Discussion:
Isaac Asimov and Cybernetic/Mathematical Governance
(too old to reply)
David Johnston
2018-05-02 02:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Back as far as Homo Sol in 1940 Asimov was writing about the idea of
psychology as a "hard science", using mathematics to predict human
actions and to manipulate them en mass. This was more or less a dry run
for the Foundation series. in which mathematical sociologists become a
secret society ruling the galaxy.

He also included the same mathematical psychology hoodoo in the Caves of
Steel. One notes that incorporating the Caves of Steel into the
Foundation setting as Asimov did toward the end of his career means that
the mathematical psychology that Baley's Earth was doing is something
that later minds declared to be impossible. Of course maybe Baley was
wrong about it having any validity.

In 1955 he wrote Franchise, a satirical story in which there is only a
single representative "voter" who is polled on current events by a
computer which then appoints the politicians based on projections based
on that questionaire. They call it "cybernetic democracy". Wikipedia
suggests the story was inspired by Univac's successful prediction of the
1952 election.

The last couple of stories in Asimov's "I, Robot" were about artificial
intelligences taking over executive authority, despite the crippling
handicaps that the three laws would would inflict on an administrator.
And ultimately he put R. Daneel in charge as the secret ruler of the
galaxy and the true inventor of psychohistory.
Johnny1A
2018-05-12 05:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Back as far as Homo Sol in 1940 Asimov was writing about the idea of
psychology as a "hard science", using mathematics to predict human
actions and to manipulate them en mass.
Not just Asimov, though he used it most famously and probably most coherently and commonly. The notion of 'mathematical psychology' used to be prevalent in a lot of SF. Heinlein posited it, for ex, as well as mathematicised advertising and political manipulation.
Post by David Johnston
The last couple of stories in Asimov's "I, Robot" were about artificial
intelligences taking over executive authority, despite the crippling
handicaps that the three laws would would inflict on an administrator.
And ultimately he put R. Daneel in charge as the secret ruler of the
galaxy and the true inventor of psychohistory.
Combining the _Caves_ universe and the _Foundation_ was a defensible choice, the stories are more-or-less internally consistent, or at least compatible. You can simply assume that Bailey-era Earth had developed a crude proto-version of psychohistory, but it got lost in the shuffle over the millennia between then and Seldon. (Or maybe by Seldon's time Bailey-level sociology is common, but Seldon took it to orders-of-magnitude higher levels).

But having Daneel running the galaxy behind the scenes, or the silly Seldon novels Asimov wrote in later years, was a ghastly bad choice. To the degree that it makes sense it takes away the point of the Foundation stories, and in many ways the later stories are incompatible with the Foundation trilogy.
J. Clarke
2018-05-12 11:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by David Johnston
Back as far as Homo Sol in 1940 Asimov was writing about the idea of
psychology as a "hard science", using mathematics to predict human
actions and to manipulate them en mass.
Not just Asimov, though he used it most famously and probably most coherently and commonly. The notion of 'mathematical psychology' used to be prevalent in a lot of SF. Heinlein posited it, for ex, as well as mathematicised advertising and political manipulation.
It's promoted a lot in the psychological community too. Statistics is
a big part of the training of a psychologist.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by David Johnston
The last couple of stories in Asimov's "I, Robot" were about artificial
intelligences taking over executive authority, despite the crippling
handicaps that the three laws would would inflict on an administrator.
And ultimately he put R. Daneel in charge as the secret ruler of the
galaxy and the true inventor of psychohistory.
Combining the _Caves_ universe and the _Foundation_ was a defensible choice, the stories are more-or-less internally consistent, or at least compatible. You can simply assume that Bailey-era Earth had developed a crude proto-version of psychohistory, but it got lost in the shuffle over the millennia between then and Seldon. (Or maybe by Seldon's time Bailey-level sociology is common, but Seldon took it to orders-of-magnitude higher levels).
But having Daneel running the galaxy behind the scenes, or the silly Seldon novels Asimov wrote in later years, was a ghastly bad choice. To the degree that it makes sense it takes away the point of the Foundation stories, and in many ways the later stories are incompatible with the Foundation trilogy.
m***@sky.com
2018-05-12 16:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by David Johnston
Back as far as Homo Sol in 1940 Asimov was writing about the idea of
psychology as a "hard science", using mathematics to predict human
actions and to manipulate them en mass.
Not just Asimov, though he used it most famously and probably most coherently and commonly. The notion of 'mathematical psychology' used to be prevalent in a lot of SF. Heinlein posited it, for ex, as well as mathematicised advertising and political manipulation.
It's promoted a lot in the psychological community too. Statistics is
a big part of the training of a psychologist.
(trimmed)
Real life mathematics for psychology is mostly about being able to measure stuff and convince people that your measurements are meaningful. Psycho-History needs something completely different - a predictive ability which today seems at odds with game theory, computational complexity, and chaos theory.

