2

Following on from this question, the definition of "confusion" used in the answer appears to be "not understanding the request". I am curious about misunderstanding the request.

For instance, Archer was once trying to write an introduction to a book about his father, and he kept saying things like "computer pause" or "erase that". I can imagine a scenario in which someone is writing a book where those phrases are part of the dialog. Say, forexample, if someone is writing a Star Trek episode. I know that the computer figures this out from context. I'm wondering if there are any examples where it did that incorrectly.

Improve this question
1
  • I have a vague memory of some DS9 replicator issues, but that was mixing Federation and Cardiassian tech which could explain them in-universe
    – afaulconbridge
    Commented Aug 11 at 21:19

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

May I present to you, Professor James Mortiarty, created by a slip of the tongue by Geordi La Forge in TNG: Elementary, Dear Data.

LAFORGE: Computer, in the Holmesian style, create a mystery to confound Data with an opponent who has the ability to defeat him.

[later]

PICARD: Worthy of Holmes?
LAFORGE: Oh, my God. I asked for a Holmes-type mystery with an opponent capable of defeating Data. That got to be it.

enter image description here

Improve this answer
5
  • 6
    I think the computer understood that request and did exactly as instructed. Unintended consequences yes, but not a misunderstanding of the request itself.
    – afaulconbridge
    Commented Aug 11 at 21:15
  • @afaulconbridge - There are considerable safeguards in place to prevent the ship from doing things that are needlessly dangerous such as setting off the self-destruct system. Creating a malevolent AI would certainly fall into that category.
    – Valorum
    Commented Aug 11 at 21:25
  • true, but this was on the holodeck where things that would be dangerous in other contexts would be perfectly safe thanks to those safeguards. Villains in most holo-novels could be considered a "malevolent AI" in some sense, and creating those on a holodeck is part of the design. I don't think the ship intended an AI that could leave the holodeck and violate the safeguards, nor that the ship could reason the full consequence of "an opponent capable of defeating Data", so I would consider Moriarty to be an accident more than a misunderstanding.
    – afaulconbridge
    Commented Aug 11 at 21:43
  • @afaulconbridge - It should be clear to everyone, including the Enterprise computer, that La Forge did not intend to create a sentient-level being, noting that later episodes indicate that this is a massive contravention of Starfleet policy, and that there are significant safeguards against it happening. When Data does it, it spawns an emergency meeting and a major court case. At the very least, the computer should have asked for clarification and indicated the pitfalls
    – Valorum
    Commented Aug 11 at 21:48
  • 2
    "No, the parameters will be whatever is necessary in order to accomplish the directive. Create an adversary capable of defeating Data." sounds like an override of safeguards ordered by the chief engineer.
    – chux
    Commented Aug 11 at 22:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.