I'm already thinking ahead...
Transcript of the Submission to the 2015 Convention ("BubbleCon") Panel Discussing The Professor, submitted by Noah Scott, President of Stellvia Corporation (an independent element of the Fenspace Convention).
(Note: Because of audio issues at the time of the presentation, this transcript was created with the aid of a supplied copy of prepared notes and thus may vary in minor particulars from the actual submission.)
Assembled sophonts, we are discussing the future of one of the most prolific minds of the Fenspace Convention. I find myself with mixed emotions regarding this matter.
First, I understand the drive to create, and to help guide one's creations toward a better future. I am on record as having created the largest known number of autonomous Beta- and Alpha-level cybernetic intelligences in the Convention (although I often wonder how many people are not listed in the records as creating CIs), and I have been personally involved in the maturation and independence of roughly 80% of those intelligences. I also understand the need to step back and allow one's self-aware creations to develop without interference if that is what they want, even if doing so leads to undesired and undesirable results. The Professor does not appear to me to understand the desirability, or even the necessity, of stepping back and allowing one's self-aware creations to develop without interference.
Second, The Professor is responsible for the creation of a large number of useful devices that can be found in refined form throughout the Fenspace Convention. Many autonomous cybernetic intelligences are based on his designs for Ms. Asakura, Glear, and Nebulart, and it is a rare aerospace-traffic-control communications system that does not incorporate a version of the real-time translation device that was originally created by The Professor, to name two obvious examples. However, The Professor is also responsible for creating dangerous items such as the man-portable electrolaser, the plans for which he has published in many periodicals that can be accessed by Boskonian elements.
Third, there is the matter of the Julian Friez Machine, the creation of which is a contributing reason that this panel needed to be called. We have all met one or more Julian Friez; we know the psychological scars that were inflicted on them during their creation. The Professor is on record as treating these scars as elements of an experiment. Other presenters have already discussed the ramifications of the Julian Friez Machine to the various Julian Friez, so I will not belabor the point at this time.
Why do we accept the actions of such a person? He is a physically imposing presence at six-foot-three; some people tend to be passive when confronted by so tall a person. His mind is recognized as one of the brightest and most prolific in space, and he has a commanding personality and a personal vision; all of these are highly-regarded traits within the Convention. In short, people defer to The Professor for reasons that they believe to be good and sufficient.
I submit to this panel that we must ignore the accomplishments of The Professor, and consider only his actions. Various witnesses to those actions have already spoken, so I will not detail those actions yet again. Instead, I will ask this: Is this the sort of person who the Fenspace Convention wants as one of our well-known members in the 'Danelaw, or does the Convention wish to distance ourselves from these actions no matter who is responsible for committing them?
At this time, we are all respected First Fen here - the closest that The Professor has to a jury of peers. I use the term with consideration; we are deciding the fate of another human being, and we must not rush into judgment. The fact that he is not present to defend himself makes this duty doubly important.
(question from Mr. Nikodemus Riddle on the panel: Mr. Scott, your submission makes no mention of the actions of Ms. Glear. Why is this?)
Ms. Glear's case, while important, is ultimately a side-issue to the main issue of the Convention's reaction to The Professor. Based on my admittedly sparse knowledge of her, I see no reason why she and her two sisters would not wish to share whatever fate that the Convention decides to give to The Professor. We should keep this in mind when making our decisions.
(question from Ms. Shuko on the panel: Mr. Scott, what remedy would you suggest in this matter?)
The man claims to be a professor. Let us treat him as a professor: have him present his proposals for experiments to a board that reviews them for adherence to ethical standards before he begins, allow only ethical experiments to proceed, monitor his work to ensure it remains within the scope of the submitted experiments, and have him submit his findings for peer review before they are published in the general media.
(question from Ms. Shuko on the panel: Is that all?)
For someone who has Blue Hair Days as often as The Professor does, having to stick to an approved line of research and have his work examined would be a punishment.
