Robots, AI and Genetics in Firelfy (the lack thereof) by eilo

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Robots, AI and Genetics in Firelfy (the lack thereof)

POSTED BY: EILO
UPDATED: Saturday, August 28, 2004 08:00
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5511
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:42 PM

Hi!

Newbie here. Hello to everyone :)

After reading the "Aliens in Firefly" thread, I realized that this is not the only thing handled different in Firefly than in your default Sci-Fi show.

I havn't seen any robots, artificial intelligence or obvious use of genetics in the show.

While I totally agree that it makes much more sense to drop settlers with horses and cows than with robots on new planets (just think what a service technician would charge for flying all the way out to some border world), I'm very curious if they have any on the central planets. And if not - why?

While I think that many movies (even new ones like I Robot or Minority Report) are much too enthusiastic about the cybernetic development in the next few years, I think that 500 years in the future is enough time to create something more useful than my Robosapien.

The same for a decent AI. Okay, they seem to have some kind of autopilot (which isn't the smartest one, if it runs over hapless, space-drifting astronauts), but like the robots, you would think that 500 years into the future they've build a better Eliza.

And while the whole Blue Sun stuff might have to do something with genetic experiments, you would think they used genetically altered animals or plants on the terraformed planets.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the show needs a R2D2, HAL or an X5, but I am kinda curious why these fields are not even touched upon. Would they take focus from the main story (like aliens maybe would)? Didn't they have enough money? Had they planned something for later episodes?

This got rather long and my English isn't the best, so I hope you stayed with me. Thanks :)

Regards,
Eilo

--
Quotomat says: "Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
(Angela Bassett as Mace in 'Strange Days', 1995)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:00 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Gee, I get to weigh in first--shiny!

Here's my take on robots, AI, genetic gymnastics, aliens, laser guns, and the usual trappings of sci-fi. It don't belong in the 'verse, no way, no how.

Sci-fi started out as a way to imagine where the world will be in 50 or 100 or 500 years. Naturally there would be speculation about robots and AI and genetics and aliens, etc. But at some point it seems that sci-fi went from "Gee, what if...?" to "Boy, howdy! Robots and laser guns!" It's gotten to the point now where even having robots and laser guns seems to suck the "what if" right out.

Hence Joss's resistance to having any "typical" sci-fi trappings. His story retains the "Gee, what if" feel because the only classic sci-fi element is space travel. To introduce the other stuff would be to take the attention away from Mal, Zoe, Wash, Jayne, Kaylee, Inara, Simon, River, and Book. And we just can't have that, now can we?

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:14 PM

PURPLEBELLY

Quote:
Originally posted by eilo:
I havn't seen any robots, artificial intelligence or obvious use of genetics in the show.

The border worlds are too poor with little infrastructure. The core worlds are sufficiently sophisticated that wealth is demonstrated by the use of human servants and technology is integrated and unobtrusive.

Simon and River are, of course, clones of Gabriel and Regan.

Only Purplebelly believes this

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:28 AM

HOTPOINT

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Here's my take on robots, AI, genetic gymnastics, aliens, laser guns, and the usual trappings of sci-fi. It don't belong in the 'verse, no way, no how.

Well for a start they do have Laser guns in the Verse (plus what appears to be sonic weaponry).

As for Robotics/AI they could still exist in the Core Worlds but are tightly regulated for some reason. Alternatively the society of the 26th Century could be (and seems) pretty luddite and perhaps this is because of some event in their history (AI Wars, Mass unemployment caused by robotics etc etc)

Actually an AI would be the ultimate weapon against the telepaths because they couldn't read it. This is one of the plot lines in my Fanfic series (shameless plug) and would have been an interesting approach for the show itself.

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2004 2:14 AM

DANFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
But at some point it seems that sci-fi went from "Gee, what if...?" to "Boy, howdy! Robots and laser guns!"
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

I concur with your assessment of the change in story content/style, but I differ with you about where the change occurs. In my opinion, it isn't time-based ("at some point...") so much as venue-based.

