Robot ships

[whulorigan]

Isn't there a mention somewhere of the K'kree using robotic smallcraft/fighters?

I seem to recall that from somewhere as well. If it isn't mentioned anywhere canonically, I would certainly make it that way IMTU (or have them use operator-guided semi-autonomous drones), since it would fit well with the non-isolationist/gregarious "herd mentality" that the K'kree have, as well as their claustrophobic tendencies. It always seemed to me that the K'kree would be a species that would want to use overwhelming firepower at "arms-length".

 

[McPerth]

Isn't there a mention somewhere of the K'kree using robotic smallcraft/fighters?.

Note also that in MgT TCS the example fleet uses robotic fighters rather than manned craft. Saves finding berths for all those pilots

Once again, we pehaps should define what we mean when we say robot.

In MgT there are drone fighters (and other robots, but the thread is for robotic ships), but I don't see them as true robots, as I don't see the RW drones used by some armies as robots.

IMHO robotic ships would mean ships where no sophont controls them, acting autonomously by their robot brains, while ships mostly robotic but sophont controled (as RW drones) would be more called drone ships.

As I already said, I designed several years ago a drone fighter for MT (using CT robot brain rules), but IMTU I ruled, to avoid abuse of them, that they need highly trained people (IIRC they needed skill in robot operations, communications and fleet tactics because each operator controlled more than one, usually a 10 drone squadron).

Note that crewmembers might be organized by watch, but until T5 it is not mandatory to organize a watch system.

MgT specificies for pilots that 3 are needed to cover 8 hour shifts.

In any case, I agree most crewmembers are needed only in specific situations, and so no shifts must be organized. Navigator is only needed when position must be determined and before entering jump, Pilot is only needed in real space (out of jumpspace), medic only when there are ill/injuried personnel and to revive people from cold bert, gunners only when there is combat (or danger of it), etc...

In fact, the only crew I think about that could need to be covered 7/24 are engineering (albeit probably at reduced numbers most routine time) and passenger crew (ditto).

 

[McPerth]

And I forgot, true robotic ships appear in TNE: the vampire fleets :devil:.

 

[mike wightman]

Using LBB:8 you can build a robot brain at TL12 with an Int of 9 an a skill level of 4 in every ship skill. You can give it remotely controlled slave units. You can give it an emotion simulation program so it has a personality. You may know its a machine but very quickly you would anthropomorphise it an imagine attributes it doesn't actually have.

It is going to be quite a size and cost a lot, but you make a huge saving on staterooms, life support an crew salaries.

Without the bias the Imperium/Solomani/Vargr/Aslan would be embracing this technology with open arms.

The real question is why the Solomani - with their history of robot use during the ISW period - don't still use them.

The OTU has always had its secrets hidden in plain sight - Aslan not a major race etc. I have an IMTU theory that there is a lot more to the anti-robot stance of most of the Traveller empires than meets the eye.

For the Hivers it's a no brainer

 

[rancke]

Using LBB:8 you can build a robot brain at TL12 with an Int of 9 an a skill level of 4 in every ship skill. You can give it remotely controlled slave units. You can give it an emotion simulation program so it has a personality. You may know its a machine but very quickly you would anthropomorphise it an imagine attributes it doesn't actually have.

It is going to be quite a size and cost a lot, but you make a huge saving on staterooms, life support an crew salaries.

And if it meets a situation it can't handle once a decade on the average, it's all lost and more besides.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

And if it meets a situation it can't handle once a decade on the average, it's all lost and more besides.


Hans

Same for any Int 9 Pilot 4...

 

[rancke]

Same for any Int 9 Pilot 4...

Any pilot with Int 9, Pilot 4, and the judgement of an infant.

I guess it boils down to which you'd rather not believe; that true artificial intelligence is possible before TL16 or that cultural prejudice can overcome economic forces everywhere in Charted Space for 1200 years.


Hans

 

[esampson]

And if it meets a situation it can't handle once a decade on the average, it's all lost and more besides.


Hans

More than once a decade, IMO. At TL-12 it is only capable of Low Autonomous, which means it can only arrive at "very simple obvious conclusions". Unfortunately if you drive a car you probably have to make decisions that are more than 'very simple' and 'obvious'. I can't imagine flying a starship would be much better (at least not once enough people are doing it that there is traffic).

The Fundamental Logic Program is a big gate for a lot of robot functions. Sure, it is easy to give it the intellect and skill to do a task but without the proper FLP it won't know when to do the task.

To put it into terms we might all be familiar with I think most of us have played a game where one of the players is 'that guy'. He has a character who has massive physical stats, great equipment, and tons of skill. On paper his character is death on wheels. Unfortunately the player continually charges straight into the middle of every group of enemies who then proceed to cut him apart because they have flanking bonuses, cover, etc..

