The Culture v's 40kverse

[Tyndmyr]

You're absolutely right. I just hate The Culture so much that I bring up facially irrelevant arguments to make myself feel better.

Well, you toss in one assumption that makes out the entire Culture to be badwrongterrible, and when it's corrected, you jump straight to the next one.

Ima suggest that perhaps you should read one of the books first to see if it's something you like?

]The larger point is that I figured a civilization which has entities smart enough to be called "Minds" might actually use them for things that computers are good for. This is doubly true if the underlying "meat" culture is largely devoted to leisure rather than actually running the society, securing it from outside threats, or basically doing anything to support the larger civilization. Additionally, if the civilization apparently has the spare resources and expertise to blatantly meddle in other nations in particularly convoluted ways, I would expect these Minds to be hyper-competent at the sort of planning required to carry out such missions.

Leisure is common, among humans as well as minds. Yes, both humans and minds naturally drift into the things they enjoy/are good at, but this isn't consistent among either of these groups(though overall trends do exist).

See, the civilization having lots of resources does not imply hyper-competent strategic warfare Minds. I'm not sure how you're getting that.

[quote[Instead it seems like the Minds are really good at doing "boring stuff" (i.e. running the civilization) which leaving all the "fun stuff" (i.e. messing with other civilizations) to the organics. Oh, but the Minds are still competent enough to engineer complicated plans for the organics to carry out even if the organics are highlighted in fields where computers really should be better.[/quote]

Again, you need to read the books. The ones I've read have indeed had mostly human protaganists, but that's to be expected, so we can relate to them. Plenty of room for Minds to do fun stuff, though. Actually DOING space combat is basically only done by Minds. There's a little room for highly augmented humans to assist, but there's even doubt in the minds of chars doing that if their services are necessary, or if the Minds would be better off handling it on their own. I wouldn't consider space combat to be terribly boring, personally.

In short: the more I hear about Minds the less I understand how The Culture is supposed to operate.

Do the organics have a post-scarcity life of leisure or do they need to work to make their society function? How are computers competent enough to run and keep stable an interstellar civilization still no better at conducting warfare than the smartest human? Who watches the watchmen?

It's not a hierarchical structure(though it contains them). Everyone watches the watchmen, really, because society is extremely open and transparent, with information flowing around rapidly. And if you want to become a watchman...go for it. Simply put, your objections seem to keep assuming a hierarchial structure, with someone(or someones) on top, running things. In the culture, this isn't how things work.

And yeah, it's pretty post-scarcity. In short, the work necessary for society to continue to function has fallen below the level of work people do purely out of interest, boredom, etc. Note that much of the true drudgery is run by non-AI computing devices. In fact, it'd probably be considered a really bad idea to create a super-intelligent mind and give it no way to do anything but manage sewage facilities and the like.

Can't they just run a "human brain emulator" the same way they simulate entire universes, and end up with the equivalent of millions of subjective years of better-than-human strategic thought?

They could and can simulate human brains, to some degree. However, you'd first want access to the human in question. Note that not EVERY human is a better strategist than the computers. That'd be kind of weird. No, a few very specialized, often experienced, often very upgraded humans are strategically better than the computers.

Another problem is that simulation of computation devices inside another one always has overhead. How much varies a lot depending on similarity, but just because it's possible doesn't mean it's fast. For instance, in minecraft, I can(and have) created computation devices...but it runs so ridiculously slowly compared to a real world counterpart that it's solely for entertainment. We don't have hard numbers here, and it's entirely possible that the Minds can in fact do this...but most VR seems to run on non-AI machines, so there are indications that it's computationally intensive.

Lastly, whats the point? You need to simulate the entire person...in which case, you ARE talking to that person, in virtual reality. There's nothing saying this can't happen(and indeed, VR is a thing), but it doesn't make humans irrelevant. It merely changes the way in which they converse with the Minds.

