IPC Education/Certification

[Lady_of_Ravens]

So when a human comes to NT looking for a job, their qualifications are judged by their education records (among other things). Fully synthetic IPCs are, however, unlikely to have anything like formal education, and depending on their origin may not even have official specs detailing their abilities. So how do they prove to corporate that they're qualified for a position? Is there, like, an institution which offers certification of an AI's degree of competence in a certain field? If so, how would it work? If not, how is this handled?

[Fire and Glory]

I recall talking to Jack Fractal about something like this, off the top of my head I believe that if it can prove that it was tutored then-

I don't actually know where I'm going with that, I don't think I talked about that particular facet of Synthetic education.

Ah..WELL, I do believe that it'd entirely make sense that NT would have some means of verifying that an IPC can do what it claims to be able to, (Departmental assistants, anyone?) if they can't prove that they were tutored by people qualified. (like you're typical super sekrit intelligence designed by a bunch of Scientists.)

Though I haven't talked to a lore dev about that, it makes a lot of sense to me.

[Eliot Clef]

We've talked about how to limit Synthetic ability so that they aren't insufferable do-alls, and that sort of skirted some of this subject. But not really.

>> http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=3637 <<

As for this specific topic, this really hasn't been established. Strictly speaking IPCs should probably have an entirely separate set of qualification requirements from normal organic workers because X years worked and X age is incredibly useless in the context of a robot. They're competent at a profession at birth by default, but how would they go about proving that?

I think for "line" robots, proving that you're a line robot with manufacturing specifications relevant to your field would be pretty much enough. For more complex/strange cases, I think some sort of memory simulation demonstrating aptitude delivered on a portable medium like some sort of flash drive would probably be adequate.

[Fire and Glory]

As for this specific topic, this really hasn't been established. Strictly speaking IPCs should probably have an entirely separate set of qualification requirements from normal organic workers because X years worked and X age is incredibly useless in the context of a robot. They're competent at a profession at birth by default, but how would they go about proving that?

Although it's sooooorta shaky since Jack Fractal isn't a lore dev anymore, I do consider it valid if not declared otherwise.

Jack has said that skills being programmed typically need a learning period anyway to apply them effectively, and other intelligence's are just manually taught. (which probably wouldn't be too hard since AI's don't eat-drink-sleep or anything else and probably wouldn't get bored so you can just teach it 24 hours a day if you switched out the teaching personnel.)

 

Though I thought that bespoke models would have the education programmed into them?

 

Ish? I haven't really gone into this to be honest. Most people who'se AI backstories I've seen have bespoke models from ultra spooper secrit projects, and their backstories imply a period of being taught and assessed.

Beyond that, I think it's probably fairly challenging to program useful skills. Like, you can give something a lot of data, but learning how to apply that data still takes time.

 

So most AI's prooooooobably aren't completely competent upon construction, though I directed the question to Bespoke models and Line models may be a completely different bag.

[Xelnagahunter]

Anything mass produced can be pre-programed easily. They create a base code, and replicate it into every machine coming off that assembly line. When something is programmed individually, I imagine the baseline intellect is created and takes up most of the coding space/time. Line models tend towards being less "intelligent" anyways while the individual projects have a higher intellect due to being so unique.

however I think a unit, if it can understand logic and reasoning, can be taught simply, in a way organics can't. It won't need to practice or see several examples of the same thing. You tell it what numbers are and how to represent them. LEts say when doing math a unit is taught how to understand numbers with an apple visual, then it gets taught that adding is combining those numbers. Forever more, no matter how large the numbers, it will visualize apples and simply do the math. It needs no further instruction on adding. The same applies to everything else. When we assemble a PA, we do this, this, and this, because Blah. They now know that they do these things and why they do it. They never need further instruction. Simple as that.

[MagnificentMelkior]

Anything mass produced can be pre-programed easily. They create a base code, and replicate it into every machine coming off that assembly line. When something is programmed individually, I imagine the baseline intellect is created and takes up most of the coding space/time. Line models tend towards being less "intelligent" anyways while the individual projects have a higher intellect due to being so unique.

however I think a unit, if it can understand logic and reasoning, can be taught simply, in a way organics can't. It won't need to practice or see several examples of the same thing. You tell it what numbers are and how to represent them. LEts say when doing math a unit is taught how to understand numbers with an apple visual, then it gets taught that adding is combining those numbers. Forever more, no matter how large the numbers, it will visualize apples and simply do the math. It needs no further instruction on adding. The same applies to everything else. When we assemble a PA, we do this, this, and this, because Blah. They now know that they do these things and why they do it. They never need further instruction. Simple as that.

If its a computer based thing rather than a brain in a jar, yea it will not need to be taught how to add since thats already understood by 2015 computers. But for other things like assembling a PA, whatever that is, I disagree. Doing it multiple times could allow the synthetic to get better at it, if there are different methods that could be done to solve the problem and it does not already know the optimal method.