ChestbursterMember935 XPOct-13-2017 2:42 AMRidley Scott has said that the sequel to Alien: Covenant will focus on David and the AI-problem. In his Alien-films, as well as in Bladerunner, perhaps his main interest has been on what would happen if a synthetic, superior to man in every aspect, would take over and refuse to serve man?
“The Big Three” in science fiction writing were: Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke. Heinlein wrote a short story called “The Space Jockey” (!), Clarke the famous “2001: A Space Odyssey”, but Asimov came up with the interesting “The Three Laws of Robotics”:
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
These were later on complemented with:
- A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
David doesn’t have these inhibitions programmed into him, whereas the later model Walter has. Interestingly, a synthetic later on developed by Weyland-Yutani, Ash, lacks them again, and an even later model, Bishop, has these laws programmed into him once again by WY.
How do you interpret this? Were David and Ash deliberately programmed not to have these inhibitions because of the agenda of finding a biological weapon? Walter had another agenda which was to successfully carry through WY:s colonisation mission? Bishop, on the other hand, was “kind”, served and helped but WY:s purpose was probably to make Ripley and the others trust the company?
ChestbursterMember528 XPOct-13-2017 7:01 AMI noticed this a couple of times now. In BR, as far as I'm aware, Replicants are in vitro bred, genetically modified humans. Who try to break free of their slavery and are therefor hunted.
IMO, although given a conditioning and fake memories, they hardly qualify as AIs.
Eine Theorie die nicht auf Etwas solidem basiert ist für gewöhnlich nur Geschwätz.
ChestbursterMember839 XPOct-13-2017 9:03 AMWell, I think Ash is a drone sent in by the company, so yeah his lack of servitude to humans is on purpose. That is at a least what I gather from Alien.
Interesting question with Bishop! I mean, from the movie, I believe that Bishop was meant to be a, "proper," synthetic. Aliens" Colonial Marines (as far as I remember) made it clear that some company people were responsible for the egg on board and how all that went done. So, I think Bishop was honestly built and programmed to be a nice, good synthetic.
Not a map, an invitation
ChestbursterMember528 XPOct-13-2017 11:10 AMAccording to A:BH Bishop was different since his activation, a flaw in the production line and got spared from scrapping.
Before he joined the Sulaco crew he was part of another Marine/Security team (don't remember exactly) and ignored/bend an direct order to abandom hostages. Instead he went and saved them. Right after he joined Apone's team.
Eine Theorie die nicht auf Etwas solidem basiert ist für gewöhnlich nur Geschwätz.
ChestbursterMember839 XPOct-13-2017 12:37 PMInteresting, Tiwaz. So, it seems that Bishop was made to be a proper synthetic, but turned out better. I suppose his actions that day followed rule #2 of the three laws of robotics. So, yes a good synthetic person indeed! Of course all that got him was nearly being scrapped!
Not a map, an invitation
