Lower Decks Season 4

[CharlesPhipps]

Oddly, the most interesting element of this episode is the fact that it reverses a lot of longstanding Star Trek prejudices and treatment of AI in the setting dating back to "Measure of a Man." Basically, the Federation does not have a great history with the treatment of artificial beings as people and I'm not sure this episode really gels with the Federation that refuses to recognize the Doctor's humanity (save as an artist), the future Picard banning of all synths, and the attempted kindapping of Lal.

However, that's probably a good thing.

In this version of the Federation, all of the various "evil AI" of which Peanut Hamper is certainly an example are not put away in storage forever but apparently actually have parole hearings as well as reformative therapy sessions. Which also is very different as a take on "prisons in the 24th century" as while TOS had the idea the Federation had largely moved beyond prisons as punishment, other shows had Tom Paris breaking rocks during the VOY pilot and Burnham serving a lifetime punishment for mutiny (which i pointless for a rehabilitation-based restorative justice model).

It doesn't fit with continuity that AI will be not treated as people after the Mars attack and banned but works VERY well with Star Trek's ideals as they should be practiced.

[clearspira]

Oddly, the most interesting element of this episode is the fact that it reverses a lot of longstanding Star Trek prejudices and treatment of AI in the setting dating back to "Measure of a Man." Basically, the Federation does not have a great history with the treatment of artificial beings as people and I'm not sure this episode really gels with the Federation that refuses to recognize the Doctor's humanity (save as an artist), the future Picard banning of all synths, and the attempted kindapping of Lal.

However, that's probably a good thing.

In this version of the Federation, all of the various "evil AI" of which Peanut Hamper is certainly an example are not put away in storage forever but apparently actually have parole hearings as well as reformative therapy sessions. Which also is very different as a take on "prisons in the 24th century" as while TOS had the idea the Federation had largely moved beyond prisons as punishment, other shows had Tom Paris breaking rocks during the VOY pilot and Burnham serving a lifetime punishment for mutiny (which i pointless for a rehabilitation-based restorative justice model).

It doesn't fit with continuity that AI will be not treated as people after the Mars attack and banned but works VERY well with Star Trek's ideals as they should be practiced.

Star Trek has also done very poorly at proving its AI creations are people. So many of these AIs I can find a justification for that doesn't involve sentience. Data? Programmed to want to be more human. The Doctor? A adaptive hologram designed to want to improve its bedside manner. Moriarty? Designed to be able to fight off a Soong-type android. They're just doing what they were always meant to be doing.

And it REALLY doesn't help that when left to their own devices the ''Star Trek default'' for AI is to turn evil. Data was one emotion away from trying to chop up Geordi. The Doctor was one button press away from trying to chop up Seven. The androids in Picard blew up Mars. Does that sound like free thinking creatures to you? What what makes me laugh is that when Red Dwarf did this plot line with Kryten's morality chip, he doesn't turn ''destroy all humans'' he just makes mistakes like cooking people on the actally quite reasonable basis that ''humans eat meat, therefore why don't they eat human meat?'' I can see the chain of thought there. But chopping up Seven whilst singing? Ummm....

Once again, Star Trek outdone by a British sitcom.

[hammerofglass]

Oddly, the most interesting element of this episode is the fact that it reverses a lot of longstanding Star Trek prejudices and treatment of AI in the setting dating back to "Measure of a Man." Basically, the Federation does not have a great history with the treatment of artificial beings as people and I'm not sure this episode really gels with the Federation that refuses to recognize the Doctor's humanity (save as an artist), the future Picard banning of all synths, and the attempted kindapping of Lal.

However, that's probably a good thing.

In this version of the Federation, all of the various "evil AI" of which Peanut Hamper is certainly an example are not put away in storage forever but apparently actually have parole hearings as well as reformative therapy sessions. Which also is very different as a take on "prisons in the 24th century" as while TOS had the idea the Federation had largely moved beyond prisons as punishment, other shows had Tom Paris breaking rocks during the VOY pilot and Burnham serving a lifetime punishment for mutiny (which i pointless for a rehabilitation-based restorative justice model).

It doesn't fit with continuity that AI will be not treated as people after the Mars attack and banned but works VERY well with Star Trek's ideals as they should be practiced.

Star Trek has also done very poorly at proving its AI creations are people. So many of these AIs I can find a justification for that doesn't involve sentience. Data? Programmed to want to be more human. The Doctor? A adaptive hologram designed to want to improve its bedside manner. Moriarty? Designed to be able to fight off a Soong-type android. They're just doing what they were always meant to be doing.

