Talk:List of fictional computers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Red Dwarf and Queeg 500 2 Another Question 3 Euclid? 4 Incorporating external list 5 Real computers in fiction 6 Mycroft (Holmes?) 7 Theoretical computers 8 Tron 9 Computers and AIs 10 Slight link correction 11 Non-Intelligent Computers 12 Mature literature 13 Value judgements 14 Computers vs. computer programs 15 Earliest fictional computer 16 Sentient computers 17 Femputer? 18 Nature of Interociter? 19 CABAL 20 Jurassic Park film 21 Missing in action 22 Deep Thought and Earth should be in same category 23 S1m0ne

[edit] Red Dwarf and Queeg 500

I quote: "Holly, and Queeg 500, the on-board computer and back-up computer (respectively) for the space ship Red Dwarf in the BBC television series of the same name. (1988)". Queeg 500 wasnt the backup computer - wasnt it Holly all along? If think this should be reworded. SIGURD42 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Queeg" states this to make the practical joke work, and all characters (and audience) believe it and act as if this were the case. I vote to leave this as-is by taking the view that Queeg is a fictional computer by the standards of the Red Dwarf universe, and a doubly fictional computer by ours. AleatoricConsonance 10:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's only the basis for one episode. By that logic, we should have the talking toaster in here :) It should be removed. Dave420 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many computers that only appear in one single episode of a given television series, such as "Gambit" from Blakes 7, or "Laandru" from Star Trek. Why do you feel that Queeg -- a rather unique example of a metafictional computer -- should be excluded from the list, where the others are not? (And Talkie Toaster appeared in more than one episode of Red Dwarf). AleatoricConsonance 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Question

I was looking at the discussion Talk:List_of_fictional_computers#Computers_vs._computer_programs and it made me question the addition of The Matrix. I breifly browsed The Matrix article, and it commented that the actual Matrix is a artificial reality to pacify humans. In this sense, wouldn't it be a program (though of large scale) rather than an actual computer system. The article as well as the movie itself gives the impression that The Matrix was a huge program, but not a name of an actual and physical system. Pertaining to the movie, the actual system is probally the mass of machine technology, the humans containment centers, and etc. Its a minor problem however, I'm just questioning it. --Deadcore 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• The movies did not define the underlying technology or indeed the exact nature of the Matrix, but it's clearly a computer system of some kind. The List of Fictional Computers is quite broad in its current definition of a 'computer' and includes sophisticated programs that are in some ways indistinguishable from the hardware ... most of these are artificial intelligences, usually with some kind of personality. It's the same with human beings: what is, after all, the difference between your mind and your brain? In a horribly simplistic way, we could argue that one is hardware, one is software, but both are so strongly coupled and interdependant it makes no sense to separate them. It's a good question, but I believe the Matrix should be remain as-is AleatoricConsonance 01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euclid?

Would it be valid to add the "personal" computer named of Maximillian Cohen, the main character in the movie Pi? In the movie, the computer named Euclid is used to test and power Max's theories in mathematics. Judging from the use in the movie, I would say the computer is intended to be powerful. And I can find no reference that there was actually a computer named Euclid. At least not specifically for the fictional story of Pi. The technology of this computer is furthered, when persons from a Wall Street firm present Max with advanced cutting-edge components to intergrated into Euclid. --Deadcore

| I have not seen the movie Pi, but Euclid seems worthy of inclusion to me. AleatoricConsonance 01:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Euclid has been added here --Deadcore 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorporating external list

Re the list of fictional computers: I think we should incorporate this information rather than link to it (yeah, I know, credit etc., but we're talking about a list here). --Eloquence

[edit] Real computers in fiction

Note that "computers in fiction" need not feature fictional computers. For example, a fictional story could use entirely credible real-world computers as a plot element. See Rob Slade's huge list of reviews, linked on the page. -- Anon.

[edit] Mycroft (Holmes?)

Is the computer in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress called "Mycroft Holmes", or just "Mycroft"? —Paul A 06:24, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The computer's actual name is only Mycroft, but it is named after Mycroft Holmes. The name is then shortened to Mike for the majority of the story. I'll fix the entry on the list. McGravin 20:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical computers

I wonder if this list should include theoretical computers like Donald Knuth's MIX. Or maybe there should be an article about that category. ;Bear 15:33, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I guess the Turing Machine would also be relevant in that regard. --Wernher 16:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tron

I don't remember enough about the movie "Tron" to be able to write about it except that it was chock full of patent absurdities. But somebody could add it to this list. ;Bear 21:44, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

[edit] Computers and AIs

That article is a list of fictional computers, so why there are AIs listed there as well, like Wintermute? There is a difference. Two things can be done about this. Those AIs can be removed (or moved to another page), or a disclaimer could be added in the beginning of the article. – Mackeriv 04:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think AIs should be included in this list, with a statement/disclaimer added if desired. After all, this list reflects more the personality (if a machine can be said to have one; but this is sci-fi, so they do) than the hardware. Rossumcapek 23:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Slight link correction

In the Helpful / benevolent fictional computers, there's an entry for The ship, hub and planetary Minds in Iain M. Banks' "Culture" novels and stories.

