Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3461-3465 (17-21 April 2017)
JoeCovenant:
--- Quote from: de_la_Nae on 22 Apr 2017, 01:19 ---So I know my limits enough to know better than to get too deeply between Case and Joe et al on that discussion, but I did want to point out that there's all sorts of random/semi-random errors that corrupt data a lot faster than just digital memory drift.
I mean if my poor computers are any indication, that is... ;)
--- End quote ---
:) Which was actually a thought I had early on... but dismissed it as having to be a fairly hellish semi-random error to wipe out only Bubbles company's faces! :)
(Oh.. and the way this debate seems to be headed.. I think your line above could be altered slightly to "get between Joe and Case et al!) :)
Tova:
--- Quote from: JoeCovenant on 24 Apr 2017, 02:38 ---
--- Quote from: Case on 21 Apr 2017, 05:39 ---
--- Quote from: JoeCovenant on 21 Apr 2017, 02:34 ---To use your example above, the only evidence we have to date (Emily in Bubbles mind) is that AI's are like those savants you discuss above. They have total recall, unless acted upon by an outside influence...
--- End quote ---
No, what we have is evidence that their memory can be erased by outside influence, not that that's the only way data might vanish from their memory. "Absence of evidence != evidence of absence"
--- End quote ---
Um.. That's what I said in the first line above...
"The only evidence we have to date."
And that's all we can state for certain... everything else is hypothetical.
--- End quote ---
I think you misunderstood Case's post, read it again.
To put what he said in a different way, there is no evidence that they have "total recall."
JoeCovenant:
--- Quote from: Tova on 24 Apr 2017, 04:42 ---
--- Quote from: JoeCovenant on 24 Apr 2017, 02:38 ---
--- Quote from: Case on 21 Apr 2017, 05:39 ---
--- Quote from: JoeCovenant on 21 Apr 2017, 02:34 ---To use your example above, the only evidence we have to date (Emily in Bubbles mind) is that AI's are like those savants you discuss above. They have total recall, unless acted upon by an outside influence...
--- End quote ---
No, what we have is evidence that their memory can be erased by outside influence, not that that's the only way data might vanish from their memory. "Absence of evidence != evidence of absence"
--- End quote ---
Um.. That's what I said in the first line above...
"The only evidence we have to date."
And that's all we can state for certain... everything else is hypothetical.
--- End quote ---
I think you misunderstood Case's post, read it again.
To put what he said in a different way, there is no evidence that they have "total recall."
--- End quote ---
No, I didn't misunderstand it at all.
Computer based Machines have Total Recall of anything they have been asked, forced, chosen to remember...
Those memories (data) will remain unless acted upon by an outside influence (or, as has been mentioned previously, a slight chance of data degradation.) (or lack of storage space and if that happened then I would imagine AIs would have a chance to back up their memories or select what to forget.
(Who needs memories of walking to work for 5 years?)
Bubbles memories were expected by everyone, including the Omni-scient/present/potent Creepybot... (but not CW, for obvious reasons) ...to still be there, intact.
Which might not have been the case if machines did NOT have Total Recall... as there then would have been a chance she had simply *forgotten* them.
At no point in the story, up until Faye and Bubbles heart to heart, was anything even suggested that machines can simply forget memories through nothing else but the passage of time.
Nothing points to a *fact* that these machines do not have total recall.
Any evidence we *do* have, no matter how slim, points to the contrary.
Which (and this is the entire crux of my ire) is why I'm aggrieved at the, 'for pathos purposes', that Bubbles has handily 'forgotten' the faces of her team... who are apparently so important to her, that they were the focus of the entire arc we saw played out.
All it would have taken would have been for the dialogue to omit the detail of the attack. And this particular conversation would never have had to take place.
Or even that the details of the attack were in the deleted memories... *that* would have given a similar (if not deeper) pathos, as it would have fully explained Bubbles' loss.
Unfortunately, all we now have is, that she just *forgot* what her beloved colleagues looked like...?
As I said above, that just rubs me up the wrong way.
In the same way as Faye saying she can't remember the voice of her father.
(But, I admit, I don't know myself what the story behind that is, re: her age when it happened, and how long ago it was.)
If it's been mentioned in the strip.. I've forgotten it...
...'cos I'm not a machine... :wink:
Thrudd:
Very interesting series of points made in this discussion but one phrase made the hairs on my neck stand on end and a chill run down my spine.
I was getting flashbacks from philosophy 101 / Modern Inductive Logic 310. Two courses where the professors would have annihilated each other if they ever met, sort of like a loopy electron and a no-nonsense positron.
--- Quote from: JoeCovenant on 24 Apr 2017, 09:36 ---Nothing points to a *fact* that these machines do not have total recall.
--- End quote ---
The absence of evidence that something does not exist is not evidence that it exists.
Morituri:
Anyway, what Bubbles said sounds like an after-action report or a deployment debriefing. It would for damn sure be a matter of record before she left the military forces, assuming she remembered it at the time. The AARs are always, always, always a high priority after any contact with the enemy.
Anyway, it sounds to me like somebody read back to her her own testimony from the standard debriefing. Even if she doesn't actually remember the events themselves, she'd know what happened.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version