Jump to content

Talk:Artificial intelligence in fiction/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

AI in Fiction

Added many of the classic fictional examples of AI to the Artificial intelligence in fiction. Listed them thematically. Two concerns I have:

  • 1) Robot rights should probable come back to the main page
  • 2) I think a lot of people will miss the fiction page based on the current main page layout. Perhaps the fiction subsection on the main page should be rewritten to be less of a list and more of an into. Any other thoughts?

Thomas Kist 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When Harley was one - David Gerrold - is not included 168.215.10.102 (talk) Nicholas Hoover —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Robot rights

Moved Robot rights from Artificial intelligence in fiction to Ethics of artificial intelligence Thomas Kist 18:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Erewhon

CHAPTER XXIII: THE BOOK OF THE MACHINES

"There is no security"--to quote his own words--"against the ultimate development of mechanical consciousness, in the fact of machines possessing little consciousness now. A mollusc has not much consciousness. Reflect upon the extraordinary advance which machines have made during the last few hundred years, and note how slowly the animal and vegetable kingdoms are advancing. The more highly organised machines are creatures not so much of yesterday, as of the last five minutes, so to speak, in comparison with past time. Assume for the sake of argument that conscious beings have existed for some twenty million years: see what strides machines have made in the last thousand! May not the world last twenty million years longer? If so, what will they not in the end become? Is it not safer to nip the mischief in the bud and to forbid them further progress?


To which the author adds in his PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION:

I regret that reviewers have in some cases been inclined to treat the chapters on Machines as an attempt to reduce Mr. Darwin's theory to an absurdity. Nothing could be further from my intention, and few things would be more distasteful to me than any attempt to laugh at Mr. Darwin; but I must own that I have myself to thank for the misconception, for I felt sure that my intention would be missed, but preferred not to weaken the chapters by explanation, and knew very well that Mr. Darwin's theory would take no harm. The only question in my mind was how far I could afford to be misrepresented as laughing at that for which I have the most profound admiration.

Retrieved from The Project Gutenberg eBook, Erewhon, by Samuel Butler. Release Date: March 20, 2005 [eBook #1906] by Pawyilee (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tachikomasunite.jpg

Image:Tachikomasunite.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Hal-9000.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Material removed from artificial consciousness

Perhaps this material would be would useful here.

Fictional future history instances of artificial consciousness:

Absolutely :) Some of them are already mentioned in the article, the remaining need to be added to the appropriate sections. I'll strike out those that are already included, for a start. --Waldir talk 12:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Max Headroom

Where does he fit into this discussion (if at all)?

He's literally the downloaded memories of a human being, reporter Edison Carter. LizFL (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit to Mass Effect reference

I changed the wording of: "The Geth eventually became self-aware and after a failed extermination attempt by the Quarians, they were forced into exile." to "The Geth eventually became self-aware and after a failed extermination attempt by the Quarians, they forced their creators into exile." The grammar originally wasn't really clear regarding who was being forced into exile by whom. If anyone else thinks it can be worded better, please feel free to change it. Dexeron (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

speaking of shouldnt we add the men of iron from 40k at banned ai societies? http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Men_of_Iron

Beastclaw (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

synthetic intelligence

Working on the synthetic intelligence page I find more uses of SI in discussions of science fiction than in serious discussions of AI. Most of these appear to be uses by fans in discussions though. I'm pretty sure I've seen the term used in Sci-Fi before, not just among fandom but I'm having trouble remembering where. Does anyone have any solid references or concrete uses of the term SI within fiction? Darker Dreams (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The AIs in the alien franchise were called synthetics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.160.10 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Did the producers intend to refer to the term as part of the Philosophy of artificial intelligence? -- Nczempin (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rating

This article was rated b-class, but I've re-rated it start-class for the following reasons:

  • Not sufficiently referenced
  • Tagged for wikify
  • Tagged for original research

The biggest issue is that hardly any references are given in such an extensive article. INeverCry 02:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Many of the entries are from video games or anime/manga, making them hard to reference. If anyone knows how to reference them for Wikipedia, please post so this article can be fixed. Can anime/manga be classified as film/books when referencing? EShen91 (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Table of this article.