It incorrectly links to Minds, where it should actually link to Mind_(The_Culture)

[edit] Non-Intelligent Computers

This is just my opinion, but it seems to me non-intelligent computers, which includes the LCARS as far as I know, should really be considered "neutral", even if they are mostly beneficial. After all, they could be turned to malevolent uses, and they wouldn't question it (except in a "Please confirm password" sort of way). What does everyone else think? [User:Daibhid C|Daibhid C]] 23:00 9 Sept 2004 (UTC)

I agree. A computer that can't "think" is simply a tool, like a hammer. And, like a hammer, it can be used for both helpful and harmful means. Chronolegion 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mature literature

Making computers in fiction either good/bad or helpful/harmful/neutral etc. is okay for children's stories and really banal shallow stories but in mature writing there are two problems with this: firstly that hardly anybody is really good or bad, so the anthropomorphic characterisation of the computer is giving the machine a personality which isn't very realistic even in fiction; secondly, in a well crafted mature novel the intentions of a sentient AI computer may well be whole point of the story around which everything revolves and may not necessarily be revealed even at the end of the story.

I think the good/bad classification should be removed and the list replaced with an article which cites these computers as examples of computers in fiction.

--wayland 09:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this. Look at the List of fictional robots and androids article which sorts by medium and date of publication / production. This makes the article into a timeline of the concept and how it has developed over time . Which is much more interesting.Lumos3 21:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thirded. It seems to me that fictional computers in most serious stories tend to be either no more "intelligent" than today's machines (and so incapable of moral decisions) or have an almost completely alien viewpoint (as with HAL). The current "good/bad" division doesn't allow for either of those.

I recategorised the whole list by Media as per the List of fictional robots and androids article. Works in "Unsorted" weren't apparent to me on superficial glance what media they belonged to. The works are now in rough alphabetical order for the interim (I used a script so it's imperfect), but I think that sorting by chronology as per the List of Robots is the best way to go. I simply don't have time to do that right now. Dig in everyone! AleatoricConsonance 14:51, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nice work Lumos3 17:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Just wondering, even though Anne McCaffreys dragon books date from the late 60's, the character of AIVAS wasn't introduced until the late 80's IIRC. Should it be date of appearance, or date of series? I think date of appearance makes more sense. AleatoricConsonance 06:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I use date of first appearance, or alternatively a range from first appearance to last one. Lumos3 09:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The addition of dates is going well and we could contemplate sorting into chronological order soon. Lumos3 09:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Value judgements

Who came up with the idea to divide this list among value judgements, and who is making the determination?

For example, VIKI is listed under "harmful" computers, while HAL 9000 is listed under "neutral" computers. Both machines arrive at their damaging conclusions in similar ways, and both were built as benevolent.

So many science fiction stories deal with the philosophical question of pure or conflicted logic resulting in computer decisions that are done based on benevolent precepts leading to malevolent results. So does this division purport to indicate the intent of computers (most of which would be benevolent) or the acts of computers (most of which would in truth be neutral)?

It's a mess of a question that can only be determined based on POV, and I think the distinctions should be eliminated.

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:26, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computers vs. computer programs

The following are not computers, but computer programs:

• Max Headroom
• Master Control Program
• Joshua

--KeithTyler

You're right. Perhaps marking the pertinent items with "(note: computer program)" might be a suitable solution? After all, people are probably going to end up at this article when searching for this class of 'AI-beings', and I don't think having a separate article on 'Fictional computer programs' is quite the way to go. Or? --Wernher 19:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Joshua IS a computer program like you said, even though it states it is a subprogram of WOPR the fictional computer listed above it. But as I said, you are correct, it is a fictional computer program, not a computer itself. Unless there is a similar article about fictional computer programs to add Joshua to, maybe add it as a worthy mention (note) beside the WORP entry. --Deadcore 23:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earliest fictional computer

If golems and mythic golden statues qualify for the list of fictional robots, then would the Brazen Heads supposedly constructed by Francis Bacon, Albertus Magnus and the Knights Templar to answer any question qualify as fictional computers? Daibhid C 15:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to think of any justification for their inclusion AleatoricConsonance 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentient computers

I created the above page for a discussion of sentient computers in general discussion. Contributions welcome (some computers now appear to have developed already developed the contrariness demonstrated by their fictional counterparts ;).) Jackiespeel 17:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Femputer?

Should femputer from Futurama be included on this list? (It wasn't actually a computer, but a fembot pretending to be a femputer...but since robot brains are esentially computers could it/she still be considered a computer? Ace-o-aces 15:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can justify its inclusion on the same basis as Holly/Queeg above. That's consistant. This list, at this time, does not include robots on the basis of their computer-brains (although the distinction can get blurry). There exists a separate list for robots. AleatoricConsonance 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of Interociter?

I wouldn't call the Interociter from This Island Earth a computer. To me it seems more like a thought amplifier and transceiver. The same goes for the Krell machine in Forbidden Planet. ChrisWinter 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CABAL

I'm sure I read at [1] tha CABAL is Computer Assisted Biologically Argumented Life-form, not what the article reads.

[edit] Jurassic Park film

The film of Jurassic Park includes a remarkable computer which surely fits into this list, but I don’t have enough detail to add it myself. It plays a crucial part in the plot and at one point is identified as "Unix" by the character of the grand-daugher of the creator of the Park, though it seems to be an exotic form of Unix. Coconino 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a real computer - see SGI Crimson

[edit] Missing in action

Asimov hypothesized large, stationary positronic computers before his various "ACs".

His positronic robots should appear.

P1, from The Adolescence of P1.

Bishop from the Aliens series.

Atlant 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Thought and Earth should be in same category

Deep thought and Earth are currently listed under Literature and Radio respectively, but should be in the same category since they come from the same work. While the Radio play came first (Hitchhikers guide ...) the book is now more familiar. Thoughts? I'll put in a cross ref. Chris

[edit] S1m0ne

I think this one should be included, is the one from the Al Pacino Film (Same name)

66.183.108.19 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Müller