Freefall

Still creepy how some of those questions are answered correctly.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Human beings do a good job at abstraction, Google is good for searching key phrases, and an answer often comes from shared experience.

We don't know what experiences we've shared. I've seen questions like "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl, but with a Robot Buddy" get answered correctly, within a few posts, even. It often seems like the person answering the question doesn't even entertain the dozens and possibly hundred of other stories that fit the OP's abstraction applying to this situation.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

How to optimize the search through solution space is a fascinating area of research. I wish I had a nice introductory web site for it.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I once found a YouTube copy of a commercial that a friend was wondering about based on a two-word phrase, and one that I remembered from a particularly well-written trope entry (for the record, the trope was Side Effects Include..., and the commercial in question was an E-Trade ad parodying the trope). If there's anything I've learned in my decade-plus of troping, it's to never underestimate just how much useless information a troper can retain and then repeat.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

Well, research has shown that we basically organize our long term memory by means of shared emotional associations. To remember a long forgotten bit of trivia, it is most useful to recall how it made you feel, which are more likely to be attached to some semi-random vivid visual impression than anything else. An objectively correct description of the item itself is less likely to be helpful.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Ok, now I can see the appeal.◊

Makes sense. I know I distinctly remember a passage from the French translation of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz because I stumbled on one word when I first read it.

That's how I know for sure the water Dorothy threw at the witch was from a pitcher^note or whatever the actual English word was; the french word "broc" was the one I stumbled on on a nearby table rather than an inexplicably present bucket.

Edit: Thinking of it, the bucket's presence would have been explained in the book, since the Witch enslaved Dorothy and had her do chores...

Edited by Medinoc on Oct 5th 2018 at 10:02:54 AM

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Huh. Given Clippy has shown robots can find ways for people to make money, I'm surprised she refused Sam◊. Maybe this one just couldn't find an ethical way to get Sam money, and also get him to keep it.

Alternately, she may be considering Sam as a non-human. Reducing his debt helps his human debtors. Making him rich would instead involve him removing money from humans...

It was Sam that refused, not the AI.

Not that I'm surprised at the offer that Sam rejected. Given Sam's finances the AI maybe didn't feel like taking on Sisyphus as a role model.

Edited by Nohbody on Oct 7th 2018 at 2:47:00 PM

All your safe space are belong to Trump

It was the AI who rejected making Sam rich, and only agreed to reduce his debts. This is what Sam refused.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

And Sam is of the mindset where, if you owe someone a small sum of money, they have control over you. But if you owe someone a huge sum of money, you have control over them.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

Did the AI reject making Sam rich, or just decide it was impossible?

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

It said he cannot do it, but it can be that he is simply not allowed to (or against its principles), which is practically the same as rejecting.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

With the ellipsis immediately after Sam's "make me rich" question, I read it as the AI thinking about it, but deciding that it wasn't possible so it tried to offer a more plausible goal.

All your safe space are belong to Trump

Agreed.

I don't have anything witty to say about it, but here's the next strip◊.

For once, I wholeheartedly agree with Sam. About the lenders, not the adventure.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

In retrospect, it wouldn't surprise me if AIs were deliberately kept from being able to make someone fantastically wealthy very recently as a measure to prevent anyone from trying what Kornada tried.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

There was also the incident Ishiguro referenced, which almost resulted in an Eat the Rich scenario.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Or "A Logic Named Joe" by Murray Leinster which had a helpful A.I. helping people in all sorts of endeavors from get-rich-schemes to how to get away with robbing a bank to how to kill your wife off without leaving evidence.

Ah yes, the 1946 short story that predicted Google.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Both◊

Both is good.◊

Wait... Sam said he knew about things like radioactive isotopes. How would he have learned that without knowing about the radiation sign? For that matter, given how he can't be kept out of anywhere, how has he never encountered it before?

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

It's also that he can share the information with the community on the whole and somebody in there will be scientific enough to start mucking about with things. He can't make a nuke, but he can destabilize the scientific path of their civilization and set it off in the dangerous direction.