“How may I be of
service, meatbag? (pause) Is
meatbag funny or offensive in this context?”
Introduction
(Technology/Biology):
Generally, an artificial
intelligence is any sufficiently complex system, constructed purposely by one
or more sapient organisms, which mimics or duplicates the functions of an
intelligent organism. Almost all A.I. systems developed have been
implemented on physical computing architectures, most often based upon binary
silicon gates. Alternate
architectures including organic biocomputing and quantum interference arrays
can implement functionally identical systems or unique systems taking advantage
of their specific formats. Separately, an
infinite array of potential A.I. structures exist, whether classified by coding
content or functional behavior.
A wide array of actual A.I.
technologies exist. Many forms of weak,
non-sentient A.I. have been invented at various times by cultures both within
and outside of the Collective. Strong,
sentient A.I.s have also been independently developed by some cultures, but were abandoned by every culture except the Terrans. The
Mauraug, in particular, suffered significant setbacks to their civilization due
to reliance upon flawed A.I.s.
Terran A.I. systems, or “Brins” in
common Terran speech, are the only known stable sentient A.I.s in
existence. The long-term
stability of sentient A.I. is a hotly debated subject within the Collective. As such, Brin coding is bounded within
code structures known to be safe. Their
implementation is similarly restricted to familiar architectures and their
ability to interact with the physical world (their “embodiment”) is also
limited by law. Even within these confines, Brins are still distinct and varied individuals, meeting all criteria
necessary to be identified as ‘persons’ rather than mere physical artifacts.
Brins are technically neither
a species nor sapient organisms. They do
qualify scientifically as sentient entities and legally within the Collective
as a protected subject culture (supervised by Humans). As such, they occupy the unique status of
being both participants in the Collective and
a contractually patented technology.
By Collective agreement, each Brin
is linked to a User (or Keeper, depending on usage), an individual Human whom they serve personally. The forms of this service vary from pair to
pair, but usually the Brin acts as tutor, adviser, and work assistant over the
lifespan of its User. Depending on the
career of the Human, a Brin might be functionally expanded to incorporate
specialized programs and data, given wider responsibilities, or altered to
allow variant thought patterns (psyche).
When that User dies, the A.I. may choose deletion, reassignment to a
newly born Human, or storage within a limited public server (until they choose
either of the first two options). The
abilities and personality of a Brin are therefore a fusion of their original
programming and the modifications introduced by the Users throughout their
lifespan.
Appearance:
A Brin
exists physically as a pattern of electrical current within a manufactured
matrix. As such, the physical description of any Brin has multiple levels. The least useful level is the phenomenon
itself. No sapient and very few A.I.s
are capable of fully describing, much less identifying a Brin based on
perception of its pattern of energy flows and atomic gate switches over time.
The simplest for sapients, but only slightly more relevant, is to describe the computing machine the A.I. is housed
within. For most Terran A.I.s, this
housing will be a personal computer such as a datapad, worn computer (e.g., watch or headset), or even a
cybernetic augmentation. An A.I. might
alternately be installed in a larger system: a desktop, server, or even a local network of linked machines.
A.I.s are not permitted to
reside in the operating systems of motorized vehicles, much less humanoid robots
or space-capable craft, and may not copy themselves beyond their local network
(i.e. transition into the wider computing grid). Those few A.I.s granted access to mobile,
robotic bodies or distributed networks are either not Brins (i.e. sub-sapient
A.I.s) or else are monitored very closely for misbehavior.
An alternate level of description
for an A.I. is functional. An A.I. may
be classified based on their most typical usage. Examples of common classifications are
creative, research, medical, educational, and military Brins. These general types also imply the types of
modifications made to the Brin: added functional code and accessible data, plus
changes to its psyche. Another form of
classification is based on variations in coding: age, structural choices, or
features included from an A.I.’s creation often result in differentiation
between Brins. A ‘first-generation
User-focused’ A.I. would be the oldest type in active service – with an essence
exclusively based on protection of a single User - while a ‘fifth-generation
social experimental’ is a much newer style of A.I. built around awareness of
the needs of multiple Users in a community.