Written science fiction has far more frequently been about ideas ("what if this goes on? how will this affect people/society? what does it mean if...?"). Filmed science fiction has always been more likely to satisfy itself with the trappings of science fiction ("what if we tell this lame, derivative action story with spaceships and laser guns instead of cars and Glocks?"). That's not to say that you can't find examples of the "trappings" trait in written science fiction or the "idea" trait in movie/TV science fiction. But I believe the basic tendency is there.

Why does it break down that way? My theory is that science fiction literature is written by people who have learned (by practice) to grow the story from the physical elements of science fiction that they use to set up the basic conflict that they want to explore. This is their specialty. TV and movie writers tend tell a stock story. The science fiction trappings are nothing more than props or sets. The story doesn't grow from the environment that these elements truly represent.

Then, occasionally, you find someone who really gets it... the fact that the story grows from the environment and how it changes PEOPLE. That how the science fiction elements affect humans IS the story. Whedon (and a few others) seem to get it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:05 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:
Written science fiction has far more frequently been about ideas ("what if this goes on? how will this affect people/society? what does it mean if...?"). Filmed science fiction has always been more likely to satisfy itself with the trappings of science fiction ("what if we tell this lame, derivative action story with spaceships and laser guns instead of cars and Glocks?").

Good point.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:05 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:
Written science fiction has far more frequently been about ideas ("what if this goes on? how will this affect people/society? what does it mean if...?"). Filmed science fiction has always been more likely to satisfy itself with the trappings of science fiction ("what if we tell this lame, derivative action story with spaceships and laser guns instead of cars and Glocks?").

Good point.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:06 AM

WITLESSCHUM

Well, there was one reference to cloning:
from "War Stories"
SIMON
It's his ear.

Inara, Kaylee and Book recoil, noticeably sickened. Simon looks at it, his head tilted.

BOOK
(pissed)
< Filthy fornicators of livestock! >

ZOE
We're getting him back.

JAYNE
What are we gonna do, clone 'im?

SIMON
(re: the ear;
clinically)
It's a clean cut. With the right
equipment, I should be able to
reattach it.
(looks at them, also
clinically)
That's assuming there's a head.

So I don't know if that means cloning is common, or if this an example of Jayne being stupid. But considering the human organs don't quite work correctly, there are apparently more problems than maybe we'd think in the 'Verse. Maybe human cloning is possible, but outlawed and disapproved of?

Oh we did see the garbage robot in "Trash" It seems they use robots for things like that, at least the "rich and paranoid" do.

Dan

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:07 AM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG

Wait for the movie if you wanna see this stuff. It's coming.

check out my WIP firefly roleplay system at www.estador.co.uk/firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:04 PM

EILO

Hi!

I totally forgot the trash drones, you're right - it shows how well such elements are integrated in the show without being the reason for the show.

Like I said, I don't want to see this stuff, but since Demi-God Whedon decided to base Firefly in "our" universe, you have to touch these subjects in one or another form, since these are all important subjects in our time.

If you take stuff like Star Wars (which was always more Fantasy than Sci-Fi to me) or Warhammer 40K for example (where 38000 years have passed since our time) you don't have to explain anything, but 500 years is not enough to sweep all known science under a rug.

I'm totally satisfied if these subjects are handled in dialog (all this talk about Earth-That-Was is much cooler than actually showing Earth itself) or like the laser for example, so I'm looking forward what the movie reveals about stuff like this.

The difference between Sci-Fi in books and movies seems to be one cause why Firefly "failed" to impress enough people - most of them want to see the shiny stuff like robots and aliens...

There are some movies which try to adress problems without being all techno-dependant (like Gattaca or Solaris), but they were not very well received by the general public, too.

