What the HELL is with the tech inconsistency?!

[Coyote]

Plus, for the moviegoing audience, images of humans plugged into machines would be too weird and creepy. Remember, most moviegoers are firmly entrenched in the Real World and pushing their comfort zone too much will elicit a negative response.

I got the impression that the BattleDroids used on Geonosis were a slightly higher grade than he ones used on Naboo. The ones on Geonosis would run, at least, eventhough they still did not use tactics. But the two droids backed up of their own initiative and ran away from the pit monster behind Obi-Wan.

Also, what would a program error or a virus do to the plugged-in guys, anyway? No effect? Solve on the move? Total debilitation?

[Enlightenment]

I am dead serious: How is it possible that almost all mainstream science fiction(such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Andromeda, Babylon 5, etc.) have transportation and weapons technology FAR beyond what we have, but some significant parts of their other tech is not particularly advanced?

Mainstream sci-fi is intended first and foremost as a means of entertainment and is generally designed on a top-down basis to tell the kinds of stories that will sell the most movie tickets and TV advertising time. To this end, the stories drive the technological background and technobabble 'explanations' are backfilled after the fact to explain away technology limitations imposed due to plot and market requirements.

Unfortunately, one of the key market requirements is that the audience be able to relate to the universe depicted. As a result sci-fi tends to fall back on the utterly stupid idea of having recognizable humans using technobabble-'futuristic' tools and skills to do recognizable tasks. The net result is brainbugs like sci-fi farmers ploughing their fields by driving antimatter powered tractors equipped with turing-test capable computers or computer techs doing exactly the same thing as they do today, except with blinking light tools rather than screwdrivers and test equipment.

Rationally using all aspects of technology would put a screeching halt to antimatter-powered tractor stupidity but would also make the universe unrecognizable to the average viewer. Instead of having downhome country boy farmers littered around a galaxy all the farming would be conducted by autonomous robots with very little human direction or oversight, the 'humans' would be modified to the point of being unrecognizable (heavily genetically engineered at minimum, uploaded intelligences at maximum) and social structures will have been radically altered by technological advances that will have rendered %90 of all professions obsolete and the concept of an unintended death merely a matter for the history books. Any one of these factors would make the average viewer highly confused or deeply offended; combine them in the way a universe with even technological development would and the average viewer would be utterly dumbfounded and reaching for the remote.

[Guardsman Bass]

Hey


Thanks for the feedback, especially on the existing star wars examples of superb robotic soldiers and the ion cannon danger to MMI.

However, when I was trying to ask why these shows didn't use MMI rather than button pushing, I thought that they would use it because MMI would be a lot FASTER, not because it is just more advanced. Although this is using a sort of assumption, wouldn't it seem that they could make the process of MMI at least a little bit easier in the time that the SW Civilization has existed?

As for the 25000 yr and >500000 yr figures for the Old Republic and SW Civilization, the first is the time generally agreed as the life span of the Old Republic. The second is much more vague, but having several of the Core Worlds(inhabited by humans) in possession of histories of at least several hundred thousand years was hinted at by Curtis Saxton on his sub-page on Humans and Humanoids.


Oh, and I HAVE heard of StarCraft; I own the game. If you are referring to the Terrans, the terrans in the Korpulu(I think that is what the Colonies are called) Sector don't really do genetic engineering; they simply collect psykers when they spring up. AS for the Zerg, they are ALL genetic engineering.

[namdoolb]

It's difficult to imgine a direct MMI that's not horribly intrusive......

y'know, "drill a hole in your skull, put bits of metal in your head" intrusive.

The Matrix provides a good example of the level of intrusion into the body required for a proper MMI. Would you want someone doing all that shit to you just so you could plug into your car instead of driving it the old fashioned way?

before you answer yes, take into account the kind of maintenance and constant attention such implants would require to maintain proper function (the human body does not take kindly to having stuff put in it).

