People are now working on making and visiting complete worlds, not just sequels.
I believe it's similar to how our songs are getting longer and longer, too- it's not unusual to hear a song that goes on for 20 minutes, now. In fact, we just call it a "mix," and it's a big long stream of music, with a little of this, a little of that, mixed in for funn.
People feel attached to these worlds, and they wonder about these characters. They don't want to be hit with a brand new world everyday. Rather, they like a particular world, and they want to see it carried out further.
Also, they want it on multiple senses. They want to read it in book format, they want to play it as a video game, as a role playing game, they want to see it as a movie, they want to keep up with it as a TV show. All these things that people want to do.
People want to know the side stories, feel out the nooks and crannies of the complexities.
This is Slashdot, so I should mention that there are implications for Free Software game developers:network your worlds. Make a Tetris game that celebrates a theme from a constructed world that some tabletop gamers articulated in detail. Fetch fanfic authors to create stories based in this world. Get an existing RPG engine, and see if you can make a short game out of one of those authors' stories. See if an illustrator won't do an illustration of a major scene. We can have whole worlds, not just isolated projects.
[0066] After steps 575 or 585, the routine continues to step 595 to determine whether to continue, and if not continues to step 599 and ends. If it was instead determined in step 595 to continue, or in step 520 that the WS consumer registration was not successful, or in step 535 that the WS use request was not accepted, or in step 565 that any needed payment was not received, the routine returns to step 505.
We stopped using line numbers waaaay long time ago. That's so old-school.
They need to write their patents in, at the very least, C or Pascal.
I think the best way to understand it would be to draw a map of scale next to the article. "Here's the type of things that live at this part of the scale."
The things people put online and the security of certain systems is mind-boggling.
Eh...
Not so scary, really.
I figure the man already has my street address and phone number and stuff. What's the big deal?
People are always telling me: "You are putting your info online! You are gunna be in big trouble, Mister!"
I chalk it up to Vanity Fear. "I'm so important/beautiful, my powerful enemies/obsessive stalkers can't have my (street address, phone number, email address.)"
Philip Greenspun has had his cell phone number online for at least a decade. He's almost certainly more powerful than you are. And let's not even begin with his enemies. And yet he reports only getting 1 or 2 annoying calls.
I suffered serious depression for about 4 years of my life. Crimped up on the bathroom floor for hours, crying my eyes out, dreaming up ways to kill myself type of depression. Depression that just: doesn't, go, away. I grew up in similar circumstance: middle-class family, awesome parents and sibling, blessed with intelligence, great health, decent looks. Spot on, all of them.
Where we part is that I got out of the depression, and you did not.
It wasn't something that happened in a day, it was something that happened slowly, with time, brick by brick. It was completely wrapped up in the process of making a model about life, what I was doing, figuring out what I believed in, making a map of what I understood. It involved a lot of experimentation and thinking, regularly in dangerous paths.
As someone who doesn't know you, doesn't want to offend you, and can't take on your load, I can only communicate so much:
I believe you are on the right path. Keep struggling, keep fighting. You live in a messed up society. Establish a rock solid secure base in your mind. If someone says something bad about you, it can't penetrate that far. Then gain ground over your mind and your self-perception. (If this makes any sense.) Start at your core, then reach out, into the details of your life. You'll have to renegotiate relationships with people around you, eventually.
I would take up introspection, meditation, and keeping a journal. Focus on anything that centers you on love, or whatever imaginably pure substance you can think up.
I know that hoards of people suffer depression. I've been depressed. I know how common it is. I see perfectly happy looking people, but their language and assumptions reflect negative outlook. Even though they fit in perfectly. I know that, back home, in their chair or bed, they're thinking different things.
Keep fighting, stay alive.
This is the solution that I know.
I think I've stumbled across another reasons why I distrust the drugs. Because people take the drugs, and show happiness, but the negative assumptions and viewpoints are still there. Nothing changes. But when I see people overcome depression by way of personal change, I always see the negative assumptions and viewpoints change.
