CT Only: PCs and TL
- Thread starter Supplement Four
- Start date
great reply. unfortunately "ai" is not a matter of more intelligent effort, more power, better materials, rather the nature of the project simply precludes success. state machines aren't conscious and don't perceive and don't evaluate. all they do is process pre-planned algorithms. that's it.
Explicitly not for the US (DARPA rep was asked this on TV last year). But every target is required by law to require human approval.
The "Three Laws" are, as noted by others, imposed, not innate. IIRC, in Asmiov's fiction, it's a required element by law and custom to impose them in circuitry (not just software). And gives Asimov a reason to show how even such simple things can result in complex justifications for working around them.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
With respect to the progression from Daedalus to the Boeing 787, there are a lot of technologies that have to be mastered, requiring technical breakthroughs. Among them, inexpensive refining of aluminum (refining aluminum is not cheap, by the way), extreme high-temperature alloys for the turbine blades, and an understanding of electronics and printed circuits. All the money in the world could not have built a Boeing 787 in 1900.
Conversely, the Greeks, if they had worked at it, could have built gliders and hot-air balloons, as that would have been within their technological ability. The Romans had pretty much the pieces to build a reciprocating steam engine, but never made that final jump. They did understand the concept of using heated air to move pistons to open doors, and did have some fairly close tolerance force pumps using pistons for de-watering the silver mines in Spain.
Conversely, the Greeks, if they had worked at it, could have built gliders and hot-air balloons, as that would have been within their technological ability. The Romans had pretty much the pieces to build a reciprocating steam engine, but never made that final jump. They did understand the concept of using heated air to move pistons to open doors, and did have some fairly close tolerance force pumps using pistons for de-watering the silver mines in Spain.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
No question. It may be our understanding of math that is deficient, definitely neurobiology, highly possible lack of materials technology to recreate that functionality electronically, or we don't go that direction at all and grow our artificial brains leaving computers to be deterministic enhancers.
I wasn't saying we went straight from Kitty Hawk to Dreamliner, but that is the risk and the illuminating part of talking in symbology, people will interpret their way and own their thought processes.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I expect silicon life forms assess squishy water/carbon AI in the same manner.
Depends on your definition of "recognize".
When given a array of pixels, if the pixels it's processing works out to what we consider a word written in a typed font, the computer can spit out a byte stream conveniently encoded in UTF-8 that, when rendered by the appropriate software, spits out glyphs that to us looks like "Giraffe".
Did the computer "recognize" that the pixels were a representation of the word "Giraffe"?
Given a collection of pixels, computers can now readily identify blobs of pixels that, to us, look like human faces. Further, it can further refine that identification, when compared against a catalog of stored references, as to, perhaps, which person may well be represented by that face. The term of art, today, is "Facial Recognition". Not because the computer is conscious, but because we called that process it is doing "Facial Recognition".
When the computer's algorithms settle on an answer based on this process, it's fair for us to declare what it is doing is "recognizing" the face in the picture, but that's for our own purposes. The computer is simply blindly iterating, calculating, shifting, and branching. Like it always does, all the time, unless it's powered down or otherwise halted.
Computer vision is extraordinarily difficult. It's the bane of autonomous vehicles. The vehicles use a myriad of other sensors because computer vision is simply not up to the task.
But, since we're talking about a Science Fiction RPG, it's not untoward to assume that "some leap" has been made in the area, to the point of create extraordinarily sophisticated machines that are, yet, not sentient, or even close. They're just machines.
well if you meet some then you can ask them. until then ....
not in the slightest. electronic switches were activated to direct digital states from one location to another, nothing more. nothing was recognized any more than a plumbing system "recognizes" anything when certain valves are turned one way to cause water to flow one way, then turned another way to cause water to flow another way. heh. no-one has ever thought a water distribution system is ai, but they seem willing to think that about electronics. ain't.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
For someone putting effort into a science fiction space game, I have a hard time dealing with your conception that electronic AI is somehow impossible.
Yes, a heuristic 'expert' system can consider to be like a pipe/valve system, but there IS intelligence built into such systems- a more representative one might be realtime engineering systems that manage building climate or factory/refinery/power plant processes.
But consider a child or a pet that is learning to recognize 'ball'. That isn't genetically programmed, learned to be sure with interaction and input from teaching/authority figures.
But there is a cell or set of cells that have loaded the concept, visual data and process that supports the recognition when a ball comes into the field of vision and is called upon to check again. That's a state and retained process. It's there, it's electrons/chemical/likely analog wavelength as opposed to digital 1/0, and it's not magic.
while the game posits various tech which seems remotely possible (just like birds fly therefore men may figure out how to do it for themselves, matter bends and may break space-time so perhaps this may be achieved artificially and controllably), the conception of electronic ai disregards the real-world nature of state systems altogether. "I change states, therefore I am" doesn't work.
piling more states upon states does not achieve intelligence, though there is, or was, a branch of "ai" which posits exactly that - just build it big enough and fast enough and it will be intelligent. but "I change states frequently, therefore I am" doesn't work either.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
This particular game comes with a Tech Level table with the lower 30% specifically left blank for the Referee to add whatever technologies someone might find unbelievable.