Maybe "smart" Sci-Fi is only possible in books... My favourite book is actually a Sci-Fi book which has almost no action at all (Inherit The Stars by James P. Hogan, about discovering a 50000 year old dead human in a spacesuit on the moon and recontructing how he got there), but if I ever should have enough money, I would try to make it into a move, just for me :) After financing some new Firefly episodes of course ;)

Regards,
Eilo

--
Quotomat says: "We lead our lives, and when they end, sometimes we leave a little of ourselves behind. Sometimes we leave money, a painting, sometimes we leave a kind word. And sometimes, we leave an empty space."
(Ellen Muth as Georgia 'George' Lass in 'Dead Like Me', 2003)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:35 PM

PURPLEBELLY

Quote:
Originally posted by eilo:
I totally forgot the trash drones, you're right - it shows how well such elements are integrated in the show without being the reason for the show.

Programable drones were a plot requirement in Trash. Kaylee would have had to use a different skillset to influence a human pilot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2004 4:06 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chronicthehedgehog:
Wait for the movie if you wanna see this stuff. It's coming.

That's what I'm afraid of. As was mentioned earlier, we did see laser guns. And is there anyone out there that seriously considers "Heart of Gold" one of the better episodes? Or thinks of Rance Burgess as one of the better villains? Please...

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2004 4:46 AM

EILO

Hi!

Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
Programable drones were a plot requirement in Trash. Kaylee would have had to use a different skillset to influence a human pilot.

Yeah, the drone was required, but the episode wasn't about the magic trash drone they encoutered on some planet - like 50% of the Star Trek Episodes are centred about something unusal first encountered.

And I don't think that Kaylee would make a good undercover seductress - as soon as the pilot would talk about "Showing her his engine" she would be pretty useless for the rest of the mission :)

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
That's what I'm afraid of. As was mentioned earlier, we did see laser guns. And is there anyone out there that seriously considers "Heart of Gold" one of the better episodes? Or thinks of Rance Burgess as one of the better villains? Please...

No, but the how they handled the laser was very funny. Mal's disregard for this kind of weapon and the "Replace Battery"-like phrase in the end was very funny.

And this is exactly what I want for the other stuff like robots and AI. If someone comes up and ask me "Hmm, I like the show but why didn't they use lasers - bullets are pretty boring", I can say why they don't use lasers and it makes sense.

"Why there are no robots?" - "Because." does not help persuade people :)

Regards,
Eilo

--
Quotomat says: "Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale."
(Michael Wincott as Philo Gant in 'Strange Days', 1995)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2004 5:12 AM

GOJIRO

Here's my two cents on the Robots and Laser Guns issue.

ROBOTS: It makes a lot of sense to have robot drones as seen in Trash, and I believe the core worlds have a lot of such fancy tech. What doesn't make sense is humanoid robots, and here's why. Name one other animal that always walks upright. Monkeys do on occasion, but not always. Same is true of other animals.

Humans are the only animals on Earth that walk upright as the default mode. And that's because it takes a mighty amount of computing power to do figure the balance thing, the walking thing, the not falling down stairs thing, etc.

Building a humanoid robot, then, would mean devoting MASSIVE amounts of computing power to just staying upright. When you look at the cost/benefit analysis, it makes much creater sense to create robots with wheels or jet engines.

As for lasers, it's sort of the same issue, only with energy instead of computing power. Lasers take a ton of energy to produce a beam strong enough to do any damage. Hence Burgess's gun running out of power, and the antique from Trash having no power. Again, from a cost/benefit analysis, if you simply want to kill someone, it makes more sense to use good ol' gunpowder and lead, or some hopped up version of same.

Sons dos centavos.

gojiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2004 6:38 AM

THELION

Quote:
Name one other animal that always walks upright. Monkeys do on occasion, but not always. Same is true of other animals.

Bipedal locomotion isn't a human-only skill. Most apes and birds are bipedal, and I can think of a few other mammals that walk upright, too (or hop around). It's not a question of computing power to walk upright, it's a question of what is more efficient. Humans don't need to run that much. They are plains/forest dwellers and hunter/gatherers, so they don't need quick running so much as they need efficient walking. Quadrupedal running is far more efficient than bipedal running for various reasons, and it's also much faster. More suited for those types of animals that have to chase down other creatures (carnivores). (Point of interest: Monkeys by definition are quadrupedal, but all four limbs double as hands and feet).

Quote:
Building a humanoid robot, then, would mean devoting MASSIVE amounts of computing power to just staying upright.