Almost all of the success books I've read have argued that self-esteem and wishing are necessary pre-conditions for change.
The argument is that you go from hopelessness, to hope (wishing,) to figuring out how to do it, to faith that you're on the track.
So, if this is true then, the problem isn't that people are taught to have self-esteem, and the problem isn't that people are taught to wish; The problem is that people aren't taught (in school) the overarching plan (hopeless to hope to planning to faith to success): they aren't being taught how to take it to the next level.
The thing to do then, I would think, is not to argue against promoting self-esteem and wishing. On the contrary, it should be continued and encouraged. But it needs to be taken to the next level: Teaching planning forward, and trusting yourself to follow those plans, and trusting that those plans will work.
In the day by day battle, it's a matter of path A or path B. People who don't trust themselves enough to follow path A, will take the immediate gratification of path B.
I have a hard time understanding people who think that kids shouldn't have self-esteem though. Most everybody should have self-esteem. I think it's the basis of any social justice or personal gain.
For evidence, look at the self-esteem of the poor vs. the self-esteem of the wealthy.
Next, there's depression. The thing you are supposed to do with depression, (well, what worked for me,) is you're supposed to turn it into a motivator, a positive force. "Hey! There are real problems, in my life, in the world. I can't keep running away from this."
Drugs are running away from it.
Sadly, depression can become a very real, very mechanical, trap. That makes the case for depression drugs ambiguous.
We have a fucked up pseudoscience called "psychology," vs. a drug that will work. Society chooses the drug. We must exercise extreme caution, though, as I see it.
The theory is that people take the drug in order to not be so depressed that they can't analyze their own personal problems. Once they are not feeling so blue, they're supposed to solve the problems, and aspire to get out of the use of the drug.
Unfortunately, this theory is bogus. What we are seeing is that most people, they just get comfortable using the drug. Their minds rationalize it, then: "My brain was just messed up." They use the drugs for years and years and years, nary a diary entry, introspective moment, or conversation with friends.
This is not to mention: Many problems are how we work as a society. Different cultures don't have the same depression problem we do. Many people "give up." Those who don't, they work for social justice.
A general attitude of "Giving up" is a sign of depression. It seems to em that our society is depressed, then, since it has, for the most part, given up: "Social justice" is a bad word, and it means "imposition" to mots people. I think that's a bad sign.
We are not entitled to a fair world. But we'd be giving up, if we didn't strive to make one.
Concern: If we drug or electrically stimulate ourselves to keep ourselves happy, social progress comes to a halt. We feel good about ourselves, even though horrible things happen around us.
Here is a bibliography kept by AdBusters. I'm not sure how reliable a bibliography kept by AdBusters is, but these are things that we should be thinking about, and research that we should at least consider.
The reason they work harder, is because they must. There is no upward mobility outside of taking the right tests. None. That's why they work so hard: Those are the rules of the game, and everyone knows it.
Out here? It's different. You can work hard and make money, regardless of your high school grades. Skill up and get a boring job as a DB admin or mortgage financer or whatever. Plenty of books out there on how to do it.
This is not to betray real poverty and wage slavery.
I'm just saying: This is the reason they work so hard over there. Because it's the only way out, and they know it. I don't think it's "oriental culture magic" or anything like that. I think it's just plain force of consequences.
Their intent was never to be a currency. Just mnemonics.
If you are buying up names because you think they'll be valuable later on, you're doing something dumb. The names system doesn't owe you anything. You aren't owed a profit on names.
Nah- those devices aren't sitting behind proprietary interfaces. Somebody will write a device driver for it.
"If it's in the computers, it's just some program.
on
Innovation Getting Slower?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think that- any innovation that works inside a computer, he'll just call it a "minor innovation."
So, if we write code that can quickly automatically reconstruct 3D models from video footage, and put it into every computer, it'll be "just another computer program."
If we write really smart translation systems, and hook it up to speech-to-text and text-to-speech, it'll be "just another computer program."
Make any machine, but make it run inside a computer, and it'll be "just another computer program."
Just a minor innovation.
