• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

CT Only: PCs and TL

A Tech Level 15 asteroid dweller visiting a Tech Level 4 planet.

Wishes to use the toilet, is pointed to shed outside.

Needs to turn on a light, is handed a kerosene lantern and box of matches.

Wants to heat up some rations. Is pointed to stove and wood pile, and aforesaid matches and paper.

Wishes to use a form of mechanical transportation, is shown brand new, late model ground car, the 1893 Duryea Automobile.

Just to show I am not making the car up, see the following publication on Project Gutenberg.



http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30055/30055-h/30055-h.htm


For TL mismatch wrangling rolls or roleplay, consider using the character's terms as a modifier. A 5-term vet has been around the galaxy and dealt with a lot of 'tech shock', a 1-term-and-done 22 year old is practically just off the space farm.
 
Except that, for what it's worth, the Traveller universe has actually surprisingly bad importing. It's slow. I can get a new car customised* from Korea in 6 weeks if I have the money. Making the same deal between Wypoc and Regina is at least 4.2 weeks... 1 week for the request to get there, another for the response, a third for the cash, a day or two at the plant, and another week to get it to wypoc.‡ While that's shorter, I don't know until it shows up that they got the money... And it's likely to take 3-4 weeks to get it into the cue. Meanwhile, if I really throw money at it, I can have it real world in 4 days...

Of course the same arguments for going off planet with automation apply to staying on planet in "less friendly" environs. There's a lot of cheap land in the heartland today that could provide the acreage for heavily automated facilities. Simply, there is less need for nearby demographics to support the plant, freeing up the geography on where the plant can go. At best the plant would need a rail head.

Multinational companies are TL7.8 because they have the experts. Countries that have the universities and technical colleges that can churn out the critical mass of experts.

Every country in the world can access the information thanks to the interwebs, training people to master it is another thing entirely.

Of course the beauty of training people is that, first, the people can come to you and, perhaps better, the trainers can go to them. Even better, you can have people come to you, you can train them, and then they can go off and train others. Obviously there is some loss in translation, but it's enough to start an industry up that can develop it's own local expertise over 5-10 years.

There is also the consequence of automation, you lose craftsmen.

Here in the north east of England we used to have a world leading ship building industry.

Most experts admit there is no longer the skill base to open up even one shipyard without bringing expert craftsmen from abroad to train apprentices to build ships.

I think you're downplaying the capability of "general purpose" automation. Simple example, a craftsmen can hand cut dove tailed drawer joints. A modern carpenter today may not be able to cut the joints by hand, but with a $100 worth of jigs and routers, he can machine excellent dovetail joints. Obviously a piece of rote automation can do that all day long, for thousands of drawers. But a piece of "general" automation (i.e. a robot) can, in theory, "hand cut" the joint, with craftsmen like skill -- the first time.

One of the things that always made me itch, from gear-heady POV, in the early SW movies, was how utterly worthless the "droid" army was. As a human, eye hand coordination and muscle memory, all things necessary to provide accuracy, especially with something like a firearm, those are "soft skills". Through training and what not, we can develop those neural pathways and train the eye and hand to be accurate, and be accurate quickly.

A machine doesn't (shouldn't) have that problem. A machine has complete self awareness. Its knows at what angle it's wrist, elbow, shoulder, waist and legs are at, as in relationship to each other, as well as to the ground. With higher resolution sensors, higher frequency calculations, a droid should be able to instantly compute the ballistics and change anything necessary to make the "perfect" shot within the inherent accuracy of the weapon and its internal components. Ye Old hostage situation with the assailant holding the hostage would be a trivial matter for a droid to safely make the shot, and it will do it within milliseconds of the command and the propagation delay to the mechanics of the firearm. When it comes to manual motor tasks, whether it's shooting, cutting a board, or pounding a rivet, a machine should be able to do that within the limits of its mechanical capability.

Now, to the point, I would not call the robot an "expert". But you could call it a craftsman when it comes to mechanical skill. To me, an expert doesn't just know how to do something, they know to fix something when something goes wrong. A $10 book from the auto parts store can tell you how to replace a transmission, but you still likely want an expert to actually do it. No matter how good the steps are in that book, it's likely incomplete in terms of what's actually needed to accomplish the task.

So, it begs the question of how much craftsmen are needed. You need artisans, for sure. You need engineers and designers. But mechanical skill, patience, "eye for detail", alls aspects of craftsmanship, I think less and less. I look at the wood work at the county fair each year, and it's all amazing. It's beautiful, creative, perfectly finished. But a lot of it is just the time invest transforming rectangular pieces of wood in these beautiful shapes. Something a CNC machine can do in 1/2 hour of machine time. Imagine if all of your workers were simply portable CNC machines that could replicate any shape you show them. "Make this" and hand them the result of the CAD drawing that's been 3D printed as a prototype. Or the clay figurine you hand crafted and fired.

The OTU has a millennial Imperium that has been TL12 since the start, TL14 for over 400 years and TL15 for over 100. High TL stuff in everywhere, expertise in high TL stuff is everywhere, the hard part is explaining why every world isn't a TL12 minimum,

A question that has long vexed me is why would any world in the Imperium invest or develop a fossil fuel based economy?