A robot with high skills and stats but a poor FLP is like that. It is capable of making very complex maneuvers very precisely. If someone tries to beat it in a straight up 'follow the leader' flying contest it will probably eat them for lunch. However it is a terrible judge as to when to use those complex maneuvers which means that in practical application you are often going to be better off with a human pilot. You want to turn control over to it to land you in tricky situations when there's no one around and it can concentrate on the job? It will do a fantastic job. You want to turn control over to it when there's lots of people flying about making the random maneuvers humans are famous for because they want to shave some time off of their outbound leg? Not such a good choice.

 

[HG_B]

Any pilot with Int 9, Pilot 4, and the judgement of an infant.

It would be impossible to be a Top Gun level pilot (level 4) and have the judgement of an infant. That is de facto. Nice try though.

 

[rancke]

It would be impossible to be a Top Gun level pilot (level 4) and have the judgement of an infant. That is de facto. Nice try though.

Is it really a fact? Why should it be impossible? Perhaps I'm using the wrong term. Someone can be expert at reacting to known situations but unable to respond adequately to unforseen circumstances.

So it is a nice try. And if you've looked at esampson's posts, you'd see that it fits with what he has pointed out. Infant may be a slight exaggeration; I won't quibble about that. But a robot without true artificial intelligence is going to have a judgement considerably inferior to that of a sapient being (OK, some sapient beings ). Not the sort of intelligence you want to be responsible for your multi-million credit starship.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

More than once a decade, IMO. At TL-12 it is only capable of Low Autonomous, which means it can only arrive at "very simple obvious conclusions". Unfortunately if you drive a car you probably have to make decisions that are more than 'very simple' and 'obvious'. I can't imagine flying a starship would be much better (at least not once enough people are doing it that there is traffic).

The Fundamental Logic Program is a big gate for a lot of robot functions. Sure, it is easy to give it the intellect and skill to do a task but without the proper FLP it won't know when to do the task.

To put it into terms we might all be familiar with I think most of us have played a game where one of the players is 'that guy'. He has a character who has massive physical stats, great equipment, and tons of skill. On paper his character is death on wheels. Unfortunately the player continually charges straight into the middle of every group of enemies who then proceed to cut him apart because they have flanking bonuses, cover, etc..

A robot with high skills and stats but a poor FLP is like that. It is capable of making very complex maneuvers very precisely. If someone tries to beat it in a straight up 'follow the leader' flying contest it will probably eat them for lunch. However it is a terrible judge as to when to use those complex maneuvers which means that in practical application you are often going to be better off with a human pilot. You want to turn control over to it to land you in tricky situations when there's no one around and it can concentrate on the job? It will do a fantastic job. You want to turn control over to it when there's lots of people flying about making the random maneuvers humans are famous for because they want to shave some time off of their outbound leg? Not such a good choice.

And yet here in the real world we have robots flying planes. Or rather the plane is the robot

What kills more people today in air accidents? Situations the autopilot can't handle or pilot error?

Computers and robots are only going to get smarter in 4 TLs, people are going to stay the same.

In a few years autopilots for cars will be normal, and eventually they will be required by insurance companies because they are safer than human driven cars.

 

[esampson]

It would be impossible to be a Top Gun level pilot (level 4) and have the judgement of an infant. That is de facto. Nice try though.

Actually, the whole point of Top Gun was that people came to realize that being incredibly skilled at the mechanics of flight (Pilot-4) was less important than having good tactical judgement in a combat situation.

As someone once said, "TOPGUN doesn't teach you to fly. It teaches you to fly effectively".

The only reason if wouldn't be possible to be a TOPGUN level pilot with the judgement of an infant would be because you would either die or be kicked out long before you developed that level of skill. A robot which is programmed with that level of skill doesn't have that limitation.

 

[esampson]

And yet here in the real world we have robots flying planes. Or rather the plane is the robot

Not without human intervention we don't, and that's the point. Drones are only semi-autonomous. Yes, we do have the ability to set them so they could be completely autonomous, taking off, flying their preprogrammed route and returning, but if anything happens while they are doing that (such as someone starts shooting at them) they have almost zero ability to respond.

What kills more people today in air accidents? Situations the autopilot can't handle or pilot error?

Not a fair comparison. Autopilots are used in much more controlled situations. Asking such a question is akin to asking whether more people are killed in normal driving situations or Formula-1 races and then concluding that Formula-1 racing is safer since there are fewer deaths.

Computers and robots are only going to get smarter in 4 TLs, people are going to stay the same.

In a few years autopilots for cars will be normal, and eventually they will be required by insurance companies because they are safer than human driven cars.

