Why are there no robots or AI in the Dune Universe?

@SW-User Yes and took it to an extreme level. Not just AI but computers.

@SW-User I re-posted the video. It's part of a pretty good series about Dune llore. She has a mellow voice too so it's great pre-sleep watching.

@Burnley123 Can you use non electronic computers? Like if I performed the same operations on marbles in holes that a CPU does on charges in RAM, would that be breaking the rule?

@SW-User No because it's done physically, not with a 'thinking machine'. You'd mentat in the Dune universe.

@Burnley123 So since like if I wanted to perform some simple calculation I'd have to know how to appropriately move the marbles this is different than pushing the buttons on a calculator because there are like instructions in the calculator that I'm not thinking about. Is that the distinction?

@SW-User It's not a question Frank Herbert actually asked. 😂

One of the things though is that the revolution against computers happened partly in response to machines encouraging humans to think like them. The Dune society saw this as one of the corrupting features which damaged the essence of humanity. I think your example relates to that. In short, you just wouldn't think like that in the Dune universe anyway because you would never have used a calculator.

The mentats are an order of super-specialist intellectuals who are trained in rigorous intellectual discipline to form higher-level calculations that previously could only be done by machines. They act as special advisors for the great houses because they are arch strategists. The idea is not only can the do higher-level maths but they can apply calculations to real-life scenarios. For example military and political strategy.

Thufir Hawat is the Atreides mentat. Piter De Vries (with a Ducth name for some reason lolz) is the Harkkonen mentat. Technically he counts as a 'twisted mentat' because he's devoid of the strict ethical training which is supposed to be included in the mentat training; the Harkonnens being shits OFC.

@SW-User Searle didn't make your "Chinese Room" argument until 1980; Dune was 1965. In any case I found Searle unconvincing; computation is computation and 'the system' understands even if the person moving the marbles doesn't.

@Burnley123 I just want to understand what the law actually forbids.

@ElwoodBlues I don't know what the "Chinese Room" argument is.

@SW-User Well you invoked it pretty well. Below is an article about it. It's a thought experiment where a western person follows a set of rules to do operations in Chinese language. In a nutshell, Searle says because the person doesn't understand Chinese, the system doesn't either.

https://iep.utm.edu/chineser/

@ElwoodBlues I'm not saying that though, am I?

@SW-User I'm not sure of the actual laws. The Orange Catholic Bible (a kind of synthesis of religion and philosophy on which the laws are based) mentions not making machines 'in the likeness of man' or 'thinking machines'. The society seens to take a very literal view of that.

I can't answer you more specifically than I have and I can't remember if the books even do. You might be able to find it online or maybe not.

@SW-User You're not saying your operations amount to AI, no. But you're asking "if it doesn't look like computation is is still proscribed like computation." You & Searle have the common thread of somewhat disguising computation (or AI) and then querying whether it's still computation (or AI).

@ElwoodBlues I'm really confused. Are you saying that the moving of marbles in and out of the holes would count as computation? I look at it the same was as like "carrying the one" when adding. Like if you are moving the marbles you are just marking down something that you thought of so you don't have to worry about keeping that state in your head.

@SW-User I'm saying you could construct a marble moving system (with or without human power) that was equivalent to computation and Turing complete. I assumed that was what you meant by "the moving of marbles in and out of the holes" but perhaps I mistook your argument.

@ElwoodBlues That is what I meant. I'm twice as confused now.

@MalteseFalconPunch What actually defines something as "thinking machine"?

@SW-User This dude is an expert and knows more than me.