But I don't think we can afford to think of things that way.
These are really big innovations. Just taking an existing innovation, and just putting it into everybody's hands: should count for something.
But I think people are fooled, because they just see a geek and a computer. "Oh, nothing new. He's still sitting in his chair at his computer."
root nameservers are controlled by the private companies that host them (NASA, VeriSign, Cogent, US DoD,...)
ICANN keeps the official registry of names; the private companies with the nameservers decides to go along with ICANN's registry, but is not legally required to do so
ICANN has one root name server, but only one
the private companies have, in the past, rebuked ICANN - in particular, ICANN asked them to install specific private keys and to be granted root access; the companies said (basically) to take a hike
Country-coded TLD's are not managed by ICANN; somebody else does that. (yes..?)
This is just my understanding of the situation, and it probably has errors. That said, I've not once seen a good plain language explanation of how this all works, and what the actual powers and obligations are. This is my understanding of what an IETF regular told me.
Neither the US or ICANN actually determines what goes into the root name servers: It's just by convenience and general agreement (but not obligation) that the root nameservers decide to humour ICANN, and let them maintain the list of names. There is no law or contract that says they have to do anything that ICANN says.
Congress doesn't control this, and never did, if I understand right.
Please correct my understanding; I'm sure at least some of this is wrong.
I've heard that the root name servers are privately owned, and that they just let ICANN take care of the names and what not for them.
But my understanding was that they don't have to follow ICANN. They just let ICANN do it's thing because they're not in the business of keeping track of names.
I heard about a case where ICANN told the root name server maintainers to install specific private keys- to basically hand over all control of the name servers to ICANN. And the root name server maintainers basically told them to take a hike.
It's possible, and I understand where you're coming from, but: I'm not so sure. I think a lot of it has to do with just seeing machines being made smaller and smaller.
Artificial Intelligence: I don't think it's really all that magical- We haven't encountered any verifiable theoretical limits. There's a lot of good thinking about how things will work out, and it's not really all that implausible. It's just a matter of doing it.
Whereas for FTL, we have clear theoretical limits that have a lot of solid physics experiments backing it up. It's not just an engineering hurdle, which was the situation with the speed of sound- it is a law of physics hurdle, and a very basic hurdle at that. There aren't a lot of "moving parts" at work here, as there were in refutations of the idea that something could go faster than the speed of sound.
But AI? Nah: We haven't found any such theoretical limits. If anything, it seems like total brute force- manually simulating neurons, will be workable.
I disagree that we haven't seen results from AI: We keep seeing computers doing more and more impressive things, taking on more complex tasks, in all sorts of fields. By networking all of the different capabilities, we'll probably experience our first AI's. Vision processing and analysis done by a server over here, navigation processing done by a server over there, human interaction by this server over there, storage and caching of software and data done by flow control moderators, anticipation and route exploration done by still other software- they'll just keep adding and adding capabilities to the network, and the software will just continue to get more and more creative and interesting.
Really, it seems like a pretty clear path, to me. There will come a point where we all just collectively train the bots. When robots do things wrong, we'll tell them how to do things right. The robot will upload what it learned to Internet servers, and then will download all the things the other robots learned as well. We will train the robots so that they are useful, and exhibit learned common sense. The things learned will be generalized so that not every robot has to learn these things.
In their off-time, they'll explore alternative possibile routes, and will run simulations about how they would work out, the kinds of dangers that might arise, all sorts of stuff. They'll feed the results of their thinking into major databases, which will interpret and distribute, and train robots in new paths.
Really, I don't think what I've described is very complicated, it just requires time.
It's nothing like FTL, which would require an amazing miracle.
...so there could also be a strict rule that all AI systems must speak only in natural language, even to each other.
It sounds to me more like a plot device, then something that we will actually do.
Robots most likely will be controlled by remote intelligences, and I'm having a hard time imagining that we won't want to let the communicate over the Internet.
We might try to limit how "creative" they get in their solutions to problems, but,...
On a different note:
I don't really believe in slavery. I am happy that our children will be smarter than us.