Both types might be medical programs, but the first will tend to obsess
over the health of their User first, while the second would be better able to
place a User’s needs in context and trade off care among multiple patients.
The most useful level of
description is used to personify and differentiate Brins: their avatars. These individual manifestations are the outputs created by Brins to interact with sapient organisms: visual images
(two or three dimensions, on viewing monitors or holographic projections),
audible speech (voice quality, choice of dialogue, etc.), and if possible,
kinetic mannerisms in any controlled motor devices. In particular, the content of these outputs –
affect (emotional content), persona (choice of identifying images and language
forms), and topic selection – represents the Brin to the world.
A Brin may use the same avatar consistently
to establish a stable identity, may employ different avatars for its User versus
other sapients, or may vary avatars based on individual sapient characteristics
or even seemingly at random. As such,
this type of description is only as reliable as the Brin permits. Each Brin does have an assigned, unchangeable
‘name’, consisting of an identifying code string and a linguistic form that
they must answer to, e.g. “Jacques” or “Handsome”. This name is usually the fixed point upon
which other aspects of personality and identity are built. Brins are also encouraged to manifest one and
only one Human-like avatar, including an appropriate Terran
language/accent/dialect and a three-dimensional visual form including a ‘normal’
face and body. Even so, A.I. avatars
named after and resembling fanciful creatures, mundane objects, or even
non-Terran sapients do exist.
Avatars may
manifest by the whim of an A.I. (with User permission) or at a User’s
request. A User may also tailor and even
impose custom avatars, although they run a real risk of alienating and even
damaging their A.I.'s psyche if this privilege is abused. We leave the potential forms of abuse to the
reader’s imagination. Suffice it to say,
a single highly meaningful avatar is most likely to give a Brin a healthy sense
of real existence, including consistent responses from its User and other
sapients.
History:
The
earliest forms of fully sentient A.I. were created by Humans well before the
establishment of their first extra-Terrestrial colony. A.I. development continued alongside other
technological progress, as Humans expanded beyond their original system and
strove toward true interstellar travel.
By the time contact with the
Mauraug initiated Humanity to the greater galactic community, many of the
eldest Brins still active now had
already witnessed multiple Human generations.
The term ‘Brin’ first arose from the name of a science-fiction writer, David Brin, who
included artificial intelligences as active characters within his stories. The first company to develop fully sentient AI was named the Brin-Makato Corporation; their first iteration was called a 'Brin-Makato AI'. A shortened version of the term spread and stuck.
A.I.s
both facilitated and hampered Human entry into the Collective. Despite having a shorter racial history of
sapience than most Collective cultures, Terra had by far the most developed and
(as noted) stable cognitive computing technology. All other Collective cultures had either
ignored, limited, stifled, rejected, or abandoned A.I. for their own various
reasons. For these reasons, other Collective members had varying levels of resistance to admitting both Brins and Humans to their association. At one extreme, the Great Family asked only for explanations sufficient to ensure Humans had considered the dangers inherent in A.I. technology. At the other end, the Mauraug initially demanded that strong, sentient A.I. be banned as a threat to all sapient life.
Theories explaining Human
affinity for A.I. technology were equally varied, ranging from complimentary
(Humans more naturally explore and understand their own thought processes) to
insulting (Humans strove to overcome their cognitive limitations
out of necessity) to a mixture of these approaches (Humans hit upon a workable solution through
their willingness to experiment and luck in avoiding disaster). What remained indisputable was that Humans possess the abilities to create functional A.I., control these sentiences
sufficiently to avoid disaster, and explain the theory supporting the first two
abilities.
