I’ve been wondering about these issues, too. The (IMO unnecessarily proliferated, but well) holographic helpers of various kinds are clearly pretty sophisticated AIs, and there doesn’t seem to be any great hindrance to having them control robot bodies, so what’s the difference between them and the synths? Is it just that they still have to be connected to some huge ship computer, thus lacking the autonomy of data-type androids?
It just seems kinda incongruous that, on the one hand, the Federation now seems to operate on a general ‘AI bad’ policy, while there’s like five sophisticated AIs running around on Broody Beardguy’s ship alone. What’s the salient difference between synths and holos? Seems like this is something that needs to be addressed.
I’m starting to think what they actually mean is Intelligent Artificial Life and not just Artificial Intelligence per se.
I think that we can agree that one definition of artificial intelligence would probably include sentience and self-awareness, and an ability to learn and to change.
I never watched any of the newer series after Voyager, mind you, but the only holograms of that level that I know of were Moriarty and the Holo-Doc, and both were very much unique if for different reasons. And yet they weren’t even granted the status of personhood despite obviously being sentient and self-aware, and mostly this seems to be because they lack a permanent physical body.
On the other hand, those synths on Mars seemed very basic to me. Their communication skills were at a minimal level and not geared towards even learning how to interact more naturally, and it looks like they were barely more than worker drones, not capable of performing much more than just the work they were created for. If they possessed any self-awareness, it was probably rudimentary at best. And yet their going rogue led to the “ban of AIs”. The one thing they did have that even the most sentient of holograms doesn’t is a real actual body.
So could it be just that? There isn’t just one biological definition of what life is, but many of the common definitions start with the fact that it’s about physical entities. (Sorry, energy beings, we’re totally ignoring you here.)
Wasn’t the Doctor granted personhood after Voyager returned to the Alpha Quadrant? At least in the first time line in which it took 23 years for Voyager to return, he was married and named himself Joe, after his wife’s grandfather. And he had his holographic emitter, which allowed him to move about freely. This timeline was erased by Janeway, however, but it’s reasonable to assume the Doctor’s petition for personhood was granted.
Also, the holographic Las Vegas singer Vic Fontaine was sentient, although his status after Deep Space Nine is unknown.
Who else is assuming that a Giant! Twist! will be that it is not a captain and some look-alike holograms but a hologram and some look-alike holograms? (The hidden is speculation, but could end up becoming a spoiler.)
I noticed how everyone in Cyberpunk City, including the lounge pianist, was rigged for emergency transport to escape at short notice, but not the evil villain.
I’m begininng to suspect I’m the only person on Earth who saw first run TOS eps and who loves this show.
There were a couple of YT presences who i respect who said they loves it at first…but they’ve fallen off and devolved into:
“Character assasination…too obvious…not the Feds i know” BLAHBLAHBLAH
I haven’t seen a GD thing that doesn’t make perfect sense to me. “7 BLAH BLAH BLAH…she ETC ETC ETC”
She was perfectly motivated.
Trying too hard
Too gory
Unnessecery cursing
Yeah, ok…doesn’t bother me, but I get those complaints. But I haven’t seen any major character arcs or changes that don’t make sense.
IF ANNNNNNNYTHINNNNG…the pansy-ass ‘Fed way’ of the end of S1 DISCO or when Archer decided he had crossed a line in ENT and wouldn’t do it again. THOSE are what never made sense.
DS9 (IMHO) struck the right balance. You had a lead who was willing to make and live with hard decisions and the people around him would be sounding boards.