And it REALLY doesn't help that when left to their own devices the ''Star Trek default'' for AI is to turn evil. Data was one emotion away from trying to chop up Geordi. The Doctor was one button press away from trying to chop up Seven. The androids in Picard blew up Mars. Does that sound like free thinking creatures to you? What what makes me laugh is that when Red Dwarf did this plot line with Kryten's morality chip, he doesn't turn ''destroy all humans'' he just makes mistakes like cooking people on the actally quite reasonable basis that ''humans eat meat, therefore why don't they eat human meat?'' I can see the chain of thought there. But chopping up Seven whilst singing? Ummm....

Once again, Star Trek outdone by a British sitcom.

By those standards humans aren't people.

Also the entire plot of Picard season 1 was that the attack on Mars was a false flag by anti-AI religious extremists.

[clearspira]

Oddly, the most interesting element of this episode is the fact that it reverses a lot of longstanding Star Trek prejudices and treatment of AI in the setting dating back to "Measure of a Man." Basically, the Federation does not have a great history with the treatment of artificial beings as people and I'm not sure this episode really gels with the Federation that refuses to recognize the Doctor's humanity (save as an artist), the future Picard banning of all synths, and the attempted kindapping of Lal.

However, that's probably a good thing.

In this version of the Federation, all of the various "evil AI" of which Peanut Hamper is certainly an example are not put away in storage forever but apparently actually have parole hearings as well as reformative therapy sessions. Which also is very different as a take on "prisons in the 24th century" as while TOS had the idea the Federation had largely moved beyond prisons as punishment, other shows had Tom Paris breaking rocks during the VOY pilot and Burnham serving a lifetime punishment for mutiny (which i pointless for a rehabilitation-based restorative justice model).

It doesn't fit with continuity that AI will be not treated as people after the Mars attack and banned but works VERY well with Star Trek's ideals as they should be practiced.

Star Trek has also done very poorly at proving its AI creations are people. So many of these AIs I can find a justification for that doesn't involve sentience. Data? Programmed to want to be more human. The Doctor? A adaptive hologram designed to want to improve its bedside manner. Moriarty? Designed to be able to fight off a Soong-type android. They're just doing what they were always meant to be doing.

And it REALLY doesn't help that when left to their own devices the ''Star Trek default'' for AI is to turn evil. Data was one emotion away from trying to chop up Geordi. The Doctor was one button press away from trying to chop up Seven. The androids in Picard blew up Mars. Does that sound like free thinking creatures to you? What what makes me laugh is that when Red Dwarf did this plot line with Kryten's morality chip, he doesn't turn ''destroy all humans'' he just makes mistakes like cooking people on the actally quite reasonable basis that ''humans eat meat, therefore why don't they eat human meat?'' I can see the chain of thought there. But chopping up Seven whilst singing? Ummm....

Once again, Star Trek outdone by a British sitcom.

By those standards humans aren't people.

Also the entire plot of Picard season 1 was that the attack on Mars was a false flag by anti-AI religious extremists.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote because that makes no sense. The Doctor - a ''man'' who is in love with Seven of Nine, who dreams about her, who is often envious of other guys fancying her - can, through a single button command, cut her up whilst singing.

That is not a person with free will. That is a machine with an ''turn me to evil'' button.



Humans are a slight more complicated than that.

[hammerofglass]

Oddly, the most interesting element of this episode is the fact that it reverses a lot of longstanding Star Trek prejudices and treatment of AI in the setting dating back to "Measure of a Man." Basically, the Federation does not have a great history with the treatment of artificial beings as people and I'm not sure this episode really gels with the Federation that refuses to recognize the Doctor's humanity (save as an artist), the future Picard banning of all synths, and the attempted kindapping of Lal.

However, that's probably a good thing.

In this version of the Federation, all of the various "evil AI" of which Peanut Hamper is certainly an example are not put away in storage forever but apparently actually have parole hearings as well as reformative therapy sessions. Which also is very different as a take on "prisons in the 24th century" as while TOS had the idea the Federation had largely moved beyond prisons as punishment, other shows had Tom Paris breaking rocks during the VOY pilot and Burnham serving a lifetime punishment for mutiny (which i pointless for a rehabilitation-based restorative justice model).

It doesn't fit with continuity that AI will be not treated as people after the Mars attack and banned but works VERY well with Star Trek's ideals as they should be practiced.

Star Trek has also done very poorly at proving its AI creations are people. So many of these AIs I can find a justification for that doesn't involve sentience. Data? Programmed to want to be more human. The Doctor? A adaptive hologram designed to want to improve its bedside manner. Moriarty? Designed to be able to fight off a Soong-type android. They're just doing what they were always meant to be doing.