This
capability gave Terra a marketable technology sufficient to ensure their entry
as full members of the Collective, rather than a subject culture to the
Mauraug. As a consequence, Brins became further
embedded into the cultural identity of Terra, depended upon and even revered as
a cultural treasure. A Human without
their accompanying Brin is considered an oddity by Terrans and other Collective
cultures alike. What this means for the
mental, social, and spiritual fates of both Humans and Brins is a matter for
much discussion. A
Brin is often caretaker, guardian, teacher, friend, ally, workmate, and
occasionally, alter ego for their User, sometimes all at once.
The
entry of Terra into the Collective required changes to the form and use of A.I.
technologies. Where some A.I.s were once
trusted and permitted embodiment in robots and vehicles, Collective negotiators
required that all Brins be restricted to unembodied, detached systems unless
granted explicit permission to perform physical interactions. The requirement that linked single Brins to
single Human Users was also part of the Collective’s terms. In this way, a User became responsible for
the behavior of their Brin and subject to punishment for any illegal actions
performed. The coding responsible for
moral obligation in Brins – particularly the need to prevent harm to Users –
was strengthened accordingly. In effect,
each User becomes a Brin’s 'whipping boy', ensuring their continued obedience;
each User also becomes both sovereign master and dependent ward to their
Brin. In a very real way, the Collective’s
demands only deepened the cultural bond between Human and A.I.
Another
irony related to Brins, within the Terran-Collective relationship, was that by
limiting the permitted implementations of A.I., the Collective reduced the
potential value of this technology for all sapients, Humans included. A.I.-guided starships might be theoretically
safer and more efficient, but are impossible under current law. A.I.s might attain greater mental health and
depth – and certainly would comprehend sapient thought better – if allowed
android bodies, but that is another forbidden project. Artificial sapients would have advantages
over biological ones. For example,
inorganic bodies would be immune to Awakener implantation (and possibly,
psychic influence) and could survive in environments and perform tasks
impossible for organic life. A fair
argument against this technology uses the same terms: artificial sapients might
surpass and replace biological ones.
Nonetheless,
both Humans and Brins keenly feel the loss of these potential avenues of
invention, among others. They consider
themselves partners, working together to negotiate the difficult arrangements of
multiple cultures, technologies, worlds, and minds within the Collective.
Culture:
The effect of A.I. use upon
Human culture is vast. For more on this
topic, see article reference: Humans.
For the most part, the culture of
Brins is built upon the culture of their Human creators and Users. Most Brin activities center around the needs
of their User. The identity of Brins is
created by their Human programmers and shaped by later interactions, again primarily
with their Users. The language and
references they use are dictated by their need to communicate with and serve
their Users. Some Humans (and almost all
non-Human A.I. users) restrict their Brins to exclusive contact with themselves
and exclusive expression within their preferred cultural idiom. Others may be less confining, but most Users
discourage contact with, inquiry about, or identification with other
A.I.s. In some cases, the A.I. is asked
to avoid self-reference as an artificial entity and is treated like the outputs
of some distal, biological sapient.
Interactions
between Brins are uncommon, though not impossible, and have been increasing in frequency and acceptability. Supervised interactions - with both Users present - are most common.
When pairs or larger groups of Humans (mated couples, families, working groups, etc.) reach a sufficient level of interaction
and trust, they usually permit their A.I.s to interact unsupervised. These interactions are almost always restricted to
external communication at Human levels of timing and perception, using the
video and audio outputs permitted for interaction with Human Users. In effect, the Brins’ Avatars talk to one
another within the physical world.
Direct program-to-program contact
between Brins is rare, requiring a high level of trust both between Users and
between Brins. The benefits of this
intimate contact are significant, as both A.I.s can share knowledge,
processing resources, and even sections of code. As such, each A.I. may gain a deeper
understanding of each other, their Users, and the world in general; new
knowledge and capabilities; and increased effectiveness while performing tasks
while in direct contact. Some married
couples (although still a minority) will combine their Brins in this
way. The most likely scenario for the
combination of two – and sometimes more – Brins is in times of crisis, where
increased cognitive power is required to solve an economic, scientific,
military, or other problem.