[Douglas]

4. Eldar society has since stopped believing in a "good end".

Actually, according to the wiki link someone posted, the Eldar do have one possibility. They have the faint hope that, after who knows how many additional millennia, the Infinity Circuits on their craftworlds will eventually accumulate a sufficient number of Eldar souls to have enough combined psychic power to take on the Chaos Gods directly and win.

It's a very faint and distant hope, but it is a hope for an arguably good ending.

[Water_Bear]

Ima suggest that perhaps you should read one of the books first to see if it's something you like?

That's really not a very helpful suggestion.

Why should he (or anyone else) spend his time reading fiction written from ideological viewpoints he finds disgusting just to debate the ideology in question? Does anyone go read Atlas Shrugged every time they want to debate an Objectivist online, or read through the Twilight books before making fun of sparkly vampires?

Obviously he should be informed about what he's talking about, hence reading reviews meta-analysis and statements from the author. And his posts have shown that; he has cited specific instances from Culture books, referenced reviews, and linked to an actual interview with the author. Does he really need to slog through a bunch of novels about a philosophy he finds abhorrent just to debate that philosophy online?

...No, a few very specialized, often experienced, often very upgraded humans are strategically better than the computers.

...

Another problem is that simulation of computation devices inside another one always has overhead.

...

Lastly, whats the point?

...

Well, I was wondering how exactly humans are supposed to equal or out-perform Minds in strategic thinking (at all, not in general) which is something people have been saying here a lot. The argument I keep hearing is that no amount of processing power can match human creativity and intuition.

The problem is, as I pointed out, a Mind ought to be able to simulate at the least several subjective centuries of human-level strategic thought in the same time a human could come up with their first move. Mind Uploads run in simulations have been demonstrated as possible in-verse, and apparently hyperspace computing bypasses the ordinary physical limits to computation, so that argument makes little sense.

TL;DR: If humans are so good at strategy, Minds must be much much better because a Mind can just simulate a Human brain and give it a few subjective decades/centuries/millennia to solve the problem in the space of an eye-blink.

[Oracle_Hunter]

TL;DR: If humans are so good at strategy, Minds must be much much better because a Mind can just simulate a Human brain and give it a few subjective decades/centuries/millennia to solve the problem in the space of an eye-blink.

This, pretty much.

Spoiler

Show

The ability to flawlessly simulate reality is actually a huge advantage in a lot of "solved problems" fields -- such as warfare. You very rarely have bullets act in novel fashions in the middle of a war and artillery pieces do not randomly double or halve their range. Being able to run a given engagement, or even a whole battle, many times over in an instant should give you an incalculable advantage over humans who simply can't. Most of the advantages given to human "geniuses" are the result of intuition -- which is to say, being able to draw correct inferences from incomplete data -- all of which can be duplicated with perfect information (from Effectors and Mind Reading); even without that, a brain scan of the genius and simulating that, and every other genius brain in the Mind's databanks, should quickly eliminate any advantage organics had in planning and conducting war.

This sort of reasoning works in any field in which (1) simulations can be run faster than events unfold in reality, (2) the parameters of the simulations sufficiently match the rules of reality and (3) the outcomes can be evaluated via objective measures. Since all three of these things should be true for Minds based on the sorts of things they're supposed to be capable of doing, it is very hard to see any reason for organics to be involved in a great many fields aside from "narrative convenience."

Narrative convenience is all well and good, but when a society is built upon it, it is awful hard to declare it "believable."

[Tyndmyr]

That's really not a very helpful suggestion.

Why should he (or anyone else) spend his time reading fiction written from ideological viewpoints he finds disgusting just to debate the ideology in question? Does anyone go read Atlas Shrugged every time they want to debate an Objectivist online, or read through the Twilight books before making fun of sparkly vampires?

Every time? No. Once, probably, yes. Reading ideologies outside of yours WILL help you learn about them properly, and allow you to debate them instead of caricatures of them.

Obviously he should be informed about what he's talking about, hence reading reviews meta-analysis and statements from the author. And his posts have shown that; he has cited specific instances from Culture books, referenced reviews, and linked to an actual interview with the author. Does he really need to slog through a bunch of novels about a philosophy he finds abhorrent just to debate that philosophy online?

