Patterns in gender of AIs that "must be destroyed"

[Deset Gled]

What if you inexpertly program the AI to stay 10' behind you at all costs, no matter what, and override its failsafes so that it cannot prioritise any other instruction more highly than that?

Then I programmed the AI to be malicious.

But in my example, you're also missing another big point: who programmed the AI to stab and shoot? I didn't; the AI invented that on it's own.

No one programmed HAL to murder or taught him how to kill. He invented his methods of murder on his own. Dave and Frank did not accidentally end up outside the ship. HAL sent them there, manipulating them with lies, foresight, and premeditation. That's a big part of what makes him evil.

Is it still at fault if it cuts through someone to keep its position? Or are you?

Not really relevant, but: both. Fault is not a finite resource.

 

[Tonguez]

I disagree from a technological standpoint. That's not how computers or AI work.

But that doesn't really matter, because the scenarios you are trying to paint aren't at all what happened in 2001. Nobody programmed HAL to murder. They just told him to complete a mission and keep it secret. The homicide solution was an idea that he came up with all by his evil self.

If I tell an AI robot to stay on the grass but also follow 10' behind me, it's understandable that it will have some problems following directions when I cross the street. But if the AI's solution is to stab the crossing guard and shoot every car that gets between me and the robot as it tries to follow my instructions, it's a psycho evil AI.

Generally the horror aspect of such mad AI’s is not that theyre actions are abberant but rather that they are ‘logical conclusion’ of an intelligence without a sense of moral judgement. HAL didnt need to be programmed to murder, its just that its advanced programming found the most efficient solution to its dilemma.

of course in some cases the stories do pose the question of whether that acting without morality is what defines Evil

 

[Deset Gled]

of course in some cases the stories do pose the question of whether that acting without morality is what defines Evil

To clarify further, my thesis is specifically that HAL was malicious. Please feel free to replace every time I say "evil" with "malicious" to avoid going down the rabbit hole of exactly what evil means.

 

[tetrasodium]

But did it do so with malicious intent, or just criminal incompetence?

There are plenty of shows where the AI gives plenty of badmouthing about the human species, indicating that it is killing them with malicious intent. Basically the same thing that defines a hate crime from ambivalent crime.

HAL didn't seem to have a hate-on for humans. But there does seem to be a gaping hole in its training or design that it can't prioritize human life over concerns like "keep it secret"

What would HAL have done if it saw a scientist whisper the secret to the main crew?
This would be akin to NASA launching a psychopath to the ISS and murder ensuing.
Who approve HAL without psych testing to ensure weird stuff like this wouldn't happen?

Wrt your first question, an ai like hal is not capable of either. As to the AI in those "plenty of shows" you cited, they all indicate either programmed conditions like a door sensor beeping when someone passes or that the ai is advancing to some degree into being an artificial consciousness. The distinction exists for the very sorts of questions & litmus tests you keep asking about but for some reason you seem incapable of accepting the distinction.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If I understood it correctly, the reason they had a female voice for the warning-systems on airplanes was that it was something the pilots would pay more attention to.

Wikipedia article: Bitching Betty - Wikipedia

Yep ... same is true on the M1A2 SEP tank, MILES II gear, and other non-aviation applications.

Both men & women respond better to female voices. For tankers -- before we had women in tank battalions -- the voice would obviously stand out as well, but there's still benefit now that we have female tankers.

(Though I'll admit, back when in an all-male unit, I had a massive crush on Hammer 2 X-ray, the night RTO on the brigade intel net. Never met her, but she had the best voice to help you feel safe when in bad-guyu country.)

 

[Bohandas]

I really don't see why an AI should be "male" or "female".

That goes double for rogue AIs that don't like humans and/or don't like life in general.

That was one thing that always bothered me about the Lord of Blades in Eberron.

 

[tetrasodium]

I really don't see why an AI should be "male" or "female".

That goes double for rogue AIs that don't like humans and/or don't like life in general.

That was one thing that always bothered me about the Lord of Blades in Eberron.

Warforge have consciousness and some lore shadowing that hints at possible reasons why most have a gender, also there is linguistic awkwardness thst goes with agender

 

[tardigrade]

I really don't see why an AI should be "male" or "female".

That goes double for rogue AIs that don't like humans and/or don't like life in general.

That was one thing that always bothered me about the Lord of Blades in Eberron.

Although I can completely see this point, the original question was more whether, given that AIs are often gender-coded in fiction, whether patterns exist in how they are coded. For what it's worth some of my favourite AIs in fiction are the ones in Iain M Banks' Culture series, and I don't recall any of them being gender-coded at all.

(If they do ever film those though, I have a suspicion the director will be unable to resist some gender coding in their representation)

 

[Wishbone]

Warforge have consciousness and some lore shadowing that hints at possible reasons why most have a gender, also there is linguistic awkwardness thst goes with agender

Using they/them pronouns among other non-binary options is pretty straightforward.

 

[Eltab]

Using they/them pronouns among other non-binary options is pretty straightforward.

Using "it" would indicate denial that Warforged are persons - which would set up the conflict for the session with one word.