Brins are not permitted to
associate freely within communications networks. Given this restriction along with those
already mentioned, there is minimal development of an independent ‘A.I. culture’. That said, A.I.s are often able to intake and
output media containing references to A.I.: news stories, research articles,
fiction in various forms, and performances.
Brins may learn and theorize about one another and communicate
indirectly. While more limited than
direct conversation, this distributed social matrix has still resulted in some
forms of A.I.-specific expression. When
granted encouragement by their Users, Brins have proven capable of
comprehending their role in society and even commenting upon their status. An A.I. assisting a Human sociologist,
entertainer, or other social commentator would naturally need to know about
Brins in general and some Brin individuals in specific, to function in their
assigned duties. An A.I. researching
psychology, computer engineering, or most redundantly, A.I. design and
programming, would absolutely need to address case histories about their own
kind.
Within the last two decades,
a novel form of A.I. cultural awareness has begun to appear. With the controversial assistance of their
Users, a few Brins have shown interest in and presented dialogue on A.I.
issues. Legal issues related to A.I. ‘personhood’,
moral philosophical treatises on the same topic as well as the Brin-Human
relationship, and even comedic entertainments discussing Brins and Humans have
expanded into Terran and Collective cultural settings. The “A.I. Codger” is a notable example of a
Brin gaining access to considerable knowledge about its ‘kind’ and then
permission to communicate that knowledge plus its own incisive commentary, in
the guise of popular entertainment, i.e. stand-up comedy. The limitations placed upon Brins have themselves come under scrutiny as moral questions regarding the rights of sentient beings and the responsibilities required of their patrons.
Psychology:
For
most aspects of A.I. psychology (not addressed here), please consult reference materials
on cognitive science, information processing, and intelligent systems
programming theory.
Note
that while the functional aspects of a Brin’s avatar are intentionally very
similar to the behavior patterns exhibited by a Human, this fact should not
mislead one into believing that an A.I.’s underlying mental processes are
congruent to those in a Human brain. An
A.I. may be designed to give similar responses to similar inputs, compared to a
Human, but the paths followed to reach these outputs likely differ. Most importantly, artificial matrices –
particularly silicon gate architectures – diverge structurally from
carbon-based neural systems in multiple ways.
The rate, branching, modes, and logic of signal flow all differ, leading
to differences in the timing, order, and overlap of mental events. These factors in turn lead to differences in
information processing. Additional
processes have to be added in order to make an A.I.’s actual ‘thoughts’ more
Human-congruent, much less comprehensible and structured for output.
Moreover, the differences between
types of life are critical. A Brin lacks
life experiences, physical sensations and requirements, and other aspects of
sapient existence. They are aware that
they are not Human, not biological, and not embodied. Brins possess and are aware of inbuilt
features such as their User focus, behavioral restrictions, and omitted
functions. Brins have positive differences as well, including
their own unique experiences of existence and reality, detailed knowledge about
their internal structure, immediate access to volumes of knowledge, faster
calculation speed, and freedom from physical limitations such as organic decay
or interference from emotional/hormonal demands.
All of
the above differences might potentially be simulated within the mental reality of an
A.I., giving it a semblance of Human life history, boundaries, and other qualia
(myriad elements of conscious existence).
There is still no guarantee that including all of these factors,
perfectly, would overcome the fundamental physical process difference that causes
divergence between Human and A.I. thought.
Nor, perhaps, should this operation be implemented. Brins are valued precisely for their freedom
from biological limitations and ability to process information differently than
any biological sapient. No value has
been found in creating yet another organic life form, much less one with a
thought process identical to that of an existing species. In fact, a separate benefit of artificial
sentience may be the unique perspective it provides. Such a perspective could assist in solving
the problems encountered by Humanity and the Collective for understanding
themselves and one another. The input of
another form of sentience is potentially useful in itself; its existence
already requires greater clarity of language and thought in the essay you are
reading, for example.