He wouldn't need to read all of them. One or two would suffice. See, reading a review is a lot different than reading a book(or watching a movie, for that matter). It can be sufficient to answer the question "will I enjoy this work", but even there...opinions differ.

It is not generally sufficient to be able to give a detailed analysis of the work.

Well, I was wondering how exactly humans are supposed to equal or out-perform Minds in strategic thinking (at all, not in general) which is something people have been saying here a lot. The argument I keep hearing is that no amount of processing power can match human creativity and intuition.

Creativity is something that humans traditionally have the edge on. This is not something purely limited to the Culture...it's common in sci-fi, and stems from the fact that the real world has computers crushing us in some ways, but being really terrible at even matching us in most creative aspects.

Look at past wars...a mind would be pretty great at selecting which of the standard strategies would be applicable to a given situation, optimizing supply routes, timing, and all that sort of stuff. It's stuff that's gonna come up every time. But often, in war, improvisation and adaptation is a major, major part of determining who's the victor. Creativity definitely can matter.

The problem is, as I pointed out, a Mind ought to be able to simulate at the least several subjective centuries of human-level strategic thought in the same time a human could come up with their first move. Mind Uploads run in simulations have been demonstrated as possible in-verse, and apparently hyperspace computing bypasses the ordinary physical limits to computation, so that argument makes little sense.

You're equating VR with Minds. They are not the same.

Bypassing modern day limits is not the same as "violating the laws of reality". Especially in hard sci-fi. Aberrations from modern day physics are explained and fairly well justified. Assuming additional ones without evidence is not valid logic.

TL;DR: If humans are so good at strategy, Minds must be much much better because a Mind can just simulate a Human brain and give it a few subjective decades/centuries/millennia to solve the problem in the space of an eye-blink.

That doesn't follow.

First, you need the human to simulate in the first place. Of COURSE minds and humans working together are better than each alone. That's...kind of essential to the world.

Second, Minds don't typically do simulation. This doesn't mean that they can't...but it does mean there are probably good reasons why they don't. The most likely one is because it's computationally intensive and non-AI computers can do it, so why not shuffle the work off to them?

Lastly, just because you CAN simulate something does not mean the simulation will run faster than the original. This is true EVEN if the hardware is faster than the original hardware. This is a very, very complication question that can't be answered...there's storage space within most minds for a human brain, true, but that's different than a running mind by quite a bit.

[Parra]

These simulations all work under the assumption that they have all the information. In warfare, as like most anything, you never have ALL the information. So you just have to make your best guess i.e. hope for the most probable outcome.

The humans that have a particular talent making them 'better' than a Mind at a particular task are not in anyway shape or form 'smarter' than the Mind. They simply have an instinctive (for lack of a better word) understanding of a situation when missing some of the facts.


As for reading the books; even if you don't agree with the ideology they are still pretty decent hard-scifi. Given that most(/all) of the books deal with questioning the Cultures ideology its a great way to learn about them.
Normally on internet debates such as these, as passing familiarity with the subject matter helps. Sometimes browsing the wiki is enough and I know Oracle Hunter (and others) have done just that. But if you STILL don't get it and despite explanations from other forum users that the concept is still not understood, then yes Read The Books.

So, if you refuse to read the books and fail to understand that Minds are not Tyrants and are nearly benevolent to a fault after wiki/conversation explaining it so then there isn't must room left for discussion

And like I said, despite all that, they are still decent scifi books that I would recommend to most anyone (whom I knew like scifi ofc)

[Oracle_Hunter]

These simulations all work under the assumption that they have all the information. In warfare, as like most anything, you never have ALL the information. So you just have to make your best guess i.e. hope for the most probable outcome.

The humans that have a particular talent making them 'better' than a Mind at a particular task are not in anyway shape or form 'smarter' than the Mind. They simply have an instinctive (for lack of a better word) understanding of a situation when missing some of the facts.

