h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Didn't Hal kill off the crew because he was asked to lie to them and filled in the details on his own?

Which brings me to Alien, in which the Mother/Ash combo was asked to lie with disasterous results. Mother may not be sentient, but Ash passed the Turing test.

However, if there is one aspect which I dislike to an otherwise fantastically made site, it is the absence of Mike, from 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Heinlein. One of my personal favorite books and an amazingly imagined personality. If you left it out because you haven't read it, then I strongly recommend it.

NC*
"Danny can't wake up, Mrs. Torrence"
Random quote guild

I agree. The evolution and personality of Mike seems conspicuous by their absence. It's been a long time since I read any of the books with Mike in them (I recall he returned in some of the Lazarus Long stories) but he definitely made an impression.

Anyway, at least we've mentioned him here in the convos so he's not completely missing. This is a daunting subject, Atlantic Cable. You'd never be able satisfy everyone. There are just too many great SciFi computers out there. One of my other favourites is the Difference Engine in the eponymous book by William Gibson. What a concept, an analog supercomputer built in the 19th century. I can't recall if it was self aware though. It's been awhile since I read that one as well.

Anyways, to a good series of entries.

Count Zero

Yeah, you're right. In "The Cat who Walks through Walls" basically all his former characters team up to find Mike. Good story.

I didn't even think of the difference engine. Man would things have been different, eh? I dont' think it was sentient, it's algorithm just allowed it to be ...well, GOD.

"Just because I hold in me the joy of killing your wife and kid, that doesn't mean we can't be friends." Random quote guild

HEY NUKE

YOU MUST HAVE DONE SOME SERIOUS READING IN THAT BOAT OF YOURS!
Regards OETZ

Yeah hey there oetz
CZ, you mention Gibson and I don't even think of Wintermute and Neuromancer. I must be slipping. One AI plotting to kill the other one. How cool is that!?! But maybe you can help... What was the deal with that throwing star Case gets? It keeps getting mentioned with an almost James Bond like foreshadowing, (oh, by the way, here is something that appears kinda useful at first glance, but you'll be needing it to save both your life and the British Empire shortly...)
until you are sure it will come into play at the end, and it does. It gets mentioned as having stayed in his pocket the whole time. DID I MISS SOMETHING!?! Any ideas? Is it like the part where Molly talks about a former boyfriend, who fans of Gibson will recognize as Johnny Mneumonic? Have I just not read the book where the star actually does something? There was even a ninja, for pete's sake. If ever there was a time to fight a ninja, Case was ready. THROW THE STAR. But noooooo. I quit. Please help. Later

NC*
"If you go, we go."
Random quote guild

Well, I don't think I've read Wintermute yet and it's been years since I read Neuromancer... I'll just give in and tell you I won't be any help to you. This star you mention rings a very small bell in my mind, but like you I'm at a loss. Knowing how Gibson's sense of humor is, I would say it's a red herring. Or who knows, in his next book he may give an answer. I do remember he's had early characters make cameo appearances in later books. So who knows.


"I'd rather eat a MilkDud casserole or a Junior Mint stew than one of your hippy salads." Random Quote generator


Count Zero,

I thought the reasons that HAL killed the crew were;
1)HAL was told the mission was more important than the crew (a bit like Ash's orders in Alien)
2)HAL could complete the mission without the crew
3)HAL was subordinate to the crew
4)The crew, being faulty unpredictable humans, might decide to abandon the mission.

So HAL killed the crew to stop them from interfering with the mission.

OK, I'll try to clear it up. I am using both the books and the films (2001 and 2010) to explan HAL's behaviour. The reasons given are:

One. HAL was told about the monolith and the true mission objectives. This is OK because he's smart enough to complete the mission should the crew be killed. (A likely possibility if you are meeting an alien species for the first time, even though there was no aliens to meet, just TMA-2)

Two. HAL was instructed not to reveal anything about this mission to Bowman or Poole. This caused a problem because his primary function is the accurate processing and display of information without concealment of alteration.

HAL was told to lie, by people who find it easy to lie (politicians on the National Security Council - The White House). HAL was effectively programmed with two contradictory and unresovlable commands.

HAL obviously gave the problem a lot of thought. He was effectively programmed to complete the mission at any cost. He equates this to be of greater importance than the well being of the crew.

Therefore he makes the quite logical decision to kill the crew, thereby eliminating the contradiction in his programming.

As Mr Spock would have said: "Flawlessly logical."

His creator, Dr Chandra puts it more simply: "He became trapped, in technical terms a van Nistren (or something) loop, which can happen in complex systems. He became psychotic."

There are two problems with the story at this point.

1. Why weren't Dave and Frank told about the objectives after they were underway? It would be impossible to tell anyone on Earth.

2. Why did HAL kill the crew in suspended animation? It is possible that HAL didn't know that they knew about the monolith. Ot perhaps he realised that after killing Poole and Bowman, they would try to disconnect him and he couldn't allow that as it would jeopardise the mission. Each is quite likely.

If you watch the film, knowing this, you can see HAL desperately trying to talk to Dave about this. He mentions the "odd" occurences on the moon and the fact that the suspended crew were trained seperately. HAL may never in fact have had any contact with them.




> Which brings me to Alien, in which the Mother/Ash combo was asked to > lie with disasterous results. Mother may not be sentient, but Ash
> passed the Turing test.


Yes, Mother knew the objectives so tnat she would divert the ship to the planet. But in that film, the humans who give the orders (back on Earth) just didn't nkow how quickly the alien would gestate.

Just think about it, if John Hurt hadn't asked for a meal, he would have been back in his sleeper pod and the alien would make it through Earth quarantine.

I have another problem with the clarke entry seperate from the HAL debate. I was always under the impression that it was ASIMOV and not clarke that first stated (And as a result invented) the three rules of robotics.

Anyway is HAL a robot. What is the Definition of a robot. I would consider HAL an AI in control of the ships functioning rather than a robot per se.

Yes, well that's a loose definition.

For example, the computer in Star Trek could be called a robot because it can control shuttles on remote, runs the ship and controls systems for the crew.

Anyway, where did I say Clarke inventeed the 3 rules? Have I contradicted myself?

I hate it when that happens! No I don't!

Just another note.

If you read the book of 2010, you realise that the crew could not abandon the mission because the Discovery was on a one way ticket. She didn't have the fuel to return home anytime soon.

The Discovery 2 that was being built when 2010 starts was designed as the rescue mission. the crew were to complete the mission, then perhaps enter hibernation, with HAL looking after things.

Exactly how the rescue mission would work is unclear, perhaprs leave Discovery and HAL in Jupiter orbit, or maybe bring them fuel.

It sort of makes snese because of the line "The Jupiter mission was already in the advanced planning stages when the Tycho monolith was discovered..."

This seems to imply that the Discovery was launched ahead of schedule, and was not ready to make the return trip (possibly due to Jupiter's position relative the Earth)



I know what you are going to say, 2010 the film contradicts this becuase HAL was programmed for a 360 (I think) day return flight to Earth, so he had fuel.

This may or may not be a contradiction, Jupiter would have moved in its orbit, so the position may be more favourable.

Sorry for the rant, jsut thought it was worth mentioning.

Here's where the confusion sets in:

"Arguably the greatest living science fiction writer (at the time of writing), he is remembered best for 2001: A Space Odyssey and his series of 'Robot' stories that are attributed with setting the 'rules' for robot behaviour."

Count Zero, More human than human.