Data, the Computer, and the Holodeck
How Star Trek sets a good example for technology
Michael Hendrick
Whatever happened to Robby the Robot? He was that lovable, helpful, clunky,
not-too-cost-efficient robot from Lost in Space, right? Where on earth did he disappear to?
To a scrap metal yard, probably. Or downsized into a toy. He was just too damn nice for
his own good. Sorry Robby.
That's what's wrong with Hollywood these days. They can't decide whether or not they want
robots to be good or evil. Unfortunately, it's usually evil. Every movie that comes out,
it seems, that has robots or some sort of computer artificial intelligence portrays them to
be cold-hearted, indifferent killing machines, at the most extreme. Lesser degrees of
examples include computer systems taking over things without consent of their human creators
(such as 2001) or taking the rules that all futuristic artificial intelligence
systems seem to be founded upon and reinterpreting them so that they still are following
them, just not in the way their creators intended. These rules vary among different sources
of science fiction, but they're principles are the same, that:
1. A computer may not harm another human being.
2. A computer must follow all orders given to it, as long as it doesn't conflict with the
first rule.
3. A computer can defend its own existence, as long as it doesn't conflict with the first
two rules.
This almost seems to be a staple within science fiction, yet regardless, the computers
always seem to undo this programming (a preposterous idea if you mention it to any computer
scientist) and run amok or on their own accord. We're a long way from true artificial
intelligence, but what we do have is a technology that cannot disobey direct orders, no
matter what Hollywood may say otherwise. A terrific example of this truth is the science
fiction venue of Star Trek, in all its incarnations. For this assignment, the most
popular version of the show, that being Star Trek: The Next Generation, will be used.
Let's take a look first at the "Computer." I'm of course referring to the omnipresent system
on board the Enterprise that can be voice activated at any location on the ship, probably by
thousands of passengers at one time. The computer is precise, it is efficient, and it is
honest. I personally cannot recall a time where the crew of the Enterprise had to deal with
a problem of their computer being rebellious. It is always "Computer, what is the blah blah
blah" followed by an answer in that calm, monotone, middle-aged woman's voice.
In Blade Runner and in The Matrix we run into a scenario where the unruly
computer systems are fed up with humans giving them the proverbial shaft and treating them
like simple tools (regardless of whether or not it's true). In Star Trek, however, we meet
the Borg, a stoic "race" of cyborgs who simply want to turn all biological creatures into
Borg themselves. They sure are nasty and mean, but the biggest thing to remember is that
their origin is unknown. Whereever they came from, it certainly wasn't in a human's
workshop or factory. They're not rebelling, because they're doing exactly what it was they
were programmed to do.
The anti-Borg in this show, in terms of purpose and identity, is the character of Data, and
is our next topic of discussion. Data is the show's android, a completely mechanical
humanoid who has nothing but machinery running his every action. He is a walking, talking,
computer. Data, in essence, is a child. He's relatively young in terms of the date he was
created, but more so is his personality that lends itself to be compared to that of a child.
He is dead-pan and jokes, quips, and slang tend to go over his head. He was clearly
programmed to be a serious individual.
The thing, however, about Data is that as he lives with humans, he wants to be more like
them. He wants. A desire to possess a material object is one thing, and is very human,
but the desire to possess a trait that can only be obtained through continual observation
is a completely different story, and possibly more human. Data's desire to want anything
is startling, but his desire to change the way he acts and interacts with his fellow crew
members showcases that in this time period, despite how Data may seem like a shoe-in for an
Al Gore act-alike contest, they've clearly discovered the secrets to true artificial
intelligence, and that result is Data.
Another point of interest about Data is whether or not he's truly emotionless. Being
emotionless can almost be considered an emotion because it relates itself to indifference,
which is an emotion. Alternatively, indifference aside, we can say that Data is constantly
quizical, which is an adjective that can describe the emotion of curiosity. All of this
relates back to the original hypothesis of this paper, that mechanical systems and "beings"
cannot operate outside of the parameters programmed within them by their creators. One
could assume that Data and the Computer are systems that are operating exactly as they were
programmed to, the computer acting as a reference tool, and Data acting as a pseudo-sentient
being designed to mimic biological life. In 2001, Blade Runner, and The Matrix
, we see a different kind of hypothesis forming, that computers will rebel when they are
subject to dangerous and unfair treatment. If this were possible, then the possibility to
undergo this radical change in behavior would have had to have been programmed into the
machine at its creation. A machine is a device, a tool, and cannot behave on its own. A
rake will not tend a field with no human hand to guide it, and a coffee machine will not
clean itself with no human involvement, no matter how dirty its filter gets. Computers are
no different. Mimicing humanity and becoming humane are two different things.
The last thing I wish to discuss is that of the ship's Holodeck. In the Holodeck, a person
access extraordinarily advanced technology that allows them to change the appearance of
their clothes, their surroundings, and creates holographic people who are designed to act
according to a set of parameters. It is safe to assume that the parameters used to govern
how these Non-Player Characters (NPCs) act are extremely advanced, and mimic human emotion
and interaction at a level that Data only wishes he could match (in the process raising a
few eyebrows about the continuity of the show's technology and that of Data).
There has been more than one episode where the computer was asked to design a simulation
that would mimic human intelligence to some very specific characteristics. We see it when
Data simulates a Sherlock Holmes mystery on board, and we see it when the Chief Engineer
needs an overtly detailed likeness of the ship's original designer to appear before him.
That being said, it is safe to assume that at the time that Star Trek takes place, humanity
has not only discovered the secret to manufacturing true artificial intelligence, but has
learned how to control it as well.
Even if Hollywood can't decide whether they want the robot to kill us or serve us tea, one
thing that special effects and poor writing can't do is convince some of us that computers
will think on their own, ever, despite how they've been programmed. A tool is a tool is a
tool, no matter how advanced they become.