So what is it that is keeping the Minds from simulating these brains?

If there is some element in the brains that Minds can't capture with brain-scans then their whole mind-upload technology can't work: anyone restored from a backup would come back as an imperfect (and importantly flawed) copy. If there is an element that can be captured that any Mind is at least as good as the best organic in The Culture. The reason Minds get to be better is that they can instantly consult every great Culture brain that ever existed whenever a problem comes up and, more importantly, actually test to see whether or not the "intuitive" answer is right or if it might be better with even a few more tweaks.

[Tyndmyr]

So what is it that is keeping the Minds from simulating these brains?

If there is some element in the brains that Minds can't capture with brain-scans then their whole mind-upload technology can't work: anyone restored from a backup would come back as an imperfect (and importantly flawed) copy. If there is an element that can be captured that any Mind is at least as good as the best organic in The Culture. The reason Minds get to be better is that they can instantly consult every great Culture brain that ever existed whenever a problem comes up and, more importantly, actually test to see whether or not the "intuitive" answer is right or if it might be better with even a few more tweaks.

By your logic, no video game console should exist, because bigger computers exist that could simulate these video game consoles with ease.

Therefore, the existence of xboxes proves that our world is unrealistic.

Reality is messy. Just because something can happen in one circumstance is not sufficient to postulate that it most happen in all circumstances.

[Oracle_Hunter]

By your logic, no video game console should exist, because bigger computers exist that could simulate these video game consoles with ease.

Therefore, the existence of xboxes proves that our world is unrealistic.

Reality is messy. Just because something can happen in one circumstance is not sufficient to postulate that it most happen in all circumstances.

You have the worst analogies.

How in the world is a video game console anything like a civilization-running computer?

[Parra]

So what is it that is keeping the Minds from simulating these brains?

In the Culture? Social convention.

Strictly speaking they are perfectly capable of doing this. However the closest thing a lawless society has to an actual Law concerns the mind of an Sentient Individual such that your mind is yours alone and no one can do anything to violate it.

Minds are capable of reading every thought and memory, they just dont because they consider it to be morally wrong.

[Oracle_Hunter]

In the Culture? Social convention.

Strictly speaking they are perfectly capable of doing this. However the closest thing a lawless society has to an actual Law concerns the mind of an Sentient Individual such that your mind is yours alone and no one can do anything to violate it.

Minds are capable of reading every thought and memory, they just dont because they consider it to be morally wrong.

In that case, why hasn't a less scrupulous society destroyed The Culture? There are stronger civilizations out there, The Culture doesn't keep secrets well (like technology, presumably), and they don't even bother to fight effectively to defend themselves. It's not like they avoid pissing off other civilizations either.

EDIT: Additionally, why wouldn't any of these "geniuses" leave their minds to civilization after they die? Or even permit one of these oh-so-scrupulous Minds to scan their brains and only simulate it when they need military expertise? Heck, the Minds could even keep it in a file marked "use only in case of emergency or permission" so that the organics wouldn't have to worry about the Minds going through their dirty laundry.

[soir8]

Now, Culture-philes have already said "Go read the novels, because it's not as black-&-white as that." But we humans like to paint things in broad generalities, such as with political parties. The haters are not necessarily hating the Culture as it truly is, but are rather hating a simplified caricature of it.

Hence use of terms like "meatpuppet" and "robot overlords".

I'm going to pitch in with the voices saying read one of the books, Oracle_Hunter. They're very good, and this argument's going nowhere so long as you insist on assuming the Culture is basically just a great big orgy orchestrated by evil robot masterminds.

Edit: You also seem to keep forgetting things that have already been explained, like the fact that mind-reading is taboo, and that everyone in the Culture is functionally immortal.

[comicshorse]

In that case, why hasn't a less scrupulous society destroyed The Culture? There are stronger civilizations out there, The Culture doesn't keep secrets well (like technology, presumably), and they don't even bother to fight effectively to defend themselves. It's not like they avoid pissing off other civilizations either.