We will self-augment, for a time, but eventually, we may just have to hand it to them, our beloved. Or beceome them.
By that time, we should be used to treating the intelligences as partners, friends. They'll have served us so well, we will have good memories of our times with them.
Cory Doctorow wrote a neat story: I, Robot. If you have the time, you might want to check it out.
If you study current technology trends, you can make some fairly realistic guesses about what will happen, and what will not happen.
Unlikely within 100 years: Faster than Light Travel. Terraforming.
Likely within 100 years: Augmented Reality, followed by Virtual Reality. Extremely powerful computers. Extremely capable robots. Artificial intelligence. Social upheval.
An example of "mundane" science-fiction consideration: Robots aren't going to be "their own people." Rather, they would be the appendages of intelligences existing on the Internet, inside of buildings, inside server farms. A "robot" intelligence lives in the walls, surfs the web easier than you or I, and inhabits any bodies it has access to around you.
When an intelligence must go to a hostile environment with unsecured communications channels, that is when it will enter a body, and work like R2D2 or C3PO. But it will be more like the intelligence budding off a small version of itself: It'll still be churning away, doing things at home, while a small fragment of it's intelligence and data will walk away with you in a body.
Science Fiction is currently undergoing a rectification of possibilities as we think more carefully about deep Cybernetics (communications and control systems, not bionic arms) and what it all means for us.
The new "mundane" science fiction will feel cooler, better, more interesting, because it will be relevant and, in the words of Warren Ellis, it will make you Feel.
Because: You're going to be looking at your own future, and you're going to be thinking: "Oh shit, what's going to happen?" And these "mundanes" are the guys and gals who are going to be the ones who have some plausible answers.
The FTL crowd may seem interesting right now, but just give it another 10 years...
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody denies that games cause people to feel about the worlds they participate in.
People are now working on making and visiting complete worlds, not just sequels.
I believe it's similar to how our songs are getting longer and longer, too- it's not unusual to hear a song that goes on for 20 minutes, now. In fact, we just call it a "mix," and it's a big long stream of music, with a little of this, a little of that, mixed in for funn.
People feel attached to these worlds, and they wonder about these characters. They don't want to be hit with a brand new world everyday. Rather, they like a particular world, and they want to see it carried out further.
Also, they want it on multiple senses. They want to read it in book format, they want to play it as a video game, as a role playing game, they want to see it as a movie, they want to keep up with it as a TV show. All these things that people want to do.
People want to know the side stories, feel out the nooks and crannies of the complexities.
This is Slashdot, so I should mention that there are implications for Free Software game developers: network your worlds. Make a Tetris game that celebrates a theme from a constructed world that some tabletop gamers articulated in detail. Fetch fanfic authors to create stories based in this world. Get an existing RPG engine, and see if you can make a short game out of one of those authors' stories. See if an illustrator won't do an illustration of a major scene. We can have whole worlds, not just isolated projects.
We stopped using line numbers waaaay long time ago. That's so old-school.
They need to write their patents in, at the very least, C or Pascal.
ASM code should be forbidden.
I think the best way to understand it would be to draw a map of scale next to the article. "Here's the type of things that live at this part of the scale."
I get it; ok.
So, you're saying, that showing real sex acts is worse than showing real super-violent acts? ...which would,... just be affirming the parents post?
Some do-gooders just help little old ladys cross the street.
Not exactly something we want to ridicule.
The things people put online and the security of certain systems is mind-boggling.
Eh...
Not so scary, really.
I figure the man already has my street address and phone number and stuff. What's the big deal?
People are always telling me: "You are putting your info online! You are gunna be in big trouble, Mister!"
I chalk it up to Vanity Fear. "I'm so important/beautiful, my powerful enemies/obsessive stalkers can't have my (street address, phone number, email address.)"
Philip Greenspun has had his cell phone number online for at least a decade. He's almost certainly more powerful than you are. And let's not even begin with his enemies. And yet he reports only getting 1 or 2 annoying calls.