Is C.J.Cherryh's Regenesis (the sequel to Cyteen) the most recent novel to take such long term psychological/sociological prediction seriously?
J. Clarke
2018-05-12 17:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by David Johnston
Back as far as Homo Sol in 1940 Asimov was writing about the idea of
psychology as a "hard science", using mathematics to predict human
actions and to manipulate them en mass.
Not just Asimov, though he used it most famously and probably most coherently and commonly. The notion of 'mathematical psychology' used to be prevalent in a lot of SF. Heinlein posited it, for ex, as well as mathematicised advertising and political manipulation.
It's promoted a lot in the psychological community too. Statistics is
a big part of the training of a psychologist.
(trimmed)
Real life mathematics for psychology is mostly about being able to measure stuff and convince people that your measurements are meaningful.
Which is what physics was until Newton managed to put those
measurements together and come up with a coherent model.
Post by m***@sky.com
Psycho-History needs something completely different - a predictive ability which today seems at odds with game theory, computational complexity, and chaos theory.
Neither computational complexity nor chaos theory preclude predictive
models. In fact chaos theory when you boil it down is pretty much an
attempt to come up with workable solutions for computationally complex
phenomena.
Post by m***@sky.com
Is C.J.Cherryh's Regenesis (the sequel to Cyteen) the most recent novel to take such long term psychological/sociological prediction seriously?
I have no idea. However Jeff Goldblum convincing the public that it
is impossible to model relatively complex systems such as a bunch of
cages and fences in Jurassic Park doesn't have a whole lot to do with
science.
m***@sky.com
2018-05-13 04:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by David Johnston
Back as far as Homo Sol in 1940 Asimov was writing about the idea of
psychology as a "hard science", using mathematics to predict human
actions and to manipulate them en mass.
Not just Asimov, though he used it most famously and probably most coherently and commonly. The notion of 'mathematical psychology' used to be prevalent in a lot of SF. Heinlein posited it, for ex, as well as mathematicised advertising and political manipulation.
It's promoted a lot in the psychological community too. Statistics is
a big part of the training of a psychologist.
(trimmed)
Real life mathematics for psychology is mostly about being able to measure stuff and convince people that your measurements are meaningful.
Which is what physics was until Newton managed to put those
measurements together and come up with a coherent model.
Post by m***@sky.com
Psycho-History needs something completely different - a predictive ability which today seems at odds with game theory, computational complexity, and chaos theory.
Neither computational complexity nor chaos theory preclude predictive
models. In fact chaos theory when you boil it down is pretty much an
attempt to come up with workable solutions for computationally complex
phenomena.
(trimmed)
Computational complexity confirms that some problems are irretrievably complex - many of them artificial but some of them linked with working out optimal strategies. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity. In addition, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem shows an example where there is no sure-fire way of telling whether a program will terminate short of actually running it and waiting to see if it will ever finish - these are examples which show that to predict something you need essentially as much computing power as the original, and that this is likely to be infeasible when the original is an entire civilisation.

One definition of chaos theory is sensitive dependence on initial conditions, so to predict something you need ridiculously precise measurements of these initial conditions.