Direct MMI may well be superior in terms of control (and granted, a few people might think it was good), but I for one would not want to go through all the neccesary crap for it, and it's hard to believe that any significant number of people in the future would want it either.

[His Divine Shadow]

The Borg are a stupid concept to begin with. Biological engineering will always be superior to cyborgs.

Or the total opposite, go machines!

[His Divine Shadow]

However, when I was trying to ask why these shows didn't use MMI rather than button pushing, I thought that they would use it because MMI would be a lot FASTER, not because it is just more advanced. Although this is using a sort of assumption, wouldn't it seem that they could make the process of MMI at least a little bit easier in the time that the SW Civilization has existed?

Lobot's MMI interface allowed him to recieve information in the form of "knowledge" from his central databases, if they had it, it was probably like remembering stuff from your own mind, knowledge modules also exists that'll allow the cyborg can run and then he'll start to know whatever was on that module(flying, fighting) as if he had learned it himself, just like in the Matrix.

Ofcourse these things are very expensive, and there's also the factor of other stuff to take into consideration.
Also, there might, or there probably is, more conventional forms of rapid learning for ordinary people, say soldiers and crewers and officers all get the basics downloaded and then move on to learn a specific profession in a more conventional manner, also mnemotic drugs exists that'll greatly increase the learning abilities, ofcourse they are dangerous.

As for the 25000 yr and >500000 yr figures for the Old Republic and SW Civilization, the first is the time generally agreed as the life span of the Old Republic. The second is much more vague, but having several of the Core Worlds(inhabited by humans) in possession of histories of at least several hundred thousand years was hinted at by Curtis Saxton on his sub-page on Humans and Humanoids.

The oldest verifiable figure is 90.000 years for Coruscant from a quote in the book "Courtship of Princess Leia" where it describes a casino thats apparently been in operation for that long too.

[Darth Wong]

MMI is a bad idea. The human mind is a nearly random device, and one of the safeguards built into our biological structures is that we have layers of higher consciousness that must be engaged before we translate thought into action. Any system which translates thought into action automatically would lead to chaos.

How many times have you been cut off by somebody in traffic and had a surge of hostility toward that person? The last thing you'd want is a missile launcher on your car, keyed into your brain via MMI!!!!!

In other words, MMI is a bad idea because the human brain is no good for it. The limitation is biological, not technical. And those who would gleefully imagine genetically improved humans will have to produce some evidence that humanity would go along with this, before sticking "futurist" on their resume and saying that any realistic future would include this.

[gravity]

MMI is a bad idea. The human mind is a nearly random device, and one of the safeguards built into our biological structures is that we have layers of higher consciousness that must be engaged before we translate thought into action. Any system which translates thought into action automatically would lead to chaos.

How many times have you been cut off by somebody in traffic and had a surge of hostility toward that person? The last thing you'd want is a missile launcher on your car, keyed into your brain via MMI!!!!!

In other words, MMI is a bad idea because the human brain is no good for it. The limitation is biological, not technical. And those who would gleefully imagine genetically improved humans will have to produce some evidence that humanity would go along with this, before sticking "futurist" on their resume and saying that any realistic future would include this.

I don't see that that's the case. Sure, moronically designed MMI like you describe would be dangerous, but your objections are in the style of people who are against AI because they think any intelligent computer would automatically try to take over the world
A good MMI would not react to random thoughts in the same way that your limbs don't react to random thoughts; just because you're pissed at someone doesn't mean you automatically punch them; in the same way, a good MMI wouldn't automatically launch missiles at a ship because you had angry thoughts about it.
In fact, a good MMI would likely be linked to the motor section of your brain, so that the brain-signal for a sweeping hand-movement, for example (or any other movement that is no more likely to happen accidentally than spazzing out and hitting the fire button) would trigger firing, etc.