Please pardon my ignorance, but:
How do I pick mine out of there? I live in Washington.
When I looked up "WA" on there, all I saw were people's who's names start with H.
How do I read that table?
Check again- almost everyone who voted against it was Democrat.
Only 21% of Democrats voted for this. 4 out of 5 voted against.
On the other hand, 96% of Republicans voted for it.
That said, if every single Dem had voted against it, we'd be 1 vote short. We'd have to convince 1 of those republicans who voted "yes" to vote "no."
I suffered serious depression for about 4 years of my life. Crimped up on the bathroom floor for hours, crying my eyes out, dreaming up ways to kill myself type of depression. Depression that just: doesn't, go, away. I grew up in similar circumstance: middle-class family, awesome parents and sibling, blessed with intelligence, great health, decent looks. Spot on, all of them.
Where we part is that I got out of the depression, and you did not.
It wasn't something that happened in a day, it was something that happened slowly, with time, brick by brick. It was completely wrapped up in the process of making a model about life, what I was doing, figuring out what I believed in, making a map of what I understood. It involved a lot of experimentation and thinking, regularly in dangerous paths.
As someone who doesn't know you, doesn't want to offend you, and can't take on your load, I can only communicate so much:
I believe you are on the right path. Keep struggling, keep fighting. You live in a messed up society. Establish a rock solid secure base in your mind. If someone says something bad about you, it can't penetrate that far. Then gain ground over your mind and your self-perception. (If this makes any sense.) Start at your core, then reach out, into the details of your life. You'll have to renegotiate relationships with people around you, eventually.
I would take up introspection, meditation, and keeping a journal. Focus on anything that centers you on love, or whatever imaginably pure substance you can think up.
I know that hoards of people suffer depression. I've been depressed. I know how common it is. I see perfectly happy looking people, but their language and assumptions reflect negative outlook. Even though they fit in perfectly. I know that, back home, in their chair or bed, they're thinking different things.
Keep fighting, stay alive.
This is the solution that I know.
I think I've stumbled across another reasons why I distrust the drugs. Because people take the drugs, and show happiness, but the negative assumptions and viewpoints are still there. Nothing changes. But when I see people overcome depression by way of personal change, I always see the negative assumptions and viewpoints change.
Almost all of the success books I've read have argued that self-esteem and wishing are necessary pre-conditions for change.
The argument is that you go from hopelessness, to hope (wishing,) to figuring out how to do it, to faith that you're on the track.
So, if this is true then, the problem isn't that people are taught to have self-esteem, and the problem isn't that people are taught to wish; The problem is that people aren't taught (in school) the overarching plan (hopeless to hope to planning to faith to success): they aren't being taught how to take it to the next level.
The thing to do then, I would think, is not to argue against promoting self-esteem and wishing. On the contrary, it should be continued and encouraged. But it needs to be taken to the next level: Teaching planning forward, and trusting yourself to follow those plans, and trusting that those plans will work.
In the day by day battle, it's a matter of path A or path B. People who don't trust themselves enough to follow path A, will take the immediate gratification of path B.
I have a hard time understanding people who think that kids shouldn't have self-esteem though. Most everybody should have self-esteem. I think it's the basis of any social justice or personal gain.
For evidence, look at the self-esteem of the poor vs. the self-esteem of the wealthy.
Next, there's depression. The thing you are supposed to do with depression, (well, what worked for me,) is you're supposed to turn it into a motivator, a positive force. "Hey! There are real problems, in my life, in the world. I can't keep running away from this."
Drugs are running away from it.
Sadly, depression can become a very real, very mechanical, trap. That makes the case for depression drugs ambiguous.
We have a fucked up pseudoscience called "psychology," vs. a drug that will work. Society chooses the drug. We must exercise extreme caution, though, as I see it.
The theory is that people take the drug in order to not be so depressed that they can't analyze their own personal problems. Once they are not feeling so blue, they're supposed to solve the problems, and aspire to get out of the use of the drug.