(And the contribution of game theory is that the best strategy of a player may be to make random choices, which makes it difficult to predict the outcome of a game).
J. Clarke
2018-05-13 04:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by David Johnston
Back as far as Homo Sol in 1940 Asimov was writing about the idea of
psychology as a "hard science", using mathematics to predict human
actions and to manipulate them en mass.
Not just Asimov, though he used it most famously and probably most coherently and commonly. The notion of 'mathematical psychology' used to be prevalent in a lot of SF. Heinlein posited it, for ex, as well as mathematicised advertising and political manipulation.
It's promoted a lot in the psychological community too. Statistics is
a big part of the training of a psychologist.
(trimmed)
Real life mathematics for psychology is mostly about being able to measure stuff and convince people that your measurements are meaningful.
Which is what physics was until Newton managed to put those
measurements together and come up with a coherent model.
Post by m***@sky.com
Psycho-History needs something completely different - a predictive ability which today seems at odds with game theory, computational complexity, and chaos theory.
Neither computational complexity nor chaos theory preclude predictive
models. In fact chaos theory when you boil it down is pretty much an
attempt to come up with workable solutions for computationally complex
phenomena.
(trimmed)
Computational complexity confirms that some problems are irretrievably complex - many of them artificial but some of them linked with working out optimal strategies. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity. In addition, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem shows an example where there is no sure-fire way of telling whether a program will terminate short of actually running it and waiting to see if it will ever finish - these are examples which show that to predict something you need essentially as much computing power as the original, and that this is likely to be infeasible when the original is an entire civilisation.
One definition of chaos theory is sensitive dependence on initial conditions, so to predict something you need ridiculously precise measurements of these initial conditions.
(And the contribution of game theory is that the best strategy of a player may be to make random choices, which makes it difficult to predict the outcome of a game).
Whether the progress of a society is computable is not something ot
which anyone today has an answer. We don't have a good enough
understanding of how societies function.

Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Johnny1A
2018-05-14 04:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by David Johnston
Back as far as Homo Sol in 1940 Asimov was writing about the idea of
psychology as a "hard science", using mathematics to predict human
actions and to manipulate them en mass.
Not just Asimov, though he used it most famously and probably most coherently and commonly. The notion of 'mathematical psychology' used to be prevalent in a lot of SF. Heinlein posited it, for ex, as well as mathematicised advertising and political manipulation.
It's promoted a lot in the psychological community too. Statistics is
a big part of the training of a psychologist.
(trimmed)
Real life mathematics for psychology is mostly about being able to measure stuff and convince people that your measurements are meaningful.
Which is what physics was until Newton managed to put those
measurements together and come up with a coherent model.
Post by m***@sky.com
Psycho-History needs something completely different - a predictive ability which today seems at odds with game theory, computational complexity, and chaos theory.
Neither computational complexity nor chaos theory preclude predictive
models. In fact chaos theory when you boil it down is pretty much an
attempt to come up with workable solutions for computationally complex
phenomena.
(trimmed)
Computational complexity confirms that some problems are irretrievably complex - many of them artificial but some of them linked with working out optimal strategies. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity. In addition, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem shows an example where there is no sure-fire way of telling whether a program will terminate short of actually running it and waiting to see if it will ever finish - these are examples which show that to predict something you need essentially as much computing power as the original, and that this is likely to be infeasible when the original is an entire civilisation.
One definition of chaos theory is sensitive dependence on initial conditions, so to predict something you need ridiculously precise measurements of these initial conditions.
(And the contribution of game theory is that the best strategy of a player may be to make random choices, which makes it difficult to predict the outcome of a game).
Whether the progress of a society is computable is not something ot
which anyone today has an answer. We don't have a good enough
understanding of how societies function.
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
D B Davis
2018-05-14 13:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes, the
Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all recognized the medicinal
properties of salicylate plants millennia ago. Maybe people in the past
aren't as ignorant as Whig History leads us to believe?



Thank you,
--
Don
Kevrob
2018-05-14 14:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
I do tend towards Whiggishness myself, but I consider some things
to be getting better, and others, not so much. I'm willing to
give up some lovely "Old World" things in trade for greater human
liberty, modern medicine, etc.
Post by D B Davis
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
Even before Security Theater, some bemoaned the coarsening of air travel.
That happened when deregulation made average fares much cheaper, and
flying on less expensive carriers or on bargain tickets on the established
ones became competitive with long-distance bus tickets. It made life much
better for many, and inconvenienced a few.
Post by D B Davis
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes, the
Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all recognized the medicinal
properties of salicylate plants millennia ago. Maybe people in the past
aren't as ignorant as Whig History leads us to believe?
This is true, but Industrial Revolution processes made supplying
people with reliable sources and accurate doses was still an improvement.

"Mixed bag," is a more human judgment. The "olden days" didn't have tech
that could create megadeaths, though there was enough retail slaughter.