I know that more complex doesn't always mean better, but a lot of people here are *too* reluctant to accept the possiblity of advanced technology actually being useful, and cling too readily to what we already have, making excuses for SF's that do the same.
Saying the MMI, or human GE, or whatever, will never be worthwhile, is the modern equivalent of saying that commericial air travel will never be worthwhile, or that the world-wide market for computers will top out at 4 or 5.

In fact, it seems kind of silly to say that MMI doesn't make sense for SW, seeing as FTL travel, which SW already has, violates the laws of physics, but MMI doesn't.

[SirNitram]

Oh, so we'll link the MMI to the motor section. So that any competent slicer or blast from an ion weapon will instantly render the user a parapelegic. This sort of idea is all too obviously yours.

Allow me to line out the advantages normal tech has over MMI, since you ignored them entirely:

Cost. A button is simple and easy to make. In addition, you must surgically wire the human into the system.
Durability. A circuit blown connecting to a button will make sparks. A circuit blown wired to a human's brain will render him a vegetable(Since these are COMBAT vessels, you must make them rugged, moron).
Vunerability. It leaves the operator an open target for any sort of attack that effects the computer.
Redundancy. Any guy can push a button. It takes a medical procedure and lots of prep time to put a new guy in the ship's brain.

Of course you'll say a 'GOOD MMI' will take care of those, but you have no proof they can.

[gravity]

Oh, so we'll link the MMI to the motor section. So that any competent slicer or blast from an ion weapon will instantly render the user a parapelegic. This sort of idea is all too obviously yours.

Why would that be the case? Can't they just use some sort of surge protection? Or even make it so that there's no direct electrical link, but rather that the interfrace is based on externally taken readings of brain activity in those regions? You're just nit-picking.

Allow me to line out the advantages normal tech has over MMI, since you ignored them entirely:

Cost. A button is simple and easy to make. In addition, you must surgically wire the human into the system.

Not necessarily, there are even modern pseudo-MMI systems that don't need to be plugged into the brain (these are currently output only, but with 3D goggles or something you don't need direct brain *input* for a combat interface anyway), and that will only get cheaper over time.

Durability. A circuit blown connecting to a button will make sparks. A circuit blown wired to a human's brain will render him a vegetable(Since these are COMBAT vessels, you must make them rugged, moron).

See above, mindless luddite shithead.

Vunerability. It leaves the operator an open target for any sort of attack that effects the computer.

See above

Redundancy. Any guy can push a button. It takes a medical procedure and lots of prep time to put a new guy in the ship's brain.

See above. Also, you wouldn't want just "any guy" running expensive military hardware in a combat situation.

Of course you'll say a 'GOOD MMI' will take care of those, but you have no proof they can.

You have no proof they can't, you're just being irrationally pessimistic and technophobic.
Besides, there *already are* non-manual interfaces that don't require plugging into the brain to work, and those can only improve in terms of speed and ease of use with time.


In any case, AI-controlled weapons are more likely than MMI anyway, but dismissing MMI over a few precieved technical problems is like someone in the early 90's saying that computers will never ever be used in war because they break if they get wet. They just have to take time to make them rugged and reliable.

[Ghost Rider]

Actually he is asking for you to provide proof that they are better than buttons to systematically install them upon every military craft.

Until such, you are doing exactly as Vitram is saying by saying they are better without any proof aside from they are getting cheaper.

[gravity]

Actually he is asking for you to provide proof that they are better than buttons to systematically install them upon every military craft.

Until such, you are doing exactly as Vitram is saying by saying they are better without any proof aside from they are getting cheaper.

They could be better because they could allow for faster reactions (not reaching for buttons, ability to carry out maneuvers more instinctively), cheaper and easier training (not having to learn the complex button interface), less confusion in battle, less likelyhood of pressing the wrong button by mistake (as long as the MMI actions were linked to gestures with a very low likelyhood of happening accidentally).

Like some else said, whatever you were maneuvering could become more like an extension of your own body than an unwieldy vehicle.