Unfortunately, this theory is bogus. What we are seeing is that most people, they just get comfortable using the drug. Their minds rationalize it, then: "My brain was just messed up." They use the drugs for years and years and years, nary a diary entry, introspective moment, or conversation with friends.
This is not to mention: Many problems are how we work as a society. Different cultures don't have the same depression problem we do. Many people "give up." Those who don't, they work for social justice.
A general attitude of "Giving up" is a sign of depression. It seems to em that our society is depressed, then, since it has, for the most part, given up: "Social justice" is a bad word, and it means "imposition" to mots people. I think that's a bad sign.
We are not entitled to a fair world. But we'd be giving up, if we didn't strive to make one.
Theory: Many instances of depression are due to social injustice, apathy, the slow pace at which society reforms itself.
Concern: If we drug or electrically stimulate ourselves to keep ourselves happy, social progress comes to a halt. We feel good about ourselves, even though horrible things happen around us.
Here is a bibliography kept by AdBusters. I'm not sure how reliable a bibliography kept by AdBusters is, but these are things that we should be thinking about, and research that we should at least consider.
The reason they work harder, is because they must. There is no upward mobility outside of taking the right tests. None. That's why they work so hard: Those are the rules of the game, and everyone knows it.
Out here? It's different. You can work hard and make money, regardless of your high school grades. Skill up and get a boring job as a DB admin or mortgage financer or whatever. Plenty of books out there on how to do it.
This is not to betray real poverty and wage slavery.
I'm just saying: This is the reason they work so hard over there. Because it's the only way out, and they know it. I don't think it's "oriental culture magic" or anything like that. I think it's just plain force of consequences.
He says it will devalue existing domain names.
Okay, so: What's wrong with that?
These are mnemonics, not currencies.
Their intent was never to be a currency. Just mnemonics.
If you are buying up names because you think they'll be valuable later on, you're doing something dumb. The names system doesn't owe you anything. You aren't owed a profit on names.
Let the names be plentiful.
Nah- those devices aren't sitting behind proprietary interfaces. Somebody will write a device driver for it.
I think that- any innovation that works inside a computer, he'll just call it a "minor innovation."
So, if we write code that can quickly automatically reconstruct 3D models from video footage, and put it into every computer, it'll be "just another computer program."
If we write really smart translation systems, and hook it up to speech-to-text and text-to-speech, it'll be "just another computer program."
Make any machine, but make it run inside a computer, and it'll be "just another computer program."
Just a minor innovation.
But I don't think we can afford to think of things that way.
These are really big innovations. Just taking an existing innovation, and just putting it into everybody's hands: should count for something.
But I think people are fooled, because they just see a geek and a computer. "Oh, nothing new. He's still sitting in his chair at his computer."
This is just my understanding of the situation, and it probably has errors. That said, I've not once seen a good plain language explanation of how this all works, and what the actual powers and obligations are. This is my understanding of what an IETF regular told me.
Neither the US or ICANN actually determines what goes into the root name servers: It's just by convenience and general agreement (but not obligation) that the root nameservers decide to humour ICANN, and let them maintain the list of names. There is no law or contract that says they have to do anything that ICANN says.
Congress doesn't control this, and never did, if I understand right.
Please correct my understanding; I'm sure at least some of this is wrong.
I've heard that the root name servers are privately owned, and that they just let ICANN take care of the names and what not for them.
But my understanding was that they don't have to follow ICANN. They just let ICANN do it's thing because they're not in the business of keeping track of names.
I heard about a case where ICANN told the root name server maintainers to install specific private keys- to basically hand over all control of the name servers to ICANN. And the root name server maintainers basically told them to take a hike.
Is this true?
When they pack up their toys and go home, I will still be reading Wikipedia.
Greedy bastards, it serves them right!
Um, bullshit?
Points of evidence:
why
It's possible, and I understand where you're coming from, but: I'm not so sure. I think a lot of it has to do with just seeing machines being made smaller and smaller.
Artificial Intelligence: I don't think it's really all that magical- We haven't encountered any verifiable theoretical limits. There's a lot of good thinking about how things will work out, and it's not really all that implausible. It's just a matter of doing it.