Kevin R
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-05-14 15:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
And only the upper middle class and rich could fly..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
D B Davis
2018-05-14 15:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
And only the upper middle class and rich could fly..
Here's a list of some airlines self-described as "ultra low cost" along
with the date when they commenced operations:

Southwest Airlines (1971)
Spirit Airlines (1980, as Charter One)
Frontier (1994, in its second iteration)
Allegiant Air (1998)

The TSA started operations in 2001. "Security Theater," in the style
of a prison lockdown, happened shortly afterward.



Thank you,
--
Don
Kevrob
2018-05-14 16:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
And only the upper middle class and rich could fly..
Here's a list of some airlines self-described as "ultra low cost" along
Southwest Airlines (1971)
Spirit Airlines (1980, as Charter One)
Frontier (1994, in its second iteration)
Allegiant Air (1998)
The TSA started operations in 2001. "Security Theater," in the style
of a prison lockdown, happened shortly afterward.
A number of the "low cost" airlines didn't survive, going out
of business or being bought out by other carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_low-cost_airlines

Freddy Laker tried the strategy starting in 1977, which was just
before Alfred E. Kahn and Jimmy Carter got deregulation passed here
in the States.

Kevin R
Quadibloc
2018-05-14 18:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
The TSA started operations in 2001. "Security Theater," in the style
of a prison lockdown, happened shortly afterward.
Something else happened in 2001, so I don't think that the Transportation Safety
Agency should be blamed for it.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-05-15 00:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by D B Davis
The TSA started operations in 2001. "Security Theater," in the style
of a prison lockdown, happened shortly afterward.
Something else happened in 2001, so I don't think that the Transportation Safety
Agency should be blamed for it.
Why not? It doesn't matter _why_ the TSA came into existence, it had
the options of providing actual security or security theater and it
chose security theater.
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Quadibloc
2018-05-15 06:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Why not? It doesn't matter _why_ the TSA came into existence, it had
the options of providing actual security or security theater and it
chose security theater.
Now, that's another question.

I've taken issue with some of what Bruce Schneier has written on this topic. In
a number of cases where he has dismissed measures as "security theater", while
his arguments are valid that they would be ineffective against determined
terrorists with training from _al-Qaeda_, I have felt that he has forgotten that
the attacks of September 11, 2001 have had other consequences.

Even if an exact repeat of that attack is unlikely to succeed, because
passengers now know what to do in such a situation, because of what happened on
that date, such repeats, from random individuals - say a guy who is suicidal
because his girlfriend broke up with him - are now a lot more likely. The
security theater is keeping such attacks from being a routine nuisance factor of
airplane flying, even if they don't knock down any more buildings.

You are right that the TSA has taken the option of doing things that could be
dismissed as security theater. That they, in fact, have the option of providing
actual security (and that they haven't taken it, if they did) is another
question that I'm not so sure is as easily answered in an unequivocal manner.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-05-15 11:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 14 May 2018 23:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why not? It doesn't matter _why_ the TSA came into existence, it had
the options of providing actual security or security theater and it
chose security theater.
Now, that's another question.
I've taken issue with some of what Bruce Schneier has written on this topic. In
a number of cases where he has dismissed measures as "security theater", while
his arguments are valid that they would be ineffective against determined
terrorists with training from _al-Qaeda_, I have felt that he has forgotten that
the attacks of September 11, 2001 have had other consequences.
Even if an exact repeat of that attack is unlikely to succeed, because
passengers now know what to do in such a situation, because of what happened on
that date, such repeats, from random individuals - say a guy who is suicidal
because his girlfriend broke up with him - are now a lot more likely. The
security theater is keeping such attacks from being a routine nuisance factor of
airplane flying, even if they don't knock down any more buildings.
They replaced an occasional minor nuisance with a continuing and major
one. We had hijackings long before Al Quaeda.
Post by Quadibloc
You are right that the TSA has taken the option of doing things that could be
dismissed as security theater. That they, in fact, have the option of providing
actual security (and that they haven't taken it, if they did) is another
question that I'm not so sure is as easily answered in an unequivocal manner.
John Savard
D B Davis
2018-05-15 15:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 14 May 2018 23:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why not? It doesn't matter _why_ the TSA came into existence, it had
the options of providing actual security or security theater and it
chose security theater.
Now, that's another question.
I've taken issue with some of what Bruce Schneier has written on this topic. In
a number of cases where he has dismissed measures as "security theater", while
his arguments are valid that they would be ineffective against determined
terrorists with training from _al-Qaeda_, I have felt that he has forgotten that
the attacks of September 11, 2001 have had other consequences.
Even if an exact repeat of that attack is unlikely to succeed, because
passengers now know what to do in such a situation, because of what happened on
that date, such repeats, from random individuals - say a guy who is suicidal
because his girlfriend broke up with him - are now a lot more likely. The
security theater is keeping such attacks from being a routine nuisance factor of
airplane flying, even if they don't knock down any more buildings.
They replaced an occasional minor nuisance with a continuing and major
one. We had hijackings long before Al Quaeda.
Until this thread Schneier's "security theater" [1] was unknown to me.
He does a great job of differentiating effective security from mere
theatrics.
Schneier also notes that a lot of people, possibly a majority of
people, share John's favorable opinion about the TSA. Irregardless of
its actual merit, TSA security theater simply makes people such as John
/feel/ more secure. Emotion enjoys a synergistic relationship with
political theater.

