Talk:List of fictional computers

Red Dwarf and Queeg 500

I quote: "Holly, and Queeg 500, the on-board computer and back-up computer (respectively) for the space ship Red Dwarf in the BBC television series of the same name. (1988)". Queeg 500 wasnt the backup computer - wasnt it Holly all along? If think this should be reworded. SIGURD42 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Queeg" states this to make the practical joke work, and all characters (and audience) believe it and act as if this were the case. I vote to leave this as-is by taking the view that Queeg is a fictional computer by the standards of the Red Dwarf universe, and a doubly fictional computer by ours. AleatoricConsonance 10:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's only the basis for one episode. By that logic, we should have the talking toaster in here :) It should be removed. Dave420 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many computers that only appear in one single episode of a given television series, such as "Gambit" from Blakes 7, or "Laandru" from Star Trek. Why do you feel that Queeg -- a rather unique example of a metafictional computer -- should be excluded from the list, where the others are not? (And Talkie Toaster appeared in more than one episode of Red Dwarf). AleatoricConsonance 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Question

I was looking at the discussion Talk:List_of_fictional_computers#Computers_vs._computer_programs and it made me question the addition of The Matrix. I breifly browsed The Matrix article, and it commented that the actual Matrix is a artificial reality to pacify humans. In this sense, wouldn't it be a program (though of large scale) rather than an actual computer system. The article as well as the movie itself gives the impression that The Matrix was a huge program, but not a name of an actual and physical system. Pertaining to the movie, the actual system is probally the mass of machine technology, the humans containment centers, and etc. Its a minor problem however, I'm just questioning it. --Deadcore 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• The movies did not define the underlying technology or indeed the exact nature of the Matrix, but it's clearly a computer system of some kind. The List of Fictional Computers is quite broad in its current definition of a 'computer' and includes sophisticated programs that are in some ways indistinguishable from the hardware ... most of these are artificial intelligences, usually with some kind of personality. It's the same with human beings: what is, after all, the difference between your mind and your brain? In a horribly simplistic way, we could argue that one is hardware, one is software, but both are so strongly coupled and interdependant it makes no sense to separate them. It's a good question, but I believe the Matrix should be remain as-is AleatoricConsonance 01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Euclid?

Would it be valid to add the "personal" computer named of Maximillian Cohen, the main character in the movie Pi? In the movie, the computer named Euclid is used to test and power Max's theories in mathematics. Judging from the use in the movie, I would say the computer is intended to be powerful. And I can find no reference that there was actually a computer named Euclid. At least not specifically for the fictional story of Pi. The technology of this computer is furthered, when persons from a Wall Street firm present Max with advanced cutting-edge components to intergrated into Euclid. --Deadcore

| I have not seen the movie Pi, but Euclid seems worthy of inclusion to me. AleatoricConsonance 01:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Euclid has been added here --Deadcore 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorporating external list

Re the list of fictional computers: I think we should incorporate this information rather than link to it (yeah, I know, credit etc., but we're talking about a list here). --Eloquence

Real computers in fiction

Note that "computers in fiction" need not feature fictional computers. For example, a fictional story could use entirely credible real-world computers as a plot element. See Rob Slade's huge list of reviews, linked on the page. -- Anon.

Mycroft (Holmes?)

Is the computer in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress called "Mycroft Holmes", or just "Mycroft"? —Paul A 06:24, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The computer's actual name is only Mycroft, but it is named after Mycroft Holmes. The name is then shortened to Mike for the majority of the story. I'll fix the entry on the list. McGravin 20:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical computers

I wonder if this list should include theoretical computers like Donald Knuth's MIX. Or maybe there should be an article about that category. ;Bear 15:33, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I guess the Turing Machine would also be relevant in that regard. --Wernher 16:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tron

I don't remember enough about the movie "Tron" to be able to write about it except that it was chock full of patent absurdities. But somebody could add it to this list. ;Bear 21:44, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

Computers and AIs

That article is a list of fictional computers, so why there are AIs listed there as well, like Wintermute? There is a difference. Two things can be done about this. Those AIs can be removed (or moved to another page), or a disclaimer could be added in the beginning of the article. – Mackeriv 04:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think AIs should be included in this list, with a statement/disclaimer added if desired. After all, this list reflects more the personality (if a machine can be said to have one; but this is sci-fi, so they do) than the hardware. Rossumcapek 23:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Slight link correction

In the Helpful / benevolent fictional computers, there's an entry for The ship, hub and planetary Minds in Iain M. Banks' "Culture" novels and stories.