Not sure where you got the idea the Culture like to piss off other civilizations from or that they don't fight effectively to defend themselves ( See Idiran war). Neither of those conclusions is supported by the books or anything said on this thread.
And yes there are stronger civilizations out there but why would they want to destroy the Culture. Civilizations that reach the scale and Tech to wipe out the Culture are old and stable and as such tend not to want to start wars for no reason or indeed any at all.

Additionally, why wouldn't any of these "geniuses" leave their minds to civilization after they die? Or even permit one of these oh-so-scrupulous Minds to scan their brains and only simulate it when they need military expertise? Heck, the Minds could even keep it in a file marked "use only in case of emergency or permission" so that the organics wouldn't have to worry about the Minds going through their dirty laundry.

Why would they, if these people wanted to continue existing, they'd continue existing.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Not sure where you got the idea the Culture like to piss off other civilizations from or that they don't fight effectively to defend themselves ( See Idiran war). Neither of those conclusions is supported by the books or anything said on this thread.

(1) The Culture likes conducting elaborate manipulations on foreign civilizations without their permission. This tends to piss people off.
(2) The Minds don't personally engage in these manipulations due to threats of violence of other, more powerful, civilizations.
(3) The Minds don't bother to make use of their own resources effectively -- namely, simulating the brains of every genius that has ever lived in The Culture and consulting them whenever an important question is raised.

Why would they, if these people wanted to continue existing, they'd continue existing.

Presumably because they died without permission

In any case, the "brain lock-box" idea is still valid and would make a great deal of sense if the geniuses trusted the ethics of The Minds.

[Forum Explorer]

(1) The Culture likes conducting elaborate manipulations on foreign civilizations without their permission. This tends to piss people off.
(2) The Minds don't personally engage in these manipulations due to threats of violence of other, more powerful, civilizations.
(3) The Minds don't bother to make use of their own resources effectively -- namely, simulating the brains of every genius that has ever lived in The Culture and consulting them whenever an important question is raised.


Presumably because they died without permission

In any case, the "brain lock-box" idea is still valid and would make a great deal of sense if the geniuses trusted the ethics of The Minds.

I don't see how two and three support your argument. In fact two looks like it attacks your argument.

As for the 'died without permission' that would be died accidently correct? In which case they could be reuploaded via some sort of memory transference device. I think someone has mentioned that right?

[comicshorse]

(1) The Culture likes conducting elaborate manipulations on foreign civilizations without their permission. This tends to piss people off.
(2) The Minds don't personally engage in these manipulations due to threats of violence of other, more powerful, civilizations.
(3) The Minds don't bother to make use of their own resources effectively -- namely, simulating the brains of every genius that has ever lived in The Culture and consulting them whenever an important question is raised.

(1) The Culture only interfere ( or helps to take a less anti-Culture view) with civilizations that are mired in war, tyranny and disease. These are not advanced civilizations
(2) So the Culture don't piss off other civilizations then ?
(3) Has nothing to do with this subject

resumably because they died without permission

In any case, the "brain lock-box" idea is still valid and would make a great deal of sense if the geniuses trusted the ethics of The Minds.

Again Minds aren't Overlords, if somebody wants to die, they die.
'Lock box' might work but the Minds don't do it because they would regard it as immoral. Trusting the Minds has nothing to do with it, if the geniuses wanted to be alive they would be, as they don't the Minds honour their wishes

[Tyndmyr]

In that case, why hasn't a less scrupulous society destroyed The Culture? There are stronger civilizations out there, The Culture doesn't keep secrets well (like technology, presumably), and they don't even bother to fight effectively to defend themselves. It's not like they avoid pissing off other civilizations either.

That's precisely what the books are about, in part. If you didn't have some conflict, you wouldn't have much of a story.

However, they do fight(or run) to defend themselves. And sometimes for other reasons.