Note.

1. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/beyond_security.html



Thank you,
--
Don
D B Davis
2018-05-15 16:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 14 May 2018 23:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Why not? It doesn't matter _why_ the TSA came into existence, it had
the options of providing actual security or security theater and it
chose security theater.
Now, that's another question.
I've taken issue with some of what Bruce Schneier has written on this topic. In
a number of cases where he has dismissed measures as "security theater", while
his arguments are valid that they would be ineffective against determined
terrorists with training from _al-Qaeda_, I have felt that he has forgotten that
the attacks of September 11, 2001 have had other consequences.
Even if an exact repeat of that attack is unlikely to succeed, because
passengers now know what to do in such a situation, because of what happened on
that date, such repeats, from random individuals - say a guy who is suicidal
because his girlfriend broke up with him - are now a lot more likely. The
security theater is keeping such attacks from being a routine nuisance factor of
airplane flying, even if they don't knock down any more buildings.
They replaced an occasional minor nuisance with a continuing and major
one. We had hijackings long before Al Quaeda.
Until this thread Schneier's "security theater" [1] was unknown to me.
He does a great job of differentiating effective security from mere
theatrics.
Schneier also notes that a lot of people, possibly a majority of
people, share John's favorable opinion about the TSA. Regardless of its
actual merit, TSA security theater simply makes people such as John
/feel/ more secure. Emotion enjoys a synergistic relationship with
political theater.

Note.

1. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/beyond_security.html



Thank you,
--
Don
Quadibloc
2018-05-16 04:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
They replaced an occasional minor nuisance with a continuing and major
one. We had hijackings long before Al Quaeda.
That is not true. The premature death of an innocent human being is far more major
than some inconvenience and delay in air travel.

As far as I know, the entire U.S. defence budget is not enough money to raise one
man from the dead.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-05-16 23:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:12:14 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
They replaced an occasional minor nuisance with a continuing and major
one. We had hijackings long before Al Quaeda.
That is not true. The premature death of an innocent human being is far more major
than some inconvenience and delay in air travel.
As far as I know, the entire U.S. defence budget is not enough money to raise one
man from the dead.
Hijackings seldom resulted in anyone's death. Bombings are another
story. But there is no evidence that the TSA has actually prevented
anything.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-05-16 23:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 15 May 2018 21:12:14 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
They replaced an occasional minor nuisance with a continuing
and major one. We had hijackings long before Al Quaeda.
That is not true. The premature death of an innocent human being
is far more major than some inconvenience and delay in air
travel.
As far as I know, the entire U.S. defence budget is not enough
money to raise one man from the dead.
Hijackings seldom resulted in anyone's death. Bombings are
another story. But there is no evidence that the TSA has
actually prevented anything.
There's also no evidence they haven't. One of the absolute truths of
intelligence work is that we, the public, never hear about their
successes, only their failures. The lack of evidence isn't evidence.