(Meta: It's already been established that The Professor encourages people to examine his work. It's also already been established that Noah isn't as smart as he thinks he is.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Transcript of the Submission to the 2015 Convention ("BubbleCon") Panel Discussing The Professor, submitted by Noah Scott, President of Stellvia Corporation (an independent element of the Fenspace Convention).
(Note: Because of audio issues at the time of the presentation, this transcript was created with the aid of a supplied copy of prepared notes and thus may vary in minor particulars from the actual submission.)
Assembled sophonts, we are discussing the future of one of the most prolific minds of the Fenspace Convention. I find myself with mixed emotions regarding this matter.
First, I understand the drive to create, and to help guide one's creations toward a better future. I am on record as having created the largest known number of autonomous Beta- and Alpha-level cybernetic intelligences in the Convention (although I often wonder how many people are not listed in the records as creating CIs), and I have been personally involved in the maturation and independence of roughly 80% of those intelligences. I also understand the need to step back and allow one's self-aware creations to develop without interference if that is what they want, even if doing so leads to undesired and undesirable results. The Professor does not appear to me to understand the desirability, or even the necessity, of stepping back and allowing one's self-aware creations to develop without interference.
Second, The Professor is responsible for the creation of a large number of useful devices that can be found in refined form throughout the Fenspace Convention. Many autonomous cybernetic intelligences are based on his designs for Ms. Asakura, Glear, and Nebulart, and it is a rare aerospace-traffic-control communications system that does not incorporate a version of the real-time translation device that was originally created by The Professor, to name two obvious examples. However, The Professor is also responsible for creating dangerous items such as the man-portable electrolaser, the plans for which he has published in many periodicals that can be accessed by Boskonian elements.
Third, there is the matter of the Julian Friez Machine, the creation of which is a contributing reason that this panel needed to be called. We have all met one or more Julian Friez; we know the psychological scars that were inflicted on them during their creation. The Professor is on record as treating these scars as elements of an experiment. Other presenters have already discussed the ramifications of the Julian Friez Machine to the various Julian Friez, so I will not belabor the point at this time.
Why do we accept the actions of such a person? He is a physically imposing presence at six-foot-three; some people tend to be passive when confronted by so tall a person. His mind is recognized as one of the brightest and most prolific in space, and he has a commanding personality and a personal vision; all of these are highly-regarded traits within the Convention. In short, people defer to The Professor for reasons that they believe to be good and sufficient.
I submit to this panel that we must ignore the accomplishments of The Professor, and consider only his actions. Various witnesses to those actions have already spoken, so I will not detail those actions yet again. Instead, I will ask this: Is this the sort of person who the Fenspace Convention wants as one of our well-known members in the 'Danelaw, or does the Convention wish to distance ourselves from these actions no matter who is responsible for committing them?
At this time, we are all respected First Fen here - the closest that The Professor has to a jury of peers. I use the term with consideration; we are deciding the fate of another human being, and we must not rush into judgment. The fact that he is not present to defend himself makes this duty doubly important.
(question from Mr. Nikodemus Riddle on the panel: Mr. Scott, your submission makes no mention of the actions of Ms. Glear. Why is this?)
Ms. Glear's case, while important, is ultimately a side-issue to the main issue of the Convention's reaction to The Professor. Based on my admittedly sparse knowledge of her, I see no reason why she and her two sisters would not wish to share whatever fate that the Convention decides to give to The Professor. We should keep this in mind when making our decisions.
(question from Ms. Shuko on the panel: Mr. Scott, what remedy would you suggest in this matter?)
The man claims to be a professor. Let us treat him as a professor: have him present his proposals for experiments to a board that reviews them for adherence to ethical standards before he begins, allow only ethical experiments to proceed, monitor his work to ensure it remains within the scope of the submitted experiments, and have him submit his findings for peer review before they are published in the general media.
(question from Ms. Shuko on the panel: Is that all?)
For someone who has Blue Hair Days as often as The Professor does, having to stick to an approved line of research and have his work examined would be a punishment.
(Meta: It's already been established that The Professor encourages people to examine his work. It's also already been established that Noah isn't as smart as he thinks he is.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012