And just because there's a science fiction cliche of such systems causing dangerous "feedback" to the user when damaged doesn't mean there actually would be, depending on exactly how the system worked.

[SirNitram]

Luddite? Me? I'm very nearly a technophile... But I dislike bad tech. And MMI is a bad tech, a silly peice of dreaming.

As Ghost Rider pointed out, you did exactly as I predicted. But I'll dismantle your ideas anyway.

Surge protection is tricky. It MIGHT protect against ion fire, but a slicer can still get in. Remember, any system must have feedback to the operator. They can do damage through that.

Cost. You ignored it completely. You only said some wouldn't be hardwire, but that doesn't make it cheaper than pushbuttons and joysticks. So your concession is accepted.

Your inability to understand that ruggedness is more than a surge protector is noted.

Your strawman(That I'd suggest any man be an operator like I'm grabbing Joe Public and not another bridge crew member) is also noted.

'You have no proof they can't.' Obviously. It's impossible to prove a negative.

As for my 'pessimism', it's called being skeptical. It pisses off 'futurists' who like to masterbate in their own fantasies, because we point out the problems in their tech and why common tech works better. They inevitably call us pessimistic, irrational, and technophobic.

AI controlled weapons directed from a guy at a computer are superior to MMI. They aren't limited to human reaction times as an MMI, they don't have the vunerabilities that MMI have, and they retain the cheap interface.

Like so many, you assume your tech will get cheaper and better and no others will. This is what irrationality is, but like anyone whose chosen a technology and begun wanking, you won't listen.

[aerius]

I don't see that that's the case. Sure, moronically designed MMI like you describe would be dangerous, but your objections are in the style of people who are against AI because they think any intelligent computer would automatically try to take over the world
A good MMI would not react to random thoughts in the same way that your limbs don't react to random thoughts; just because you're pissed at someone doesn't mean you automatically punch them; in the same way, a good MMI wouldn't automatically launch missiles at a ship because you had angry thoughts about it.
In fact, a good MMI would likely be linked to the motor section of your brain, so that the brain-signal for a sweeping hand-movement, for example (or any other movement that is no more likely to happen accidentally than spazzing out and hitting the fire button) would trigger firing, etc.

Right, so the AI computer now has to perform all the filtering and higher consciousness thought processes of your brain? Think about how much computing power you'd need to interpret and co-ordinate the thoughts of the bridge officers and translate them into action. If you have an AI smart enough to do that with near 100% accuracy, it would be far better to cut the humans out of the loop and have the AI take care of running things. The humans can then worry about planning battle tactics and act as backups for the AI when it goes down.

[Patrick Ogaard]

In a Star Wars context, or even Andromeda or Star Trek, for that matter, another thing militating against direct MMI in large craft would be adaptability to use by assorted aliens. Even species very close in appearance to humans would most certainly not have a human-compatible central nervous system, whereas those species would have some means of manipulating simple mechanical controls, even if it involves a lobster-like claw, a tentacle cluster, a horde of symbiotic bugs, or two foot length of broomstick with a rubber band stapled to the end of it.

In a Star Wars-specific context, the TIE fighter is referred to in assorted official literature as so excessively responsive (AKA over-sensitive) to pilot input that only the best pilots can hope to control the fighter. The fighters use a familiar stick or yoke arrangement fitted with a control panel accessible to both hands, foot pedals, and very likely (though conjecture on my part) instrument displays integrated into the helmet itself.

The fact that humans naturally use their feet and legs to do different things at the same time without having to consciously think about it means that it is relatively easy to train someone to simultaneously use the feet and legs to control different aspects of a vehicle's operations. Modern humans do it all the time when they drive cars or pilot aircraft.

This is radically different from having to literally relearn thinking and manage to generate very specific, multilayered thought patterns as would be necessary to do more than one thing simultaneously with a direct interface.