As for point 3, they DO consult their resources. Being an extremely open society, calling on experts with an interest in the field when problems arise is...actually the premise of some books, such as Player of Games.

EDIT: Additionally, why wouldn't any of these "geniuses" leave their minds to civilization after they die? Or even permit one of these oh-so-scrupulous Minds to scan their brains and only simulate it when they need military expertise? Heck, the Minds could even keep it in a file marked "use only in case of emergency or permission" so that the organics wouldn't have to worry about the Minds going through their dirty laundry.

Death is mostly optional. Unless you're in combat(and sometimes even then), or partaking in particularly risky activities, death isn't a notable risk. Living for several hundred years, swapping bodies when bored, making backups of your mind...these are normal humanoid activities in the culture.

Are copies sometimes made? Sure. But that copy, being a full copy, is now an ACTUAL person. It's not dying. If you choose to die, the idea of making a copy is the opposite of that.

[thorgrim29]

Hell, the only reason they die at all is because living for more the half a millenium is considered tacky. As for war... the first book is set during the Iridian war, the first major war the Culture was in for a few thousand years. The Iridians were actually kind of like the Imperium, a bunch of racist religious zealots who either destroyed or enslaved other species. The Culture, after much deliberation (involving both human-level intelligences and Minds) and few few splinter groups forming in protest, decided to stop them, essentially because they felt bad living in their utopia while a bunch of *******s were killing and enslaving people. At first, the war was in the Iridian's favour, but then the Culture started making warships (something they didn't have at first, but don't usually need because any old regular ship can destroy a solar system in a few minutes) and after a while they won.

So, I'd say they're pretty good at defending themselves, don't mistake compassion and reluctance to fight for weakness.


also, surprisingly relevant: http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2285, where the "small" AI are 1:1 intelligences and the "big" AIs are Minds.

[Murska]

A perfectly simulated human is pretty much the same thing as a human.

So, you're telling me that because the Minds can ask humans for advice (by simulating them, but the method doesn't matter, really), that makes Minds superior to humans? Humans ask Minds for advice all the time...

[Parra]

(3) The Minds don't bother to make use of their own resources effectively -- namely, simulating the brains of every genius that has ever lived in The Culture and consulting them whenever an important question is raised.

Actually Minds (and the Culture in general) do just that (kinda). One of the groups operating within the Culture, known as Quietus, deal with the 'dead'.
The dead in this case being people who have opted to have their minds stored (usually) with preconditions for their revival.
Conditions could be anything from 'When my favourite sports team win an important championship, reinvent me into a new body' all the way to 'Should we go to War again, you can wake me, but only into a VR environment'

A few points about all this for clarity:

• In the Culture, death is 100% optional. Or near enough as makes no difference.
• Every person, be they Drone, Mind or Pan-Human, can have there mind states backed up. Most do so at regular intervals (weekly/monthly. In combat situations its every few hours. Again, only if you choose to do so.
• Some people choose NOT to be backed up, ever. As they feel its cheating.This is fine too.
• If your body happens to die, your backed up mind state is reinvented into a new body once it is safe to do so.
• You can, at any time, decide you want to die (just prove you're sane first). This 'death' can either be the old fashioned perminant type. Or the short/long term storage of your mind state until the conditions you predecided occur.
• You can also be stored, without a body, in a VR environment that is fully under your control (or not if you choose) or you can go into a dreamless sleep.
• Your mind state is also frequently backed up to remote locations with the Culture, on the off chance that something goes wrong where you're stored.

TL,DR. Yes minds can be stored and yes Minds can call on them for help, as can any other Culture citizen.

[GloatingSwine]

(3) The Minds don't bother to make use of their own resources effectively -- namely, simulating the brains of every genius that has ever lived in The Culture and consulting them whenever an important question is raised.

See: Functionally immortal.

Y'see, either every genius that ever lived is still around somewhere and they can just ask, or they've specifically chosen not to have their mindstate recorded and therefore simulating that mindstate without permission would be incredibly rude.

Edit: This may or may not be the plot of The Hydrogen Sonata, which comes out next month.