Yea, I agree. I have no problem with systems having divergent TLs, but not after the thousand plus years of "stable" civilization. 10's, even 1 or 2 centuries. But, after that? Nope. Makes no sense outside of academic examples "Hand off the indigenous population".
 
Ye Old hostage situation with the assailant holding the hostage would be a trivial matter for a droid to safely make the shot

indeed, it would - stable situation, static target, clean shot. but in a dynamic situation it would be slow, and inappropriate actions would occur.

Now, to the point, I would not call the robot an "expert". But you could call it a craftsman when it comes to mechanical skill.

in the ai community the terms are reversed. "expert" refers to limited recognition and skill sets. "craftsman" does not (yet) apply.
 
The OTU has a millennial Imperium that has been TL12 since the start, TL14 for over 400 years and TL15 for over 100. High TL stuff in everywhere, expertise in high TL stuff is everywhere, the hard part is explaining why every world isn't a TL12 minimum,

Yea, I agree. I have no problem with systems having divergent TLs, but not after the thousand plus years of "stable" civilization. 10's, even 1 or 2 centuries. But, after that? Nope. Makes no sense outside of academic examples "Hand off the indigenous population".
I agree that is hard to do, and maybe even too much trouble to defend, but I think a viable explanation is to assume the barrier high TL technology transfer is in a very high human and physical capital costs to design/build/test the components needed for high TL gadgets. If it is not merely a mechanical, easily replicable process to build a Hi-TL component (nor the machines that are used in design/build/test) then you can justify some long-term TL differential.

People may all know and use high tech devices. Maybe they even repair them. But designing and building them is another matter.

Still, while we can imagine this explanation applies for imaginary future technologies (TL A+), it doesn't help explain why every planet isn't TL 9, since we know there aren't such barriers for today's technology that can't be overcome within decades with sufficient resources.
 
Still, while we can imagine this explanation applies for imaginary future technologies (TL A+), it doesn't help explain why every planet isn't TL 9, since we know there aren't such barriers for today's technology that can't be overcome within decades with sufficient resources.


TL in the rules is not the same thing as TL in the OTU setting because, as you and hundreds before you have correctly noted, TL in the OTU setting cannot work like TL in the rules.
 
indeed, it would - stable situation, static target, clean shot. but in a dynamic situation it would be slow, and inappropriate actions would occur.

Well, simply, I disagree. With high resolution sensors and fast processors, "amazing hip shots" will be the norm. Take the finest trick shooters in the world, put them in to combat with faster reaction times, no stress, and no tunnel vision. Oh, and no need to practice.

There's a scene in "Enemy at the Gates", about snipers in Stalingrad. A pair of snipers were in a building corridor when they got to a section that was blown out, so they had to jump across the gap. But there was also a gap in the wall. They chose who would go first (I forget how), but the point being that he first person to jump was in less danger than the second. If there was another sniper covering the position, the first jumper would have surprise. But the second, the sniper would be alerted and waiting. Then it was a game of raw reaction time plus shooter skill to hit the second jumper.

Those would be trivial shots for the "droid" to make. The sole limitation is whether its weapon could track in time to make the shot. Limits of mechanical accuracy. Range obviously affects the shot as range limits the resolution of the sensor, a increases the flight time. (More reason to use lasers - far less flight time). if the position were in the limits of tracking time, the droid would take out both jumpers.

We now have computer enhanced telescopic site shooting system where you essentially put the reticle on the target, pull the trigger, and the site shows the shooter where to place the crosshairs. From that point on, as long as your finger is on the trigger, the computer will actually take the shot. You simply need to point the rifle where the computer tells you to.
 
Those would be trivial shots for the "droid" to make.

that's because you're viewing the shots as isolated events. they're not. humans just don't get that, because they live in the middle of everything and have learned to filter out all the distractions. robots can't. humans can focus attention, but all robots have is parsing and algorithms and priorities.

have you ever taken a picture thinking it was going to be great, then examining what you took it looks lousy because of all the background scenery distractions? you saw only what you were interested in, but the camera sees it all.
 
that's because you're viewing the shots as isolated events. they're not. humans just don't get that, because they live in the middle of everything and have learned to filter out all the distractions. robots can't. humans can focus attention, but all robots have is parsing and algorithms and priorities.

have you ever taken a picture thinking it was going to be great, then examining what you took it looks lousy because of all the background scenery distractions? you saw only what you were interested in, but the camera sees it all.

CIWS can hit a target 2x2cm with 99% accuracy out to a mile, using a 20mm gatling.

The problem isn't the shooting, the problem is picking the target. Which, with modern computational-only neural nets, is becoming trivial. (Turn on viewing of Facebook or Google tags of images... it's scary.) Implement hardware neural nets (arrays of 4 to 8 bit processors) and things get really efficient really quick.
 
CIWS can hit a target 2x2cm with 99% accuracy out to a mile, using a 20mm gatling.