Whereas for FTL, we have clear theoretical limits that have a lot of solid physics experiments backing it up. It's not just an engineering hurdle, which was the situation with the speed of sound- it is a law of physics hurdle, and a very basic hurdle at that. There aren't a lot of "moving parts" at work here, as there were in refutations of the idea that something could go faster than the speed of sound.
But AI? Nah: We haven't found any such theoretical limits. If anything, it seems like total brute force- manually simulating neurons, will be workable.
I disagree that we haven't seen results from AI: We keep seeing computers doing more and more impressive things, taking on more complex tasks, in all sorts of fields. By networking all of the different capabilities, we'll probably experience our first AI's. Vision processing and analysis done by a server over here, navigation processing done by a server over there, human interaction by this server over there, storage and caching of software and data done by flow control moderators, anticipation and route exploration done by still other software- they'll just keep adding and adding capabilities to the network, and the software will just continue to get more and more creative and interesting.
Really, it seems like a pretty clear path, to me. There will come a point where we all just collectively train the bots. When robots do things wrong, we'll tell them how to do things right. The robot will upload what it learned to Internet servers, and then will download all the things the other robots learned as well. We will train the robots so that they are useful, and exhibit learned common sense. The things learned will be generalized so that not every robot has to learn these things.
In their off-time, they'll explore alternative possibile routes, and will run simulations about how they would work out, the kinds of dangers that might arise, all sorts of stuff. They'll feed the results of their thinking into major databases, which will interpret and distribute, and train robots in new paths.
Really, I don't think what I've described is very complicated, it just requires time.
It's nothing like FTL, which would require an amazing miracle.
...so there could also be a strict rule that all AI systems must speak only in natural language, even to each other.
...
It sounds to me more like a plot device, then something that we will actually do.
Robots most likely will be controlled by remote intelligences, and I'm having a hard time imagining that we won't want to let the communicate over the Internet.
We might try to limit how "creative" they get in their solutions to problems, but,
On a different note:
I don't really believe in slavery. I am happy that our children will be smarter than us.
We will self-augment, for a time, but eventually, we may just have to hand it to them, our beloved. Or beceome them.
By that time, we should be used to treating the intelligences as partners, friends. They'll have served us so well, we will have good memories of our times with them.
Cory Doctorow wrote a neat story: I, Robot. If you have the time, you might want to check it out.
If you study current technology trends, you can make some fairly realistic guesses about what will happen, and what will not happen.
Unlikely within 100 years: Faster than Light Travel. Terraforming.
Likely within 100 years: Augmented Reality, followed by Virtual Reality. Extremely powerful computers. Extremely capable robots. Artificial intelligence. Social upheval.
An example of "mundane" science-fiction consideration: Robots aren't going to be "their own people." Rather, they would be the appendages of intelligences existing on the Internet, inside of buildings, inside server farms. A "robot" intelligence lives in the walls, surfs the web easier than you or I, and inhabits any bodies it has access to around you.
When an intelligence must go to a hostile environment with unsecured communications channels, that is when it will enter a body, and work like R2D2 or C3PO. But it will be more like the intelligence budding off a small version of itself: It'll still be churning away, doing things at home, while a small fragment of it's intelligence and data will walk away with you in a body.
This is "Mundane" Science Fiction. It is still interesting, it is still exciting; It's just more realistic than space operas about bumbling robots that speak English when they want to communicate with one another.
Science Fiction is currently undergoing a rectification of possibilities as we think more carefully about deep Cybernetics (communications and control systems, not bionic arms) and what it all means for us.
The new "mundane" science fiction will feel cooler, better, more interesting, because it will be relevant and, in the words of Warren Ellis, it will make you Feel.
Because: You're going to be looking at your own future, and you're going to be thinking: "Oh shit, what's going to happen?" And these "mundanes" are the guys and gals who are going to be the ones who have some plausible answers.
The FTL crowd may seem interesting right now, but just give it another 10 years...