38 replies to this topic

[con7con]

Has it ever been explained why the UNSC did not simply use a minimal crew and use Smart AIs to instead control their ships? That would cut down on human losses and if a ship was lost the AI would be purged/destroyed anyway due to the Cole Protocol.

 

[Rovert10]

Has it ever been explained why the UNSC did not simply use a minimal crew and use Smart AIs to instead control their ships? That would cut down on human losses and if a ship was lost the AI would be purged/destroyed anyway due to the Cole Protocol.

You can't mass produce them.

[con7con]

You can't mass produce them.

I realise, but as far as the books went it seemed as though most of the larger ships came with them, although as noted in "The Fall of Reach" they were in short supply towards the later stages of war.

[Emberblaque]

I'd say the idea of an interstellar war wouldn't be as romantic without humans crewing the ships. Practically, though? If you can do it with a computer, you should.

[Bellino]

Think about it: Human will be needed anyway. How do you expect to control a drone in a different solar system

[Emberblaque]

Think about it: Human will be needed anyway. How do you expect to control a drone in a different solar system

AIs aren't humans teleoperating a machine, they're independent mechanical minds.

[KhevaKins]

Probably where just in short supply by the end of the war.
But the real reason is you don't care if a few hundred computers explode in space, but humans...

[Zero]

Disregarding the fact that Smart AIs are human brains, I would think the UNSCDF would prefer a human to command a naval warship and fleet because (ruling out AI rampancy after 5-7 years) a machine cannot do the physical things a human crew can do. I know it's kind of vague and such things can be countered with more machine drones for specific duties, but IMO humans are needed for control and stability where the AI is just for speeding up workflow and making everything easier for the human crew.

[con7con]

Good answer, forgot about the rampancy aspect.

[m468]

Good answer, forgot about the rampancy aspect.

I don't thin the UNSC Navy would want a rampant AI to have complete control of a ship with hundreds of archers one to two MACs and several shiva nukes plus an unknown number of HAVIOK warheads.

[Deathscythe1992]

I don't thin the UNSC Navy would want a rampant AI to have complete control of a ship with hundreds of archers one to two MACs and several shiva nukes plus an unknown number of HAVIOK warheads.

The last time a race gave control of a fleet to AIs they did not have a very good time afterwards.............

[CanadaMan7]

Think of today's modern warships. Even with advanced AI protocols handling many of the operations, you still need a sizable crew to be able to oversee the computer systems for maintenance and the skills to do the various operations manually in cases of computer failures. It makes sense for there to be a decent sized crew aboard imo.

[Emberblaque]

That's true. They at least acknowledge that full automation is possible because of the Forerunners. Maybe the UNSC just still isn't advanced enough for fully automated interstellar spacecraft.

[m468]

That's true. They at least acknowledge that full automation is possible because of the Forerunners. Maybe the UNSC just still isn't advanced enough for fully automated interstellar spacecraft.

They have them (the cargo ships from Halo: Contact Harvast) and probably could make a fully automated warship but they know that AIs and the computers can go haywire.

[con7con]

I suppose there is also a higher risk of capture by the covenant, if an AI is unwilling or unable to flat-line itself while a human captain would not have this problem.

[Bellino]

They have them (the cargo ships from Halo: Contact Harvast) and probably could make a fully automated warship but they know that AIs and the computers can go haywire.

Actually, that is just pre programed, kind of like an autopilot, so not really.

[m468]

He said automated interstellar space craft... Of which that would count. Automated does not mean intelligent. Also the "auto" in autopilot.....

[Zero]

Actually, that is just pre programed, kind of like an autopilot, so not really.

Cortana didn't shut herself down after her run time exceeded safety parameters and went rampant.

[AstralViper]

The truth unfortunately is that humans are cheaper than machines for the military.

[Moustachio86]

The way I see it Smart A.I. (Emphasis on smart) are way too expensive and too difficult to mass produce. Also, I don't know how reliant you can be on even a modern A.I. I'm talking improvisation mainly. A computer is fantastic for doing simple things quick. An A.I. is probably great at doing complicated things quick, and a shit ton of them at once, but I don't know... feels like nothing we ever make (fiction or not) will quite match us for sheer ingenuity. I'm not even just talking piloting or combat. I'm talking engineering, maintenance, situational approach. Look at Apollo 13, the sheer technical madness that they had to come up with to get them home and not kill them on the way, I'm not sure if an A.I. could ever perform that kind of operation. A bunch of humans is going to have more potential, and that's what I'm talking about here, potential, than anything we can ever make. I like to think anyway.