It incorrectly links to Minds, where it should actually link to Mind_(The_Culture)

Non-Intelligent Computers

This is just my opinion, but it seems to me non-intelligent computers, which includes the LCARS as far as I know, should really be considered "neutral", even if they are mostly beneficial. After all, they could be turned to malevolent uses, and they wouldn't question it (except in a "Please confirm password" sort of way). What does everyone else think? [User:Daibhid C|Daibhid C]] 23:00 9 Sept 2004 (UTC)

I agree. A computer that can't "think" is simply a tool, like a hammer. And, like a hammer, it can be used for both helpful and harmful means. Chronolegion 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article should Include TCARS, ST Voyager, Season 5, Episode "Relativity". TCARS is the 29th Century advancement/equivalent of the LCARS system, TCARS stands for (Touch) or (Temporal) Computer Access and Retrieval System. There must be an article somewhere in an Encyclopedia for Star Trek, other reference here http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tcars An article on the USS Relativity can be found in Star Trek Magazine volume 1 issue #20. 160.149.1.36 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Darren Hensley,

Mature literature

Making computers in fiction either good/bad or helpful/harmful/neutral etc. is okay for children's stories and really banal shallow stories but in mature writing there are two problems with this: firstly that hardly anybody is really good or bad, so the anthropomorphic characterisation of the computer is giving the machine a personality which isn't very realistic even in fiction; secondly, in a well crafted mature novel the intentions of a sentient AI computer may well be whole point of the story around which everything revolves and may not necessarily be revealed even at the end of the story.

I think the good/bad classification should be removed and the list replaced with an article which cites these computers as examples of computers in fiction.

--wayland 09:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this. Look at the List of fictional robots and androids article which sorts by medium and date of publication / production. This makes the article into a timeline of the concept and how it has developed over time . Which is much more interesting.Lumos3 21:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thirded. It seems to me that fictional computers in most serious stories tend to be either no more "intelligent" than today's machines (and so incapable of moral decisions) or have an almost completely alien viewpoint (as with HAL). The current "good/bad" division doesn't allow for either of those.

I recategorised the whole list by Media as per the List of fictional robots and androids article. Works in "Unsorted" weren't apparent to me on superficial glance what media they belonged to. The works are now in rough alphabetical order for the interim (I used a script so it's imperfect), but I think that sorting by chronology as per the List of Robots is the best way to go. I simply don't have time to do that right now. Dig in everyone! AleatoricConsonance 14:51, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nice work Lumos3 17:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Just wondering, even though Anne McCaffreys dragon books date from the late 60's, the character of AIVAS wasn't introduced until the late 80's IIRC. Should it be date of appearance, or date of series? I think date of appearance makes more sense. AleatoricConsonance 06:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I use date of first appearance, or alternatively a range from first appearance to last one. Lumos3 09:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The addition of dates is going well and we could contemplate sorting into chronological order soon. Lumos3 09:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Value judgements

Who came up with the idea to divide this list among value judgements, and who is making the determination?

For example, VIKI is listed under "harmful" computers, while HAL 9000 is listed under "neutral" computers. Both machines arrive at their damaging conclusions in similar ways, and both were built as benevolent.

So many science fiction stories deal with the philosophical question of pure or conflicted logic resulting in computer decisions that are done based on benevolent precepts leading to malevolent results. So does this division purport to indicate the intent of computers (most of which would be benevolent) or the acts of computers (most of which would in truth be neutral)?

It's a mess of a question that can only be determined based on POV, and I think the distinctions should be eliminated.