(I'm inclined to agree that TSA is far more about security theater
than it is about security, having known someone who worked for them -
and also agreed.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Greg Goss
2018-05-14 18:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes, the
Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all recognized the medicinal
properties of salicylate plants millennia ago. Maybe people in the past
aren't as ignorant as Whig History leads us to believe?
the "acetyl" part of it is important. Bayer ran a contest with a
large payment for someone who could make salicylate less harsh on the
stomach. Even as "A"SA, it's still pretty hard on the stomach.

Planes were more comfortable and luxurious, but cost a fortune. I
remember "Jet Set" as a term referring to the ultra rich. Now anyone
employed can afford to fly places. If you pay the same (inflation
adjusted) as in those days, you can still get "jet set" service.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
D B Davis
2018-05-14 20:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes, the
Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all recognized the medicinal
properties of salicylate plants millennia ago. Maybe people in the past
aren't as ignorant as Whig History leads us to believe?
the "acetyl" part of it is important. Bayer ran a contest with a
large payment for someone who could make salicylate less harsh on the
stomach. Even as "A"SA, it's still pretty hard on the stomach.
Planes were more comfortable and luxurious, but cost a fortune. I
remember "Jet Set" as a term referring to the ultra rich. Now anyone
the "acetyl" part of it is important. Bayer ran a contest with a
large payment for someone who could make salicylate less harsh on the
stomach. Even as "A"SA, it's still pretty hard on the stomach.
Planes were more comfortable and luxurious, but cost a fortune. I
remember "Jet Set" as a term referring to the ultra rich. Now anyone
employed can afford to fly places. If you pay the same (inflation
adjusted) as in those days, you can still get "jet set" service.
My Roueche doesn't mention any Bayer contest. It does mention that a
chemist named von Gerhardt discoved acetylsalicylic acid about forty
years before Bayer got interested in it. It also mentions how Bayer's
director of pharmacological research, Heinrich Dreser, named it aspirin
and fathered it, so to speak, into a commercial product.
My _Oxford Dictionary_ defines "jet set" as "wealthy and fashionable
people who travel widely and frequently for pleasure." That definition
just doesn't say "frequent fliers in economy class" /to me/. YMMV.



Thank you,
--
Don
D B Davis
2018-05-14 20:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes, the
Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all recognized the medicinal
properties of salicylate plants millennia ago. Maybe people in the past
aren't as ignorant as Whig History leads us to believe?
the "acetyl" part of it is important. Bayer ran a contest with a
large payment for someone who could make salicylate less harsh on the
stomach. Even as "A"SA, it's still pretty hard on the stomach.
Planes were more comfortable and luxurious, but cost a fortune. I
remember "Jet Set" as a term referring to the ultra rich. Now anyone
the "acetyl" part of it is important. Bayer ran a contest with a
large payment for someone who could make salicylate less harsh on the
stomach. Even as "A"SA, it's still pretty hard on the stomach.
Planes were more comfortable and luxurious, but cost a fortune. I
remember "Jet Set" as a term referring to the ultra rich. Now anyone
employed can afford to fly places. If you pay the same (inflation
adjusted) as in those days, you can still get "jet set" service.
My Roueche doesn't mention any Bayer contest. It does mention that a
chemist named von Gerhardt discoved acetylsalicylic acid about forty
years before Bayer got interested in it. It also mentions how Bayer's
director of pharmacological research, Heinrich Dreser, named it aspirin
and fathered it, so to speak, into a commercial product.
Upon reflection, allow me to restate my thoughts about "jet set."
Back in the day, let's say about 1939, only wealthy people and "dead
heads" (celebrities and other connected people who didn't pay their own
way) flew Pan Am's Clippers. In 1940 United started operating economy
class between Burbank and San Francisco. Passengers crammed like
sardines into a Boeing 247 are simply a world apart from the jet set,
even before jets.