[Tiki Snakes]

Just a question; The Minds simulate entire universes in their free time or so, right?

So, are theres unpopulated universes, or?

[Tyndmyr]

Just a question; The Minds simulate entire universes in their free time or so, right?

So, are theres unpopulated universes, or?

Simulation does not imply 100% accuracy of component pieces. In fact, this is usually not the case.

For instance, NASA simulates the universe too, and they don't have even a single Mind.

[Parra]

Just a question; The Minds simulate entire universes in their free time or so, right?

So, are theres unpopulated universes, or?

It doesn't go into too much detail on what exactly they do when they simulate entire universes.
This is one of the themes touched on the book Excession (I think?) Where it is hypothosised, the some Minds, that its possible to shift between alternative universes. Kind of following the idea that for every action there is a number of universes where each possible action is played out, and it is theoretically possible to shift between them.

[Selrahc]

Just a question; The Minds simulate entire universes in their free time or so, right?

So, are theres unpopulated universes, or?

It's detailed in (unsurprisingly) Excession, the one novel which has the Minds in a starring rather than supporting role. Minds spend a lot of mental space in something called "Infinite Fun Space", simulating universes from the big bang but with wildly different physical laws.

In the Cultureverse, theoretical physics is basically a dead art. Only practical applications still need to be worked out(sublimed notwithstanding). The minds can keep doing theory work, by creating hyper accurate simulations of physical universes with radically different and emergent physical laws. It's exploration and adventure in a simulated internal dimension, with Minds sharing and discussing their favourite simulations. It's one of the chief leisure occupations of Minds.

[Oracle_Hunter]

In the Cultureverse, theoretical physics is basically a dead art. Only practical applications still need to be worked out(sublimed notwithstanding). The minds can keep doing theory work, by creating hyper accurate simulations of physical universes with radically different and emergent physical laws. It's exploration and adventure in a simulated internal dimension, with Minds sharing and discussing their favourite simulations. It's one of the chief leisure occupations of Minds.

Yup, these Minds are clearly inferior when it comes to such complex subjects as warfare

[Renegade Paladin]

Yup, these Minds are clearly inferior when it comes to such complex subjects as warfare

Warfare /= applied physics?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Warfare /= applied physics?

Of course not, warfare is far more difficult to simulate than an entire Universe with novel physical laws. This is why there are tons of universal emulators these days and zero battlefield simulators.

[soir8]

Of course not, warfare is far more difficult to simulate than an entire Universe with novel physical laws. This is why there are tons of universal emulators these days and zero battlefield simulators.

You really are scraping for reasons to hate the Culture. Just go and read one of the books.

[Renegade Paladin]

This is where I observe that RTS AIs universally achieve "hard" mode by actively cheating with production bonuses rather than being able to beat experienced players by skill... and an RTS both simulates battles (which we've already noted are handled by Minds) rather than the complete strategic picture of war and does so in a manner far more simplified than actual (almost always asymmetric to some degree) warfare. Physics is complicated, but it's straightforward in a way that warfare is not. Rather than say to read a Culture novel, I'm going to suggest browsing a physics textbook as well as Sun Tzu's The Art of War and von Clausewitz's On War and comparing the respective treatises. You will note that physics has definitive answers, whereas warfare absolutely does not.

An AI in control of a warship absolutely does have a superior grasp of how much damage it can do, how much it can sustain, whether it can effectively pursue and/or flee such and such adversaries, and so forth that make it better able to conduct battle. It may even be better at strategic target analysis (but not necessarily without perfect intelligence). But it is not necessarily any better at predicting what the enemy will do absent hard data, nor is it necessarily any better at determining where its power is best put to use, because warfare is fluid, chaotic, and most importantly subject to other people actively working in opposition to you, rather than reliable physical laws that do what they do without caring about you. Which is why the answer is applied physics /= warfare; they are not the same nor are they even similar in execution and a non-intuitive AI is definitely better suited to the first than the second.