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:26, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Computers vs. computer programs

The following are not computers, but computer programs:

• Max Headroom
• Master Control Program
• Joshua

--KeithTyler

You're right. Perhaps marking the pertinent items with "(note: computer program)" might be a suitable solution? After all, people are probably going to end up at this article when searching for this class of 'AI-beings', and I don't think having a separate article on 'Fictional computer programs' is quite the way to go. Or? --Wernher 19:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Joshua IS a computer program like you said, even though it states it is a subprogram of WOPR the fictional computer listed above it. But as I said, you are correct, it is a fictional computer program, not a computer itself. Unless there is a similar article about fictional computer programs to add Joshua to, maybe add it as a worthy mention (note) beside the WORP entry. --Deadcore 23:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Earliest fictional computer

If golems and mythic golden statues qualify for the list of fictional robots, then would the Brazen Heads supposedly constructed by Francis Bacon, Albertus Magnus and the Knights Templar to answer any question qualify as fictional computers? Daibhid C 15:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to think of any justification for their inclusion AleatoricConsonance 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentient computers

I created the above page for a discussion of sentient computers in general discussion. Contributions welcome (some computers now appear to have developed already developed the contrariness demonstrated by their fictional counterparts ;).) Jackiespeel 17:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Femputer?

Should femputer from Futurama be included on this list? (It wasn't actually a computer, but a fembot pretending to be a femputer...but since robot brains are esentially computers could it/she still be considered a computer? Ace-o-aces 15:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can justify its inclusion on the same basis as Holly/Queeg above. That's consistant. This list, at this time, does not include robots on the basis of their computer-brains (although the distinction can get blurry). There exists a separate list for robots. AleatoricConsonance 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature of Interociter?

I wouldn't call the Interociter from This Island Earth a computer. To me it seems more like a thought amplifier and transceiver. The same goes for the Krell machine in Forbidden Planet. ChrisWinter 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

CABAL

I'm sure I read at [1] tha CABAL is Computer Assisted Biologically Argumented Life-form, not what the article reads.

Jurassic Park film

The film of Jurassic Park includes a remarkable computer which surely fits into this list, but I don’t have enough detail to add it myself. It plays a crucial part in the plot and at one point is identified as "Unix" by the character of the grand-daugher of the creator of the Park, though it seems to be an exotic form of Unix. Coconino 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a real computer - see SGI Crimson

Missing in action

Asimov hypothesized large, stationary positronic computers before his various "ACs".

His positronic robots should appear.

P1, from The Adolescence of P1.

Bishop from the Aliens series.

Atlant 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Deep Thought and Earth should be in same category

Deep thought and Earth are currently listed under Literature and Radio respectively, but should be in the same category since they come from the same work. While the Radio play came first (Hitchhikers guide ...) the book is now more familiar. Thoughts? I'll put in a cross ref. Chris

S1m0ne

I think this one should be included, is the one from the Al Pacino Film (Same name)

66.183.108.19 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Müller

What about Muddlehead from Poul Anderson's The Trouble Twisters?

Poul Anderson wrote many stories about David Falkyn and the crew of the Muddlin' Through, which included the computer Muddlehead. Start with the Trouble Twisters from 1967. Definitely a computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.147.43 (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

CABAL and EVA

"CABAL (Computer Assisted Biologically Augmented Lifeform) the computer of Nod in Westwood's Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun, Command and Conquer: Renegade, and, by implication, Command and Conquer: Tiberian Dawn (1995)" It is actually common knowledge that in Tiberium Dawn, the bortherhood of NOD use a pirate version of EVA.. so the 'and, by implication, command and conquer: tiberian dawn' part is incorrect. I should probably change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.169.36 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Logarithmically Engineered Governing Intelligence of Nod (LEGION)

The idea that this is what the acronym, "LEGION", means is entirely spurious. Nobody is going to believe this, but its origin is an April fools prank I played on the EA C&C forums well over a year ago. I don't expect anybody to believe me as I can't produce the original thread, but consider these two points: 1. "Logarithmically engineered" makes no sense and 2. Nobody is going to find "Logarithmically Engineered Governing Intelligence of Nod" anywhere in Command & Conquer canon material. If you can, go ahead and present the source; I will be both amazed and maybe slightly miffed that they actually stole my idea. Especially since, again, it doesn't make sense and only sounds impressive to people who don't know what a Logarithm is. Incidentally, I've removed the reference to this acronym on the article, as it is not confirmed in C&C canon what LEGION actually stands for, if anything.Cranec (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Invisible Boy

