Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT Strips 4321-4325 (3-7 August 2020)

<< < (31/32) > >>

Tova:
Bubbles did explicitly state in 3376 that backup is possible.

Like his characters, Jeph's conception of AIs has doubtless evolved over time.

We may be enlightened in the future if motivated by story.

N.N. Marf:
All bets are in:

Gnabberwocky - INP 17,
Marf - INP (28 + 1/3),
Gnabberwocky bet Clinton no + INP (45 + 1/3);

Penquin47 - INC 6.347,
Marf Conversions + INC 6.347 - INP 69.817,
Marf - INP 69.817,
Penquin47 bet Clinton yes + INP 139.634;

Is it cold in here?:
Thank you, Tova.

OK, I see why Bubbles's non-threat was so dramatic. Backup or not, who was going to restore Corpse Witch? Destroying her substrate would in practical terms have been the end of her.

Raising the question of whether there is a legal duty to preserve and re-house backups of synthetic people. After all, failure to do so ends a life.

Case:

--- Quote from: Wingy on 05 Aug 2020, 14:43 ---
--- Quote from: Case on 04 Aug 2020, 07:41 ---
--- Quote from: Wingy on 04 Aug 2020, 07:11 ---Why would such a code be in the chassis when the substrate of their mind units has got to be unique? 

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Case on 04 Aug 2020, 06:49 ---I'd imagine that AIs would be required to broadcast some form of digital signature - perhaps tied to the specific substrate they're running on?

--- End quote ---

?

--- End quote ---

Hmmm.  My reply seems to have gone missing.  And we're using substrate in different ways which may add to the confusion.  So a substrateless restatement:
<snip>

--- End quote ---

Sorry for the late reply.


--- Quote ---For identification purposes, why would an AI include a serial from their chassis?
--- End quote ---

Good question - why would it? FWIW, I do not assume that this concept would make much sense, and the second sentence in my post that you quoted ("If AIs could evade identification with something akin to MAC spoofing, QCverse law enforcement would have some serious trouble, I suppose?") was actually me proposing a counter-argument against the feasibility of the 'serial in chassis' concept (IIRC, that latter sentence was in reply to a post by IICIH upthread from mine).

So it appears the only thing we disagree on ... is more or less that there's disagreement at all?  :psyduck:

(click to show/hide)The way I understand QCverse, the QCverse-chassis (unlike the substrates the AIs run on (see more below)) are roughly of the same 'order of distinguishability' from any other instance of the same make and model as, say, the CPU in my PC is from any of its brethren that rolled of the same assembly line; and if (!) the chassis' were the only carriers of identifying information, I'd expect QC authorities - and QCverse police in particular - to have a significant problem on their hand, namely a substantial share of their sentient & sapient populace that is able to swap readily identities with each other (Let's leave aside intrusive methods of identification for a moment - in most real-world ID-ing scenarios, you're likely to have only seconds to make a decision, and no permission to dissassemble the person in question).

In my understanding of QCverse AIs and chassis', the chassis are more-or-less 'our world'-grade electronics products. Means I believe that chassis of the same model are as indistiguishable from another as, say, my Archer C7 Router is from any of its brethren - the only easy way to tell them apart under real-world conditions (~ limited time for each test, limited feasibility of intrusive testing) is by their MAC address (which can be spoofed). By myself, I use the term 'our world machine-grade distinguishable' for that sort of entity, by which I mean that any identification scheme, however advanced, would run into the same fundamental obstacle that 'OurWorld' identification schemes for digital copies and/or assembly-line produced machinery have run into -> namely that the only readily distinguishable feature of the entire product is the ID itself.

AI substrates, otoh, are, according to JJ, the result of an 'emergent process' that is intrinsicly linked to both the AI running on the specific substrate, as as its the cumulative history (its 'past' if you will - the sum of all its thoughts & actions). The term I use by myself is 'analog/human-grade distinguishability' - meaning that the substrate shapes the AI at the same time that the AI shapes its substrate and the result is as unique as the duality making up your body and 'soul' (for lack of a better term).

notStanley:
May not be quite relevant to this universe, since we have seen AI's move between bodies without too much hassle:  A different take on substrate based on quantum entanglements, from Never Mind The Gap by View, taking a backup is  a destructive read-out of the old gestalt, then that media has to be carefully read into the new before it can begin processing again.  (click to show/hide)some do not consider their "soul" transferable, so refuse to leave backups behind, a source of contention with loved ones

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page