The problem isn't the shooting, the problem is picking the target. Which, with modern computational-only neural nets, is becoming trivial. (Turn on viewing of Facebook or Google tags of images... it's scary.) Implement hardware neural nets (arrays of 4 to 8 bit processors) and things get really efficient really quick.

Which begs the question- is any military going to bother with the Three Laws of Robotics when deploying automated killing machines that can pick out enemies vs. busses of nuns?
 
Which begs the question- is any military going to bother with the Three Laws of Robotics when deploying automated killing machines that can pick out enemies vs. busses of nuns?

Asimov's Three Laws are akin to Roddenberry's Prime Directive - utopian thinking in fiction whose implications are explored therein. Expecting such to be implemented IRL is an exercise in utopian thinking apart from fiction - doomed to disappointment.
 
Which begs the question- is any military going to bother with the Three Laws of Robotics when deploying automated killing machines that can pick out enemies vs. busses of nuns?

the machines will not be able to make such distinctions. they will be able to implement only simple decisions with any military effectiveness, e.g. if (inside_kill_zone(35.95.100,10) and ir_signal_present(.1)) shoot(3,.9) ;

consider the battle for fallujah - the entire urban zone was declared a free-fire zone and anyone there a legitimate target. that's what will happen.
 
Asimov's Three Laws are akin to Roddenberry's Prime Directive - utopian thinking in fiction whose implications are explored therein. Expecting such to be implemented IRL is an exercise in utopian thinking apart from fiction - doomed to disappointment.

Not utopian when the darn things are going to be faster, stronger, and far more accurate then us. More collective survival and security.

Forget military or police bots, consider what happens if the criminal element can get their hands on utterly lethal enforcers, protectors, assassins and guards. The automation revolution extended to the underground economy and life. Bet there will be screaming for safety laws very quickly.

Or even driver bots having to make one of those live and death decisions, and having to have it coded ahead of time. That's VERY close to happening in 10 years.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/

Try your hand at 'coding' these decisions, this is VERY real world and very NOW.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
 
the machines will not be able to make such distinctions. they will be able to implement only simple decisions with any military effectiveness, e.g. if (inside_kill_zone(35.95.100,10) and ir_signal_present(.1)) shoot(3,.9) ;

consider the battle for fallujah - the entire urban zone was declared a free-fire zone and anyone there a legitimate target. that's what will happen.

You say that, but note what Aramis was saying- they are getting VERY good at visual recognition, and the AI to back autonomous pattern matching.

Not a matter of if, but when.

And, given the political desirability of 'killing the right people' and avoiding collateral damage, a VERY cogent military goal towards success of most operations, IMO the bots WILL be sent in without the three laws but with Rules of Engagement when they get to the same or better recognition level as humans.

Not likely in 10 years, but very likely IMO in 20-30.
 
they are getting VERY good at visual recognition, and the AI to back autonomous pattern matching.

sure, at matching anticipated patterns in a predicted manner in a limited setting. been doing that for decades now. but again, you're displaying human bias, thinking they "recognize" something. they don't. and you're calling it "ai". it's not.

Not likely in 10 years, but very likely IMO in 20-30.

they were saying that in the 1970's, and they dived in with enthusiastic true-believer effort and tremendous funding for decades. but the problem has just proved too hard, because they assumed machine "perceptions" could model human perceptions - but there is no equivalence and their belief that it could be programmed into existence was nothing more than anthropomorphism. expert systems are the best they can do, it's the nature of the machine, that's the way it is. unless something radically different turns up then that's all they'll be able to do.
 
sure, at matching anticipated patterns in a predicted manner in a limited setting. been doing that for decades now. but again, you're displaying human bias, thinking they "recognize" something. they don't. and you're calling it "ai". it's not.

Visual recognition is an actual term, not a human metaphor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience_of_visual_object_recognition

As to AI, that gets into defining what is AI. I would define it less then a Turing Test, and more problem solving against novel situations that they have not been pre-programmed to deal with. That aspect is developing very very fast.


they were saying that in the 1970's, and they dived in with enthusiastic true-believer effort and tremendous funding for decades. but the problem has just proved too hard, because they assumed machine "perceptions" could model human perceptions - but there is no equivalence and their belief that it could be programmed into existence was nothing more than anthropomorphism. expert systems are the best they can do, it's the nature of the machine, that's the way it is. unless something radically different turns up then that's all they'll be able to do.

We are ultimately biomechanical learning machines, so yes it can be machine created, a matter likely of creating the right physical circuitry optimized for learning and problem-solving coupled with the right programming.

The brain cell is in my opinion a very sophisticated bit of technology- storage, processor AND router. The transistor for all it's speed miniaturization and power is likely the mitochondria to the actual eventual specialized 'cell'.
 
We are ultimately biomechanical learning machines

(bangs head on table)

well then you already have the ai machines you're looking for.

except that's not what you want, is it?

what you want, can't be done.

so yes it can be machine created, a matter likely of creating the right physical circuitry optimized for learning and problem-solving coupled with the right programming.

more effort and more money, and we can do it!
 
I think the Americans are developing autonomous armed armoured droids, and any near peer competitor is going to be in for a surprise, when the balloon goes up.

DARPA will probably lift the programming from Google.
 
Back
Top