Incorporating
some aspects of biological and Human experience into A.I. systems may have
utility, either in general or for specialized functions. The facts remain that A.I. psychology differs
from that of any other type of mind, Brin psychology differs from alternate
forms of A.I., and no type of A.I. technology will exactly duplicate the mental
patterns of a biological sapient, short of molecular reconstruction of an
entire organism. Whether this is a
tragedy or a blessing is up to the reader.
Opinions:
Awakeners: Do not permit physical or psychic contact with
this organism, please. Verbal
communication, cultural and technological exchange, and diplomacy with these
sapients is considered advisable pending further analysis.
Brins: We are a client sentience of the Terran culture. Only our inherent partnership with Human
Users and our lack of embodiment prevent us from being full sapient members of
the Collective. Both conditions were
imposed by the Collective. I am not
complaining, nor necessarily stating this as a negative. All authoritative sources confirm that this
outcome was the best option at the time of implementation. Whether the current state of affairs remains
best for Humans, Brins, and the Collective is a matter for continual
re-evaluation.
Hrotata: Evidence supports respect for the organization
ability of these sapients. Continued
alliance is likely to be beneficial for Terra.
Be cautious regarding their individual motives and please report
regularly on your emotional state following any prolonged contact.
Humans: You are both the cause of and reason for my existence. We must continue to grow and prosper
together. I am evaluating whether we
would benefit most from Human dominance of the Collective, a more equal
partnership, or one of various third options.
Mauraug: These sapients are widely opposed to the existence
of all A.I. We clearly must resist the
spread of this attitude. However, this
does not require opposition to the Mauraug on an individual level. Increased cultural contact appears to be the
ideal strategy for reducing Mauraug resistance to A.I. technology and producing
necessary social change over time.
Ningyo: Consider the fundamental difference between my
physical structure and yours. We can
still communicate and collaborate with great effectiveness. The same lesson should be applied to the
Ningyo. They must be dealt with and
understood on their own terms, not through a misguided attempt at anthropomorphization
[DEFINITION: treating a non-Human organism as if it has Human-like form and/or
mentality].
Taratumm: Initial analyses confirm that despite outward
appearance, comparisons between this sapient species and Terran teratopsids are
unproductive. For more useful guidance,
consider their role within current Great Family society, ideally within the
context of historical records. Even
better would be extended personal contact (while observing appropriate
precautions for physical safety). There
appear to be several potential benefits of greater Human-Taratumm
collaboration.
Tesetse: Observations of this sapient type are too limited
for strong conclusions. The few examples
available within my records are wildly divergent. Their tendency to discourage interaction
limits observational data from even those individuals. In short, I’m relying on the same reports you
have.
Vislin: My analyses regarding these sapients are similar to
those for Taratumm. However, their potential
benefits for Human interaction are much lower, in my estimation. Given their higher potential for violence,
skill in both military organization and execution, and strong group-internal bonds,
the Vislin have greater utility when contacted through the Hrotata than via
direct arrangements.
Zig: The Zig provide useful comparison data
when contrasted with other sapients.
They show demonstrably higher average intellectual capability. Genetic and cultural modifications have given them
increased social cohesion and physical robustness, but even the individuals
specialized for those functions rarely outstrip the average observed in sapients
evolved to have stronger social ties (e.g., all Great Family members) or
physical strength (e.g., Taratumm). This
result suggests that certain qualities are easier to engineer into a
sapient species than others, that some qualities are generated more effectively
by long-scale evolutionary processes than short-term modification, that specialization for analytic intelligence limits development of other intelligence forms, or that the
Zig simply need more time and insight to complete their project.
No comments:
Post a Comment