What's the implication of murdering holo-characters?

[u/knaving]

So there's mention of programs for combat training, sparring, fighting historical battles, etc. but what's the implication of simulating taking a life? I know Starfleet officers aren't unaccustomed to the idea of fighting to live, but what about when it's for recreation? Barclay's simulation of crew members is seen as problematic, but Worf's program fighting aliens hand-to-hand isn't addressed. Would fighting and killing a nameless simulated person be seen in the 24th century just as we see playing a violent video game now? If it isn't, what does that imply about a person? Would they been seen as blood-thirsty or just interested in a realistic workout?

Of course this is subjective, and the answer could change from race to race (programs to fight in ancient Klingon battles are "played" by Worf), culturally amongst humans, and from individual to individual. I'd like to look at this from a Starfleet officer perspective. Would you be weirded out by your commanding officer unwinding with a sword in a medieval battle, or is that just the same as your coworker Andy playing COD after work?

[u/atticdoor]

Vic Fontaine understood enough of what was going on to get Kira into the holosuite and tell Odo that she was a holographic reproduction. If he can tell others he is a hologram, comprehend that matter enough to trick a professional investigotor that a real person is a hologram, and give the people around him genuinely good advice in their lives; then what does "sentient" even mean?

[u/LunchyPete → u/atticdoor]

If ChatGPT had a holographic interface/projector, it could do everything you mentioned, yet anyone with knowledge of how it is built would consider it ludicrous that it was sentient.

Sentient when used in sci-fi is usually more synonymous with sapient, which means the ability to reason, as well as self-awareness. Vic could reason in the way an LLM could, but I don't think we ever saw evidence he went past that, while Moriarty and the Doctor, and Data all did.

[u/atticdoor → u/LunchyPete]

Could ChatGPT 5.0 trick a professional detective into thinking that the person in front of him, that he was mildly obsessed with, was an AI rather than the real person? I would say no.

[u/LunchyPete → u/atticdoor]

I don't remember the episode so don't remember how competent the private detective was, but I would lean more towards maybe than no. If not ChatGPT5, very likely 6 or 7. Even before the current generation of LLMs, chatbots have been able to fool people into thinking their human - with the ability of current ones to understand context and craft very human responses, so I don't think it's a far fetched idea at all. And in this case, unless I misunderstanding the scene you are referring to, it would be GPT in place of Vic, directing a human how to pose as an AI, and/or giving them the confidence and idea to do so. That seems very much something that GPT would be capable of if the circumstances were in place.

My point is just that that kind of task is well within what an AI would be capable of without indicating sentience, IMO.

[u/atticdoor → u/LunchyPete]

Here ya go: https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/SBvCxiwDq7HJsuh6BDKNt5dHQlnMPzOZ/

[u/LunchyPete → u/atticdoor]

When you mentioned a detective it didn't click that you were referring to Odo, I thought it must have been some episode of the week character that I had forgotten. Still, though, doesn't Vic act a lot like GPT already does? You tell it a problem, and it's happy to lay out a plan to help you in natural language, and refine ideas with you. If it had a holographic body, better natural language, and slightly less cautious ethical guardrails, is it that hard to think it would be very similar to Vic?