The name of the movie that is now called "The Invisible Boy" was origionally named "The Giant Computer" but at the time the ramifications on the growing company I.B.M., caused Hollywood to change the name. Why was not this machine mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.44.60 (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Membership criteria and survival of AFD

Since I !voted for deletion, I'm going to throw some really tight membership criteria up at the wall and in the finest Wikipedia tradition, we can work toward a usable set. I was hoping that List of fictional vehicles had criteria that I could rip off, but it looks like that list is in trouble too. If this list is to justify the human effort and material resources required to maintain and distribute it, it needs to have a purpose.

I think if the list is to be useful, somehow the computer must be significant to the story, not just background "furniture". The Batmobile, for example, is a significant element of "Batman" universe, and has had extensive discussion and third party literature. The subcompact that Harry and Sally rode in to New York is probably too dull and trivial a plot element to be notable. Similarly, the mechanical voice of the Enterprise that runs the self-destruct sequence is notable, but the desktop PC that Horatio Caine uses to get the suspect's photo and current whereabouts from the DNA in an eyelash is not notable.

So far as we know, computers are not self-aware; any fiction that has a Wikipedia article, or in principle that is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, contains a computer that should be listed.

To be eligable for this list, a candidate must be:

• An artificial construct (not talking about mentats or idiots-savant)
• Not primarily humanoid-shaped (that's a robot) (already a criterion)
• Specifically identifiable ( not just "Un-named machine in a video game", etc.)
• Mentioned in notable fiction (that is, something that already has a Wikipedia article).
  • or supply references in the increasingly unlikely case that the notable fiction doesn't yet have an article.
• Critical to the story, not just background.
• Distinctly different from capabilities of real-world computers at the time the story was written. (Sometimes fiction has computers that are dumber than real life... Slipstick Libby spent a lot of his duty time translating to and from binary for a computer that was too dumb to manage that itself. )

A listable computer may be self-aware, but need not be.

If an entity is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article linked to its entry in a list, then I don't think it's needful to also provide a citation within the list. That would make the list article bulky. If we're just asserting that the entity exists and is a suitable member of the list class, surely the pointer within Wikipedia is sufficent. It's an index. If it doesn't already have an article, it must have a source that satisfies notabilty.

I think the list should continue to be organized chronologicaly in the categories of literature, film, etc. as we have now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Distinctly different from capabilities of real-world computers at the time the story was written. What about the computer from Terminator, Skynet[Skynet (Terminator)]? It did manage to wipe out billions of people, and although you never saw it, it was key in that series, controlling all the terminators, and talked about as a major plot element. Real life computers could do what it does, running an AI program, one that copies itself all over the internet to preserve itself, and has access codes to the military computers, or is able to hack them. We've seen in the real world military computers getting hacked by foreign governments, and also a lone hacker acting on their own. The Bat Computer is just a very fast computer, it originally having large tape drives[2], but being updated as new computers did exist. Nothing in it now that a real computer couldn't do. Dream Focus 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are still no AI's hacking into other computers as of 2010, and certainly weren't in the 1980's when the Terminator stores were written. The Bat Computer is novel becuase it's a privately-owned computer in an era when this was unusual, and also doing a type of work that was unfamiliar at the time. That's why the Batcomputer makes the list and Horatio Caine's PDA doesn't. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Support This list certainly needs some kind of filter otherwise as computers become part of everyday life then every film , novel and TV programme will be eligible for entry. I largly support Wtshymanski's proposal. Not sure about Distinctly different from capabilities of real-world computers at the time the story was written. Its possible for a computer of completely normal capability to feature significantly in the plot of a story. Cant think of an example right now. I would also exclude fictional software such as viruses and computer components such as disk drives and memory cards. Lumos3 (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As a old SF fan, I think we need to realize fictional should be in capabilities when compared to computers of the era in which the fiction was published. P1 running on a network of IBM360s would make the list, but a fictionalize Watson playing a game show would not make it. This list should contain the list of computers that envision the future in one way or another. Skynet, Dora, GENIE, MCP and their siblings told stories of possibilities, not realities. --D. Norris 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)