First, I do not see JARVIS (Marvel's Iron Man universe) anywhere on this page.
Second, I believe that there should also be table of all characters mentioned in this article.
Name, description, year of fist appearance.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.182.100 (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Major work needed

I've just finished 3.5 hours of copyediting on this article, and I'm certain I not only missed many things, but also made an error or two myself. The last hour alone was checking every single link (except the science-fiction table-template at the bottom), trying to ensuring that each had some reasonable connection to the text in the article.

There remain some significant problems, like a near-total lack of sources (half of the few existing sources aren't reliable by WP standards), considerable duplication of information, lack of clarity in some text, too much information in some places, etc. I'm too tired to do a proper write-up right now, so I'll just invite other editors to take a stab at some of these issues. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The relative notability of all these fanboy inclusions is impossible to judge. One massive omission is a proper discussion of Asimov's robot stories and his foundational role in formulating the three laws of robotics. He does not really fit into the good/bad/ugly classification scheme used to split up the fanboy lists, and there is plenty of third-party literature to support his notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
All true. The article remains, years later, as a set of crufty lists, almost wholly uncited, with OR-ish assertions of more-or-less vague connections to the article's very weakly demonstrated themes. The whole thing needs to be recast as text, each section with a few, properly cited, examples actually used to substantiate its arguments. That means that the overwhelming mass of lists needs to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hostile AI

The question is - why would AI decide to destroy humanity/other organic sentient species as a whole 'because they are a nuisance' or for similar specious reasons? Especially if the Organic Sentients have been responsible for creating them (and designers have watched/read sufficient science fiction to 'program against the possibility.') 2001's Hal is a different case - it could have argued survival instinct. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Which category does this fit in?

What if the AI were focusing considerably on space exploration, and just kinda ignored the human race because they're too busy expanding into the solar system? 172.242.198.14 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is...

There have been enough stories (print, film, online) about AI with malign intent for humans to be aware of the possibility and work to prevent it becoming an issue. ('This computer is too sarky for its own good - send it to Mars Base AI1.' 'OK - have you been there - the artwork is garish or #weird#...' 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

APEX

You should also add APEX from Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall / Shadowrun: Dragonfall Diector's cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.153.198.102 (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Proteus IV - Demon seed

Proteus IV from Demon Seed is a malevolent AI that imprisons and impregnates it's creator's wife. It is a novel and film. I suggest it be added to the list, although I am not sure which category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.77.110 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Requester withdrew the request. The Transhumanist 23:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence in fiction → List of artificial intelligence fiction – Per WP:LISTNAME: the entire article is a list, and the title should indicate this. Lists also get listed in lists: it is awkward to have non-list titles in lists of lists. The main way to get a listing of the lists on Wikipedia is to use All pages with prefix and specify "List of", the most useful application of which is to have redirects turned off, so as to not bloat the list with synonymous titles. The current title does not show up in the resultant list. Database scans for "List of" titles also miss this page's current title. The Transhumanist 20:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand your argument about ease of search of lists. However I have 3+1 points against.
  1. The title "List of artificial intelligence fiction" implies there is a recognized concept "artificial intelligence fiction". I don't think it is a well-recognized term, and therefore we will have disagreements about inclusion criteria. I would say that "AI fiction" is scifi works where AI is a central theme. This would exclude many AI cases, which while notable, are not definitive to define the genre of the work.
  2. That the article looks like a list is just a hapless coincidence, because it is a valid subject for a non-list article. That it turned into a list is a combination of wikipedian's "laziness" lack of serious interest in the subject with wikipedian's propensity to the3 low-hanging fruit of WP:TRIVIA.
  3. In renaming this article, you putting it apart of numerous scifi themes listed in the Template:Science fiction, therefore you would have to rename all of them. In this case you better talk to Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction
    1. But wait, there are lots of other "listlike" articles. Most eye-catching are "In popculture" articles, such as Biological warfare in popular culture, but there are much more of them, and your renaming of a single article will not help you at all with listing all list articles.
Therefore if you really want the "List of", IMO you have to spawn it from this article, under the title List of artificial intelligence ''in'' fiction, leaving this one as a critical overview of the theme. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Splitting off the list stuff after worthy prose has been added. That makes perfect sense to me. I withdraw my request. The Transhumanist 23:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