It doesn't require that much computing power to walk upright; humans are a prime example of that. And processors today already have quite a bit of computing power; after all, who do you think would find the factorial of 522 faster: you or your computer? What it requires is processing information from thousands of sensors at once; you need parallel processing (and let's face it, no matter how fast the clock speed is, a 32 bit processor can still only perform 32 calculations at a time). The hardest part isn't processing the information, it's knowing what type of sensors to put in (how much of the right information you need).

[Edit]The reason why there aren't many bipedal robots around is simply a matter of economics. It's a lot cheaper to put a bunch of wheels on a robot than to worry about all the sensors and moving parts (moving parts are a maintainence nightmare). Plus all the R&D that goes into developing such a robot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2004 7:00 AM

THELION

Now I'll cover the lasers. In reality, a laser doesn't exactly give you the best bang for your buck. In order to output the kind of power needed to make a laser into a decent weapon, you would need a very large power source, not to mention a very large laser--there are physical requirements on the minimum size of lasers and I doubt in 500 years humanity has found a way to circumvent that. A power source that could put out that much energy would HAVE to be a fusion cell of some type, and there's no way right now to start fusion on that small of a scale (hell, we can't even break even with huge fusion reactors). So I would think that, in 500 years, if such a power source is even available, it would still be prohibitively expensive, and only the very rich and government agencies would be able to afford keeping laser guns "loaded", so to speak.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2004 8:01 AM

ROCKETSURGEON

Quote:
Building a humanoid robot, then, would mean devoting MASSIVE amounts of computing power to just staying upright.

First, as someone trained in engineering, I can tell you that you don't need computing power to "balance" a walking bot. A control system with a movement sensor setup in the right direction and some sort of proportional amplifiers (just like the volume control in a radio), connected to mechanical outputs (like a leg motor or a thruster jet) can easily balance a system. None of this needs digital computers. At worst, a complex robot may need a computer to "tweak" the control system’s response when the robot is in an extreme crouching position or at a running pace, but again, not computationally intensive, it just takes a bit of trial and error and some good design work to figure out what the right control system “feedback response” looks like. This shouldn’t take 500 years.

Like TheLion said, it’s about what the robot needs to do, it’s function. It would be pretty ridiculous to have a C3PO-stype robot swim up to a garbage crate on Bellerophon and clip it to a belt and watch this relatively tiny tin-can swim wildly to move the larger tin-can through the ocean.

The issue here (at least with the robots) is what I would call the difference between “advanced” or “effective” technology and “high-technology”. A firefly spaceship is not high-tech by 26th century standards, but it works, so it gets used. It is effective. Consider how the mere presence of the trash drone was dismissed. It is unobtrusive and effective. It’s as good as it needs to be, just like a pencil is. I imagine that they will still have pencils in the 26th century. In sum, they probably have lots of super high-tech, complicated, AI, humanoid robotic toys in the future ‘verse, but no one’s found a good use for them. Or at a minimum, indentured slaves are just much easier to use, control and replace for most frontier applications (yeh, that’s cold, but it’s not supposed to be a utopia, is it?). Remember that even if technology progresses continuously for the next 500 years, slavery will still have existed for thousands of years more than robotics.

---
"Here's something you can't do ... [insert cool manoever here]"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2004 4:54 PM

THEREALME

I think that one of the ideas of past SF (early days of Asimov and Clarke, maybe) was that if you wanted a robot to drive your car for you, it would be a human shaped robot that would walk up, open the door, sit in the driver's seat, and drive.

The reality that I expect to see is that we have some chip in the car that connects to some sensors, and THAT will drive you around. The actual humanoid robot is not needed, and in fact is in the way.

It would look cool, though...

The Real Me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 28, 2004 8:00 AM

STANDING8

"Here's my take on robots, AI, genetic gymnastics, aliens, laser guns, and the usual trappings of sci-fi. It don't belong in the 'verse, no way, no how."

i concur.

-Soul Rebel-

a love supreme dreaming...

http://www.livejournal.com/users/standing8

updated: 7/30/04!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE