a mystery.

My view is people using people and robots, a-la Trade Federation(?) in Star Wars ep. I-III(yea, I know it sounds bad mentioning it here, but you get the point).

It was probably a technocratic elite like Ix who also included robots, or rather "drones", in its forces.


To give another example, it could've started with something very simple like in PKD's short story Second Variety, automated killers, but when they started developing them further people got really ticked off and panicked and started a jihad.


Or it could be as simple as the religeous masses(most probably of low economic and educational status) envied and feared the wealthy technocrats.
Some could(and do?) call the USA's fighter-bombers, guided missiles and advanced tanks "machines designed to opress people". Make it a bit more futuristic and you might get the BJ.

orald wrote:Or it could be as simple as the religeous masses(most probably of low economic and educational status) envied and feared the wealthy technocrats.
Some could(and do?) call the USA's fighter-bombers, guided missiles and advanced tanks "machines designed to opress people". Make it a bit more futuristic and you might get the BJ.

Just wait until we take the pilots out. UAVs will fight the next major war.

But how many "major wars" are we really going to have?

And you should know there's still no real substitute today(or for a few more tomorrows) to the soldier in the field.

Humans are too versatile.

Freakzilla wrote:

orald wrote:Or it could be as simple as the religeous masses(most probably of low economic and educational status) envied and feared the wealthy technocrats.
Some could(and do?) call the USA's fighter-bombers, guided missiles and advanced tanks "machines designed to opress people". Make it a bit more futuristic and you might get the BJ.

Just wait until we take the pilots out. UAVs will fight the next major war.

But humans still pilot the machines.

We aren't in real trouble until we allow the machines to decide whether we go to war. Human lives should only be subject to human decisions(although those haven't had a great track record).

orald wrote:But how many "major wars" are we really going to have?

And you should know there's still no real substitute today(or for a few more tomorrows) to the soldier in the field.

Humans are too versatile.

But humans are fleshy and weak, and people cry and get angry when they die. Humans can malfunction, and not shoot when told.

No one gets upset when a machine gets blown up, and machines always obey orders.

But robots don't poop.

Spicelon wrote:But robots don't poop.

The Army loves that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319473,00.html

http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/2008/01/snow- ... ing-robot/

Oh. My. God.

I'm in love with a robot. :D