Artificial intelligence in fiction → List of fictional artificial intelligences – The page should be moved to conform to the titles of other related articles, such as List of fictional robots and androids and List of fictional cyborgs, and because it's clearly a list. I suggest deleting the current stub page there and moving this article to it, while redirecting this page to Artificial intelligence#In fiction. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Mild support - Your point is well taken. I believe the list content here should be moved to the List of fictional artificial intelligences, and the content of this page continue to exist in prose form. I doubt the a Artificial intelligence#In fiction subsection can do adequate justice to the topic, and would rather see this article expanded with prose. But as the article is now, there is little to support an independent article. Dbsseven (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Milder support - Only concur as long as the existing prose is kept intact. Unlike lists of characters (i.e. robots), the extent of the AI's use in fiction requires more description as to each occurrence, and not simply a listing. A listing is of little value given the scope of the topic, the behavior of specific AIs in fiction, and its use as a reference for readers looking for specific types of AI fiction. Andreldritch (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. "Artificial intelligence" is a concept, not a character. And the article must be much more in narrative form. There is plenty of critical works which cover the subject in scholarly way, discussing the problems and issues raised in non-pulp fiction; see previous renaming discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
That is a good point Staszek Lem, I hadn't thought of it that way. And I think fundamentally you and I are thinking of the same thing. Prose somewhere, discussing the topic. I think this should be inclusive, both of the concept of AI and specific examples of character/implementations of that concept in fiction. (To me, this means to me either within the current "Artificial intelligence in fiction" or "Artificial intelligence#In fiction" articles.) But the bulk of the current list content can be move to a separate list article, IMO.Dbsseven (talk)
can be move to a separate list article As I see a huge number of AIs in this list are robots. THerefore IMO we must split this list into several by AI type. We already have List of fictional robots and androids. We may add List of fictional intelligent computers, List of fictional intelligent computer networks, .... and finally something like List of fictional artificial intelligences of unspecified type for unclassifieds. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
By the way, do we have a List of fictional artificially intelligent objects, i.e., mundane non-fantasy devices suddenly smartened, ether on their own (e.g. Etaoin shrdlu from The Adding Machine) or with human/superhuman intervention? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with making too many lists is that, like the fracturing of artificial intelligence itself, the lists will become so separated that they no longer relate to the central theme: AI in Fiction. For instance, Colossus in The Forbin Project starts off as a single entity then becomes a networked entity. Once the main page is defined, perhaps as it is in narrative/prose structure, then subdivisions could be generated. For starters, let's get them altogether in one agreed-upon place. Andreldritch (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spoiler warnings

11/27/2017 - anonymous I understand plot spoiler warnings are no longer common (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler), but this page is a far cry from point 3 there (Sections that frequently contain spoiler warnings—such as plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details. Therefore, further disclaimers would be redundant and unnecessary.) and it contains a vast multitude of plot spoilers for many major movies and video games. Is it possible that the norm is worth reconsideration in this instance - where it may not be obvious to the casual reader that so many plot spoilers are present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.12.190 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No other "list of fictional X" contains spoiler warnings either, readers just have to use their own discretion about reading such articles, similar to the lists of stuff in TVTropes. If the spoiler goes something like "character X is revealed as a robot" and it received significant notable attention, then Wikipedia policy states it can be included with no warning. Conversely, feel free to delete any spoiler that is not actually notable and is just WP:OR or someone wanting to spoil.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


Cut as off-topic

These two are not about fiction. These could be re-added to the article, as part of a section that describes where these ideas appear in fiction. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

In 1965, I. J. Good described an intelligence explosion, now more often called the technological singularity, in which an "ultraintelligent machine" would be able to design a still more intelligent machine, which would lead to the creation of machines far more intelligent than humans.[1][2]
The cosmologist Max Tegmark has investigated the existential risk from artificial general intelligence. Tegmark has proposed ten possible paths for society once "superintelligent AI" has been created, some utopian, some dystopian. These range from a "libertarian utopia", through benevolent dictatorship to conquering AI, though other paths include the "Orwellian" blocking of AI research, and the self-destruction of humanity before superintelligent AI is developed.[3]

This next one may be on-topic, but it's primary-sourced and begins with a wholly uncited claim which feels much like WP:OR. If a reliable secondary source can be found for the curiosity thing, and if it cites the books mentioned, then something like this can of course be added back to the article, with proper sourcing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this is WP:UNDUE. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Curiosity
One theme is that a truly human-like robot must have a sense of curiosity. Science fiction authors have investigated whether sufficiently intelligent AI might begin to delve into metaphysics and the nature of reality. For example, the short story "'The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov describes a supercomputer which long outlives humanity while attempting to answer the ultimate question about the universe,[4][5] while Stanisław Lem's Golem XIV is a supercomputer which stops cooperating with humans to help them win wars because it considers wars and violence illogical.[6]