I really do wonder sometimes what people think "Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far Future" is supposed to mean. Because when I think of that phrase, I never think, "Just like today... but a little bit more." But that sure as heck seems to be how some people read it.
I really do wonder sometimes what people think "Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far Future" is supposed to mean. Because when I think of that phrase, I never think, "Just like today... but a little bit more." But that sure as heck seems to be how some people read it.
probably because that's exactly how lbb1-3 present it. aging rolls at 34, polearms, space marines armed with cutlass and rifles/carbines, money, mortgage payments, forgery (forgery! hah!), room-sized computers - it's the 1970's, with some portable lasers (woot!) and fusion rockets and great drugs (WOOT!) and a little space travel thrown in.
I remember the first time I was reading lbb1. the equipment price tables included the price for a tarp. I thought, "a tarp? really?"
of course you can make it more than that (cybernetics/transhumanism/biomanipulation, anyone?), and you can implement whatever you want. but some things ....
Last edited:
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
Well, no. (See the lower third of the tech table). The game setting has always been about the mixing of very high tech level and low tech levels and everything in-between.
I understand the inclusion of primitive items in the game boggles the imagination of many people. But I have no idea why these imaginations are boggled since it is clear the PCs will be traveling to specific worlds of low technology -- and thus low tech weapons are available in the rules.
Moreover, the PCs go into areas with materials and equipment that are easy to use, replace, and repair since they will be weeks, if not months away from the ability to repair or replace high tech items. (And if things go south, they could be gone even months longer.)
As far as the overall, conservative baseline technology goes -- yes, absolutely. Which allows the Players and Referee to have a shared reference. The group doesn't have to continue to stop play and figure out the cascading effects of each new shift in common technology. It is a convention to get on with the business of "Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far Future." But this does not mean the settings and adventures are stuck at this conservative baseline. Just as the PCs will be heading off and encountering environments of low technology, so too will they be encountering the wonders of high technology that the Referee provides. Again, see: Tech Level Chart. Like really. At that blank space in the lower third of the chart. All that blank space is there for the characters to encounter settings, items, worlds, and adventures brimming with notions and ideas that far exceed the expectations of the Player Characters.
There's no reason to assume (the game certainly didn't) that the setting of RPG play would be consistent or uniform across the stars.
The fact that the above is not what you want doesn't change any of this.
And here it is. You at your most ridiculous and supercilious. The notion that you are some sort of arbiter for what tropes and notions from decades of SF adventure tales (both past and future) people can or should use in their settings. Really?
Last edited:
The "AI isn't possible" argument essentially is a theological one, and is thus not suitable for discussion outside the pit. [m;]Take the AI plausibility discussion to the pit or let it drop.[/m;]
Thanks.
Oh, and while Flykiller has avoided explicit theological basis, it's clear from the nature of the arguments made that it's likely grounded in a religious basis. Which is why no infractions, but also no further extra-pulpit discussion on that vein.
Thanks.
Oh, and while Flykiller has avoided explicit theological basis, it's clear from the nature of the arguments made that it's likely grounded in a religious basis. Which is why no infractions, but also no further extra-pulpit discussion on that vein.
Whether "AI" can happen within an electronic substrate is orthogonal to the idea of sophisticated electronics displaying adaptive, high level behavior.
A Combat Gunbot doesn't not need AI to be an effective tool on the battle field. A multi-purpose industrial assembly manipulator with sophisticated sensors, including, perhaps, optics, does not need AI to be a robust, flexible industrial worker.
I imagine we are not that far today from having a machine able to replicate a part presented to it. It can scan the part, make a material request (that could be fulfilled by an automated system), and select the appropriate tools while selecting the proper machining steps.
A simplistic case of an automated lathe. Stick a table leg in to it, hit the duplicate button, and it's easy to see the machine scan the piece, and prepare itself to replicate it once proper stock is loaded. Will it finish and stain it? Not today. Maybe later.
How much work is being done in this arena? I have no idea. Not in a single device, not yet.
As machine vision improves and mechanical manipulators improve, touch sensors, etc. automated constructs will be more and more capable, and able to fill more and more roles. Machine vision is a real nut. It's "really hard". But we learn more and more each day. Also, there's nothing to suggest that such units are required to be self contained, as witnessed by many of the marvels on a modern smartphone backed by a large server infrastructure.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Sure thing.
A standard on many of my ships are Ship's Robot, basically a static 1-2 ton robot brain plugged into ship's power, all the other bots on board are remote drones. Only pay once for the expensive bits.
However, in combat applications IMO one must design in autonomy because EW and such.
Probably should be a more defining feature on Striker grav tanks, robotic built-in gunners and drivers that can take over, etc.
Getting back to the OP and topic, ubiquitous robotics would IMO be a defining feature of TL11+ and should be a major factor in creating big differences for TL interaction.
For instance, if you want to create an annoying Core World experience, perhaps nannybots are there to save you from accidents, but in the process make sure you cannot hurt yourself by doing something stupidly human.
If that won't get the players back in the accel couch headed for the frontier I don't know what will.
Similar threads
