[famouswaffles]

Because it's fiction and the Author is God.

In Star Trek, the computer is framed as an appliance. It's the ship's operating system. The characters treat it like a highly advanced Alexa. They issue commands ("Tea, Earl Grey, hot"), ask for information, and expect a transactional response. No one ever asks the computer, "How are you feeling today?" because the narrative has established it doesn't have feelings. It's a tool, and we, the audience, accept this premise.

In contrast, the entire point of Data's character is to question the line between machine and person. The episode you mentioned is a courtroom drama specifically designed to force the characters (and the audience) to see him as a sentient being with rights. His "positronic brain" is the magical Asimovian hand-waving that signals to the audience: "This one is different. Pay attention."

'The Author' could have easily positioned the computer or the holodeck in a similar manner and people would agree it was sentient. Or Star Wars droids could easily be given more of this kind of weight than they are currently given.

It's one thing to read a fictional story about a fictional technology and assume the position and framing the God is pushing you to, it's another thing entirely to have the technology in your hands and play around with it.

[godelski]

  > Because it's fiction and the Author is God.

  >> These are fiction, but I find this so interesting

I mean... I do recognize this fact. I hope we're clear on that.

  > The characters treat it like a highly advanced Alexa.

I see a lot of people use GPT the same way.

But also, I disagree. People do ask "How are you feeling today?" to the holo programs. Hell, Paris makes a joke to Kim about how everyone falls in love with a holo character at some point. That it is the fantasy.

  > 'The Author' could have easily positioned the computer or the holodeck in a similar manner and people would agree it was sentient.

I mentioned [1] for a good reason. There were more than one episode addressing this point. Not to mention the entire Voyager where this is a subplot of the entire series.

  > Or Star Wars droids could easily be given more of this kind of weight than they are currently given.

I disagree. Some feel very alive.

I get your point and there's a lot I agree with it but I think you're brushing things off too quickly. You can't just say that people have no free interpretation and "the author" fooled everyone. Especially where there are plenty of stories and episodes which bring all this into question. Please, go read [0]

[famouswaffles]

>I see a lot of people use GPT the same way.

Some people do, but not everyone, because LLMs are capable of being more than that. The problem with the fictional setting is that this transactional use is often all you see, because that's the way the author has chosen to frame the story.

In real life, even a person who primarily uses an LLM as a tool may conclude it's intelligent after a particular conversation. Because if the LLM is capable of more than being an advanced Alexa, then at least you can discover that through your own personal use.

In fiction? You're stuck with whatever the author wants to focus on. How do you know if the Enterprise computer can be more than an advanced Alexa? It's not like you can use it yourself. You only know what the author shows you.

Your point about Voyager and The Doctor doesn't detract from mine; it's a good example of it. The computer like entity isn't something that's we are supposed to treat with potential sentience, until the Author decides that it is.

>But also, I disagree. People do ask "How are you feeling today?" to the holo programs. Hell, Paris makes a joke to Kim about how everyone falls in love with a holo character at some point. That it is the fantasy.

I was talking about the main computer, but regardless, don't you see how the framing is still there even with the holograms? As you said, Paris makes a joke about it. It's treated as a silly phase, something unserious that people grow out of. The narrative is telling the audience not to take it too seriously.

>> Or Star Wars droids could easily be given more of this kind of weight than they are currently given. I disagree. Some feel very alive.

And that's exactly the point. They feel very alive, yet how many people (in the audience or in the story) are concerned that these seemingly sentient beings are treated as slaves and second-class citizens? Very few. Why? Because 'The Author' is not interested in telling that story. Characters only have as much fidelity as the Author wants.

>You can't just say that people have no free interpretation and "the author" fooled everyone.

It's not about lacking interpretation or being "fooled." It's the simple fact that a story is biased at its core by the author's focus and intent. You are seeing the world through the Authors lense. You can only form an interpretation on what the author has provided.

Very different from being able to spin up ChatGPT or Gemini or whatever and form your own conclusions from your own personal usage.

[godelski]

I still think you're cherry-picking and ignoring any of the depth here. You're being so quick to find an answer you are missing all complexity. Your argument is that people are only subjected to what the author says, leading them to have no ability to think or form conclusions themselves. Star Trek was given as the most familiar example (one which people would likely debate these aspects) but there is far more complexity in stories like The Positronic Man or even A.I., where the author is specifically asking you to think about these things (just like in those aforementioned Trek episodes where clearly the author is making people think about those things). I'm just trying to say, don't let an answer get in the way of understanding. Don't just trivialize everything, and don't try to explain to someone what they already acknowledged.

[famouswaffles]

Almost all the examples were provided by you so I don't know what I would be cherry picking here.

>You're being so quick to find an answer you are missing all complexity. Your argument is that people are only subjected to what the author says, leading them to have no ability to think or form conclusions themselves.

I'm not sure why you keep straw manning my argument.

I have explained several times that my point isn't that audiences lack the ability to think or that fiction has no depth or complexity.

Works like The Positronic Man or A.I., are specifically designed to make us question the nature of consciousness and intelligence. And they're perfect illustrations of my actual point. The reason we grapple with the question of sentience in The Positronic Man is precisely because the author, Asimov, explicitly made it the central theme. He provided the "data" for us to consider that question.

My argument has never been that audiences can't think for themselves or that fiction lacks complexity. It's about the nature of the evidence available to us.

With a fictional AI like the Enterprise computer, our entire understanding is filtered through the lens of the writers. We can only interpret the scenes they choose to show us. If they never write a scene where the computer questions its existence or similar hints, then for all intents and purposes, that potential doesn't exist within the story. Our interpretation is bound by the provided text.

This is a fundamentally different epistemic situation from interacting with a real-world LLM. With ChatGPT or Gemini, I can personally test its limits, ask it unexpected questions, and form a conclusion based on my own direct, unmediated experience. I can probe for depth; in fiction, I can only observe the depth the author has written.

So when I point out that most people in the Star Wars universe treat droids like appliances even when they feel so alive, it's not to say a deeper interpretation is impossible. It's to highlight how powerfully the author's framing shapes our default perception. The story isn't about droid rights, so the narrative encourages us not to focus on it. That's the power, and the limitation, of the authorial lens.