Thank you,
--
Don
D B Davis
2018-05-14 21:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes, the
Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all recognized the medicinal
properties of salicylate plants millennia ago. Maybe people in the past
aren't as ignorant as Whig History leads us to believe?
the "acetyl" part of it is important. Bayer ran a contest with a
large payment for someone who could make salicylate less harsh on the
stomach. Even as "A"SA, it's still pretty hard on the stomach.
Planes were more comfortable and luxurious, but cost a fortune. I
remember "Jet Set" as a term referring to the ultra rich. Now anyone
employed can afford to fly places. If you pay the same (inflation
adjusted) as in those days, you can still get "jet set" service.
My Roueche doesn't mention any Bayer contest. It does mention that a
chemist named von Gerhardt discoved acetylsalicylic acid about forty
years before Bayer got interested in it. It also mentions how Bayer's
director of pharmacological research, Heinrich Dreser, named it aspirin
and fathered it, so to speak, into a commercial product.
Upon reflection, allow me to restate my thoughts about "jet set."
Back in the day, let's say about 1939, only wealthy people and "dead
heads" (celebrities and other connected people who didn't pay their own
way) flew Pan Am's Clippers. In 1940 United started operating economy
class between Burbank and San Francisco. Passengers crammed like
sardines into a Boeing 247 are simply a world apart from the jet set,
even before jets.
BTW - Supersedes are fun!



Thank you,
--
Don
Quadibloc
2018-05-14 18:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
Technology keeps advancing, so a lot of things get better, particularly when you
look at history on a large scale.

But on the short term, things can get worse.

Thus, while technology means we're better fed than people 1000 years ago, and
wealthier and all that, on a shorter time scale... while people in the postwar
boom years of 1948-1968, approximately, were better off than people in the
"Roaring Twenties", *between* those two periods, things went downhill from the
Twenties - first, there was the Great Depression, then there was World War II.

Some things have gone downhill since 1967 due to the recessions and stock market
crashes we've had since then. Our postwar boom has ended. While something as
extreme as the Great Depression was avoided, we have a continuing economic
malaise with high unemployment levels - and no end in sight.

After all, with nuclear weapons, another world war wouldn't be a good idea.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2018-05-14 20:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes, the
Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all recognized the medicinal
properties of salicylate plants millennia ago. Maybe people in the past
aren't as ignorant as Whig History leads us to believe?
How I see it: the problem with a theory that predicts
which people will, for instance, lose all their money
on the stock market, is that once those people learn
about the theory, they don't play along.

(If they understand the theory.)

Which chimes with this:

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is
here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by
something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

"There is another theory which states that this has
already happened."
Dimensional Traveler
2018-05-14 21:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes, the
Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all recognized the medicinal
properties of salicylate plants millennia ago. Maybe people in the past
aren't as ignorant as Whig History leads us to believe?
How I see it: the problem with a theory that predicts
which people will, for instance, lose all their money
on the stock market, is that once those people learn
about the theory, they don't play along.
(If they understand the theory.)
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is
here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by
something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
"There is another theory which states that this has
already happened."
"Several times."
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
m***@sky.com
2018-05-15 04:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by D B Davis
<snip>
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its infancy. A
thousand years from now people are going to laugh at our quaint
beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining such a nonsensical
poosibility. Of course it'll be different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history believes in
Progress! Everything's getting better all the time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane passengers
weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle past a phalanx of
guards to board a plane. Although that may be, you also need to remember
that we didn't have Twitter back then either. So, everything evens out,
right? It keeps getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes, the
Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all recognized the medicinal
properties of salicylate plants millennia ago. Maybe people in the past
aren't as ignorant as Whig History leads us to believe?
How I see it: the problem with a theory that predicts
which people will, for instance, lose all their money
on the stock market, is that once those people learn
about the theory, they don't play along.
(If they understand the theory.)
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is
here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by
something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
"There is another theory which states that this has
already happened."
This is not too far from a proof of the halting problem - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#Proof_concept. Indeed, many people trace these ideas back as far as the liar paradox.
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-05-15 04:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 9:47:58 PM UTC+1, Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by D B Davis
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 11:17:16 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke
<snip>
Post by J. Clarke
Our understanding of just about everything is in its
infancy. A thousand years from now people are going to
laugh at our quaint beliefs.
Or alternatively, laugh at our naivete in even imagining
such a nonsensical poosibility. Of course it'll be
different again a 1000 years after that.
Kevrob knows best, but IIRC the Whig theory of history
believes in Progress! Everything's getting better all the
time.
Any cognitive dissonance along the way is your personal
problem.
You may think that things were better back when airplane
passengers weren't treated as prisoners and made to shuffle
past a phalanx of guards to board a plane. Although that may
be, you also need to remember that we didn't have Twitter
back then either. So, everything evens out, right? It keeps
getting better. (Just keep repeating that to yourself.)
It's hard for me to recall laughing even once at the
people in past.
If anything, the harsh conditions of life back then move me
to pity.
The acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) chapter of _Medical
Detectives_
(Roueche) was just read by me. North American Indian tribes,
the Hottentots of South Africa, and Hippocrates all
recognized the medicinal properties of salicylate plants
millennia ago. Maybe people in the past aren't as ignorant as
Whig History leads us to believe?
How I see it: the problem with a theory that predicts
which people will, for instance, lose all their money
on the stock market, is that once those people learn
about the theory, they don't play along.
(If they understand the theory.)
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is
here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by
something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
"There is another theory which states that this has
already happened."
This is not too far from a proof of the halting problem - see
e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#Proof_concept.
Indeed, many people trace these ideas back as far as the liar
paradox.
In this case, it's a quote from Hichhiker's Guide. I don't think
Adams is really to be taken seriously as a scientific
prognosticator. I doubt he did, either.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2018-05-15 06:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
In this case, it's a quote from Hichhiker's Guide. I don't think
Adams is really to be taken seriously as a scientific
prognosticator. I doubt he did, either.
Or, in this case, as a *stock market tipster*. But that doesn't preclude the
possibility that he may have been right even without expertise.

