Poor Mike. Life’s such a mystery to him, in some ways. But then again, it’s all so new to him.
So, here we are, all back in one piece. Thanks, everyone, for being so patient, this summer. It’s been a lot of work, keeping a roof over my head, not to speak of working on this comic. So many great comics fall victim to issues like that, or simply to fatigue and boredom on the part of the artist. Personally, my problem is tied up with the fact that, when I get home a the end of the day, all the things I’ve wanted to do during the day have been forgotten, and all the great ideas I’ve had seem silly, boring, or insurmountably complicated. It’s the nature of working in a creative field, I suppose, the ups and downs. And often, it’s more than just the typical highs and lows, and is actually just such a huge swing in temperament that it’s all I can do to drag myself into bed at the end of the day.
At any rate, they say absence makes the heart grow fonder, and that was certainly the case with the comic – it felt great to draw again this weekend, and I’m glad to be back! So until next week, folks, all the best to everyone!
By the way – almost forgot! Happy Canada Day!
According to Star Trek logic, Mike should now explode
This ain’t Star Trek, man. Mike doesn’t explode, he explodes everyone else.
A simple “does not compute” would be nice. 🙂
Abort, Retry, Fail?
There is also the other Star Trek logic: 😉
“It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh… the needs of the few… or the one.” (Spock and Kirk, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, 1982)
Oooh, well, I’m no utilitarian, frankly. But Mike does have some learning he’s doing.
How does Mike’s actions constitute a transcendental figure without resolution? Or a use of logic showing a “perfect” machine its flaws?
Please give at least one example.
Sounds like a question on one of my old Sociology tests. I still have nightmares about that class…
insert quietly-sighed “Oh, shit.” here
Colonel Haulley is getting more than he bargained for, that’s for sure.
Does regret constitute self-awareness?
Are Rumblers self aware by design?
I suppose from what we’ve seen, Mike would pass the Turing Test and be considered intelligent at the very least
Nobody, not even the geniuses in the upper levels of the military-industrial complex, would be insane enough to build a weapon that is self-aware by design. The fact that individual soldiers are self-aware is already enough of a problem from a strategic planning point of view.
No, what happened with Mike has to be an accident…or, if it was deliberate, it was sabotage.
According to their designers at O.V.C. Land Systems and Nordyne Defense Dynamics, Rumblers are not sapient. They merely simulate sapience according to complicated algorithms, in order to make them easier to talk to. They do pass the Turing Test, but have not managed to overcome a more sophisticated personality test called the Gemmill-Kanda Relative Sapience Quotient.
Well do they pass it /now/ is the question…
The elephant in the room with this sort of test seems to be that they’re generally only (deliberately) used on AIs rather than being correlated against the wide variability among Humans. If there is a ‘pass mark’ for an AI to be considered ‘officially a Person’, how many Humans would fail to meet it?
wow see this is why you don’t make AI’s with a fuck load of guns they go batshit.
It was a calculated risk, I suppose. 😉
Even now they deliberately do not build in a preservation function. Otherwise one day they may decide to scrag their own troops to protect themselves.
Maybe if they were designed and programmed by dolphins it might be different.
No, not by dolphins, just by AI researchers at the University of Philadelphia, funded by O.V.C. and the United Nations Alliance Security Council, with help from the United States Continental Army and the Royal Canadian Armed Forces.
Ah the joys of sapient machines Mike meet Hal Hal meet the much better armed version of you with a more winning personality