References

  1. ^ I.J. Good, "Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine" Archived 2011-11-28 at the Wayback Machine (HTML ), Advances in Computers, vol. 6, 1965.
  2. ^ Eden, Amnon H.; Moor, James H. (2012). Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment. Springer. pp. 1–2. ISBN 9783642325601.
  3. ^ Tegmark, Max (2017). Life 3.0 : being human in the age of artificial intelligence. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-1-101-94659-6. OCLC 973137375.
  4. ^ Baumgartner, Alison (12 December 2013). "Throwback Thursday: 'The Last Question' by Isaac Asimov". ScienceFiction.com. Retrieved 27 July 2018.
  5. ^ Asimov, Isaac (1994). I, Asimov: A Memoir. Bantam. p. 250. ISBN 055356997X.
  6. ^ Siren, Sofia (January 2016). "Our Future is Artificial". ClarkesWorld Magazine (112). Retrieved 27 July 2018.

Poor coverage of the topic

I've tagged this article as poor coverage, because it seems to me there are a great deal of tropes, plots and world building that are not covered here. Off the top of my head:

An so on. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hm, nearly all the links down the left hand side (Simulation hypothesis being an honourable exception, with at least a brief section on AI, and two sub-articles, Simulated reality in fiction and Simulated consciousness (science fiction) which at least look promising) are of no use, being general topics a la WP:SYNTHESIS with no mention of AI. The few films named are more like what is needed, but of course an article constructed as a pseudo-list ("Another film with AI is the Stepford Wives...") is almost the opposite of what an article should be. If we had sub-articles on Sentience in AI, Transhumanism in AI and so on that would be another matter. Since those don't exist, what is needed is sourcing that indicates more of the structure of the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
These are common & interesting things that appear in fiction. I'm not sure what relevance the other articles have -- all that matters is if these things appear in fiction. It doesn't matter if they are also topics in the academic or business worlds. These topics are more closely related to myth, theology, literary history and philosophy and so on than they are to the actual real-world practice of AI research.
And you're right, what we need most is a source: ideally, a reliable secondary source that is a comprehensive overview of science fiction, or better still, an overview of AI in science fiction. That's the next step. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Well we seem to agree that uncited approaches are no good. I've removed a recent uncited accretion and added 4 general sources that discuss the topic as a whole. They need to be studied and summarized in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The new sources are pretty primary. We still need a good overview, a WP:SECONDARY source to establish WP:RELEVANCE, avoid WP:UNDUE weight, and make the article WP:COMPREHENSIVE. Something with the scope of an "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction", so we can see what it is we need to cover, and avoid keeping things that we shouldn't. (I have Philosophy and Science Fiction (ISBN: 978-1118922613), which is an overview, that could serve to support some of the topics I mentioned above.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, but you are confusing Tertiary sources like encyclopedias with Secondary sources which here mean scholarly texts that analyse AI in fiction independently of the Primary sources which are novels and films that directly portray fictional AI. That makes all the SHOUTING about policy moot. If the scholars talk about topics, those are relevant; if not, your topic list is Original Research. So far only one of your topics has suitable support but I'll keep an open mind as there are more secondary sources to use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Just mean we need a source that says "here are all the interesting uses of AI in fiction" -- we can't just rely on sources that say "here's an interesting use of AI in fiction. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, working on it. The one added already looks at multiple uses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I've incorporated all four additional secondary sources, and an extra one; they do not radically reshape the article but they do provide some solidity, and indeed grounds for believing that the article is correctly structured. They do not support the conjectured subtopics listed above, though it's possible that additional sources may do so. It may be commented that even if a source were to say "here all all the uses..." it would not necessarily command anyone's assent; the presence of multiple scholars who have identified utopian and dystopian approaches - indeed it's their main point - is however reassuring, even though (of course) they each identify different aspects of these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Much of the recently-added material was uncited, or cited to (unreliable) Bachelor's theses, so I've removed that part of it. The remaining section on Gender metaphor fits well enough, probably, but needs a page reference at least, and would benefit from more material from Reliable Sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What was the responsibility of kalpana chawla in her first space mission ? 2404:1C40:90:2314:1:0:82A7:543D (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This page is only for discussion of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_intelligence_in_fiction/Archive_1&oldid=1214733327"