From:	Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Mirrors, Corners, the Past, the Future
Date:	Mon, 9 Mar 1998 00:16:12 -0800

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Ereskanti wrote:

> In a message dated 98-03-08 16:32:24 EST, mneideng@****.CALTECH.EDU writes:

> > bugbears waiting in the wings. Can you tell us why your story requires a
> > true AI as opposed to any number of other dramatic devices that could be
> > adapted to the same purpose?
> >
> Can I tell you why? Sure, once I have a couple dozen hours of typing that
> would make Pete's postings look small.

That would not be necessary. A few lines should probably clear up any
questions.

> And as a researcher in the field, you are entitled to your opinions and
> beliefs. And how come no one is interested in seeing "Archives" pass
through
> "TK"
>
> I am apparently not getting this across to anyone...

The reason is quite simple. Look at your next two sentences:

> I will post sometime this week (Tuesday from the looks of it) an example to
> "TK"...perhaps then everyone will understand.
>
> Under -NO- circumstances is this going to be actually "taking place" on
"TK".

Those statements are quite mutually exclusive, and quite confusing IMO.

_If_ you post something to ShadowTk, _then_ it (fictiously of course) is
"actually 'taking place'" in the world reflected by what comes across the
ShadowTk list. The two are one in the same.

Which is the cause for some people's conscern. If you are posting
archives based on your PBEM campaign to ShadowTk, then supposedly they
have occured in the ShadowTk world. At which point debate over the
existance of an AI spawned from a tank tactical computer becomes quite
relevant, because it reflects something a post to such an effect is saying
is occuring in the world reflected by ShadowTk.

It is part of what makes ShadowTk unique, but also leads to heated debates
here on PlotD. The "old boy's club" that some have mentioned (although
quite a few members of said club are neither old, in terms of seniority on
the list, and in the case of a rare few, even boys) have worked hard to
create the "consentual halluination" that is ShadowTk, and I believe have
right to be conscerned when anyone wishes to change the rules of the game.

In truth, I have found "the old boy's club" to be rather liberal, if the
ideas to at least push the boundaries without breaking them are explained
fully and thoughtfully such that people can see that said pushing will not
effect anything fundamental about the worldview people are working under.

Which is _not_ to say that the PBEM archives would _not_ be interesting,
amusing, or worth reading. Just that such things bring into question some
of the current "bounds" the list is playing within. If you were to post
these anywere else, say on ShadowRn (although, I don't exactly know the
policy over there, I think they handle Fiction as well), or place them on
a website we could all have access too, I'm sure that quite a few of the
people around here would be interested in reading your story. Posting
them to ShadowTk, however, requires consideration of the paradigms that
everybody else that posts here are playing under.

Mark may seem a bit more conserned than others about the whole concept of
AI's partially because of the fact that he's devoted so much time and lots
and lots of money (tuition) toward studying CS, but besides that, one of
his main plots involves a group of people that are trying to make (one of)
the first "strong" (in the sense of sentient) AIs. If everybody up and
agreed that the paradigm were to shift that true AIs are around and
spontaneously pop up out of things as simple as tanks, then where does
that leave all his characters? Either a) they've been wasting their time
(and his for trying to write the story) or b) they should have had a
breakthrough a long time ago. As is, FASA has had vague and mysterious
reports of AI-like things haunting the matrix or buried deep within the
mainframes of megacorporate research fascilities. The list has even shown
a few that at least appeared to be AI, but that there was by conscent, and
I presume that the actual question of sentience was never answered. So, I
think it is purely natural for Mark and others (me included, heck with
MAX, I have a pretty big stake in the argument as well) to want to get you
to fully describe your ideas and explain your reasoning.

--My two yen

Jeff