And the principle that observations of human behavior, when the humans being
observed know about your conclusions *from* those observations, may _change_
future human behavior, especially if such changes have a high probability of
being beneficial to those making them... is a reasonable one.

The claim that the stock market is an "efficient" market, and that it is hard to
predict for that reason, has been made by a number of very reputable economists,
IIRC.

John Savard
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-05-16 01:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You really should stop snipping out what you're replying to,
dumbass. The quote had nothing to do with the stock market. And the
only "right" it would be was that the joke was funny.

Dumbass.
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:15:36 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
In this case, it's a quote from Hichhiker's Guide. I don't
think Adams is really to be taken seriously as a scientific
prognosticator. I doubt he did, either.
Or, in this case, as a *stock market tipster*. But that doesn't
preclude the possibility that he may have been right even
without expertise.
And the principle that observations of human behavior, when the
humans being observed know about your conclusions *from* those
observations, may _change_ future human behavior, especially if
such changes have a high probability of being beneficial to
those making them... is a reasonable one.
The claim that the stock market is an "efficient" market, and
that it is hard to predict for that reason, has been made by a
number of very reputable economists, IIRC.
John Savard
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2018-05-16 04:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
You really should stop snipping out what you're replying to,
dumbass. The quote had nothing to do with the stock market. And the
only "right" it would be was that the joke was funny.
The quote was not intended to have anything to do with the stock market by
Douglas Adams. But the situation it outlined _corresponded_ well to the argument
given of how an efficient market would respond to someone coming up with an
algorithm that predicted the market's previous behavior.

So the fit did not get negated by Douglas Adams' lack of qualifications in the
area...

Or, in other words, you did not read my words right if you thought I was really
saying more than the joke was funny.

John Savard
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-05-16 04:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7:16:46 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
You really should stop snipping out what you're replying to,
dumbass. The quote had nothing to do with the stock market. And
the only "right" it would be was that the joke was funny.
The quote was not intended to have anything to do with the stock
market by Douglas Adams.
Then what the fuck are you jibbering about, dumbass? Apparently you
have no idea, either.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Johnny1A
2018-05-12 05:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
The last couple of stories in Asimov's "I, Robot" were about artificial
intelligences taking over executive authority, despite the crippling
handicaps that the three laws would would inflict on an administrator.
And ultimately he put R. Daneel in charge as the secret ruler of the
galaxy and the true inventor of psychohistory.
The former can be seen as compatible with the Foundation stories, the later is not. For ex, you could easily enough assume that the original AIs on Earth eventually realized that what they were doing just wasn't in humanity's interest, and the First Law forced them to go inert, letting the human race go back on a natural track. Their momentary secret domination would then just be a tiny brief blip in the prehistory of Salvor Hardin and Hober Mallow.

(By the time of the Foundation, even the home star system of humanity is lost in the mists of prehistory, though they still remember the right part of the galaxy, the 'Sirius Sector'.)

But Daneel is the Frankenstein Scenario Asimov originally swore not to write, but ended up writing because he didn't recognize it as Frankenstein Scenario.
Loading...