And it REALLY doesn't help that when left to their own devices the ''Star Trek default'' for AI is to turn evil. Data was one emotion away from trying to chop up Geordi. The Doctor was one button press away from trying to chop up Seven. The androids in Picard blew up Mars. Does that sound like free thinking creatures to you? What what makes me laugh is that when Red Dwarf did this plot line with Kryten's morality chip, he doesn't turn ''destroy all humans'' he just makes mistakes like cooking people on the actally quite reasonable basis that ''humans eat meat, therefore why don't they eat human meat?'' I can see the chain of thought there. But chopping up Seven whilst singing? Ummm....

Once again, Star Trek outdone by a British sitcom.

By those standards humans aren't people.

Also the entire plot of Picard season 1 was that the attack on Mars was a false flag by anti-AI religious extremists.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote because that makes no sense. The Doctor - a ''man'' who is in love with Seven of Nine, who dreams about her, who is often envious of other guys fancying her - can, through a single button command, cut her up whilst singing.

That is not a person with free will. That is a machine with an ''turn me to evil'' button.



Humans are a slight more complicated than that.

Humans have murderous stalkers too.

[Madner Kami]

I'm not sure you read what I wrote because that makes no sense. The Doctor - a ''man'' who is in love with Seven of Nine, who dreams about her, who is often envious of other guys fancying her - can, through a single button command, cut her up whilst singing.

That is not a person with free will. That is a machine with an ''turn me to evil'' button.



Humans are a slight more complicated than that.

No, they really aren't. Any sort of brain-damage can change the personality of a person. There are plenty of cases showing that.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Before the new episode drops all I have to say I really wish they'd stop making Mariner 'question' herself. It felt like backtracking and was the only part that made the episode feel longer than it was.

I dunno, I think it's a realistic approach to character growth. Two steps forward and one step back and all that.

Personally I found this epsiode just okay, compared to the other episodes of the season, which I loved.

I would argue with Clearspira that the AI in startrek demonstrate sapience, just in a different way than we have, and that's okay.

[Thebestoftherest]

Oddly, the most interesting element of this episode is the fact that it reverses a lot of longstanding Star Trek prejudices and treatment of AI in the setting dating back to "Measure of a Man." Basically, the Federation does not have a great history with the treatment of artificial beings as people and I'm not sure this episode really gels with the Federation that refuses to recognize the Doctor's humanity (save as an artist), the future Picard banning of all synths, and the attempted kindapping of Lal.

However, that's probably a good thing.

In this version of the Federation, all of the various "evil AI" of which Peanut Hamper is certainly an example are not put away in storage forever but apparently actually have parole hearings as well as reformative therapy sessions. Which also is very different as a take on "prisons in the 24th century" as while TOS had the idea the Federation had largely moved beyond prisons as punishment, other shows had Tom Paris breaking rocks during the VOY pilot and Burnham serving a lifetime punishment for mutiny (which i pointless for a rehabilitation-based restorative justice model).

It doesn't fit with continuity that AI will be not treated as people after the Mars attack and banned but works VERY well with Star Trek's ideals as they should be practiced.

Star Trek has also done very poorly at proving its AI creations are people. So many of these AIs I can find a justification for that doesn't involve sentience. Data? Programmed to want to be more human. The Doctor? A adaptive hologram designed to want to improve its bedside manner. Moriarty? Designed to be able to fight off a Soong-type android. They're just doing what they were always meant to be doing.

And it REALLY doesn't help that when left to their own devices the ''Star Trek default'' for AI is to turn evil. Data was one emotion away from trying to chop up Geordi. The Doctor was one button press away from trying to chop up Seven. The androids in Picard blew up Mars. Does that sound like free thinking creatures to you? What what makes me laugh is that when Red Dwarf did this plot line with Kryten's morality chip, he doesn't turn ''destroy all humans'' he just makes mistakes like cooking people on the actally quite reasonable basis that ''humans eat meat, therefore why don't they eat human meat?'' I can see the chain of thought there. But chopping up Seven whilst singing? Ummm....

Once again, Star Trek outdone by a British sitcom.

By those standards humans aren't people.

Also the entire plot of Picard season 1 was that the attack on Mars was a false flag by anti-AI religious extremists.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote because that makes no sense. The Doctor - a ''man'' who is in love with Seven of Nine, who dreams about her, who is often envious of other guys fancying her - can, through a single button command, cut her up whilst singing.

That is not a person with free will. That is a machine with an ''turn me to evil'' button.



Humans are a slight more complicated than that.

How often do we see human under mind control, I have to disagree.

[CharlesPhipps]

May I ask what would prove the Star Trek AI's sentience?

[McAvoy]

May I ask what would prove the Star Trek AI's sentience?

Correcting picking all the trains even the one with a sliver in the nine box CAPTCHA. It's that sliver that is the key.