And yet at TL12 the best a robot can be is Low Autonomous. I'm not saying that in 1000 years we won't have robots that will be capable of flying starships for us. I'm saying that in the OTU with the RAW and RAI you can't build a robot that can safely function as a completely autonomous pilot for prolonged periods of time. Can you make a robot that functions as a terrific autopilot? Sure. They can even be several steps about modern autopilots. They still don't have the judgement capacity to run completely on their own 24/7 365 days a year in unpredictable situations.

You are certainly free to decide that by TL12 it is possible to program a robot that is fully autonomous and I wouldn't say you are wrong and that such technological development would never occur, but at that point you're not playing OTU any more than if you were to decide that jump drives were silly and you're going to replace the mechanism with something based off of how the Alcubierre drive is theorized to work. You're playing a sort of variant of Traveller at that point.

 

[mike wightman]

So you just program the machine with the same effective combat tactics. If you can train and instruct you can program those same parameters.

 

[esampson]

So you just program the machine with the same effective combat tactics. If you can train and instruct you can program those same parameters.

Sure. And using that logic you can also just program a robot with Artist-4 and hey, you've got a creative robot!

Even though the information says that robots suck at creativity.

 

[HG_B]

Actually, the whole point of Top Gun was that people came to realize that <SNIP>

I didn't mean combat. I meant VERY skilled in piloting. It would be impossible to have a 4 level (look at what situations you use the Pilot skill level when rolling skill check) and have the judgement of an infant. An infant would NOT know to turn away from the upcoming mountainside for instance.

Example:
Player. "I think my character will take a short cut through that asteroid field and enter orbit at x speed."

GM. Roll against your Pilot skill

NOT: GM. Roll against your judgement level.

If you've ever GM'ed this game much you can't HONESTLY answer differently.

[/QUOTE]

 

[rancke]

Player. "I think my character will take a short cut through that asteroid field and enter orbit at x speed."

GM. Roll against your Pilot skill

NOT: GM. Roll against your judgement level.

If you've ever GM'ed this game much you can't HONESTLY answer differently.

I sure can. Not only in Traveller, but in any game I've reffed in more than 35 years (Except TOON ). Well, usually not roll against the character's judgement level, but if a player tells me that he wants to do something that I judge his character would know was a bad idea (as, for example, anything someone with Pilot-4 would be able to tell), I inform him and allow him to change his mind. If he then persists in doing whatever it was, it will be the skill roll -- with appropriate minusses.

Now, if someone without such knowledge were to order the autopilot to take a short cut through the (Star Wars type?) asteroid field, I'd go to the piloting throw immediately -- with appropriate minusses.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Given that the FAA notes that most in-air near-collision ATP incidents are caused by a pilot overriding the autopilot's collision avoidance protocols, it's a safe bet that manual landings are likely to go away soon.

A good current autopilot connected to a collision avoidance radar system, and a properly configured ALS sensor and ALS equipped airport can, at present, safely land consistently in "Marginal" conditions for an ATP.

The majority of incidents are actually on the ground, tho'. And the autopilots for on the ground are not as reliable.

Google's automatic driver is doing pretty well. The one reported accident was, typically enough, Driver overriding the autopilot and it's collision avoidance protocols.

Many new cars now have automatic collision avoidance radars/lidars. They're getting pretty good. They only make one decision: is the object going to be in my way if I stay the same speed? If yes, hit the brakes until no.

Some skills don't need a pilot's native intelligence, and a robot can do them just fine. The OTU timeline, however, shows Dune influences of "Machine Intelligence BAD!!!!!"

ATP: Airline Transport Pilot
ALS: Automated Landing System
FAA: United States Federal Aviation Administration.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

The majority of incidents are actually on the ground, tho'.

Technically speaking, all incidents are on the ground at some point.

It's what makes flying so much fun. "It's not that flying is inherently dangerous, it is just so terribly unforgiving of errors."

 

[aramis]

Technically speaking, all incidents are on the ground at some point.

It's what makes flying so much fun. "It's not that flying is inherently dangerous, it is just so terribly unforgiving of errors."

Remember: incidents result in no damage to passengers nor other aircraft, or occur when there is no intention of the aircraft flying. If a person is injured, an another aircraft is damaged, or two aircraft come into contact, it's an accident.

Not all incidents need be reported, but the most commonly tracked category is TCA near-collisions. (Remembering that a "near collision" is within 1000' horizontally or 300' vertically and on potentially intersecting courses, excepting take off and landing, where it's somewhat less.) Terminal Control Areas, due to heavy monitoring, get a lot of incidents logged. Anchorage International, last I heard, was 20+ incidents logged per day... at least one of which is a "near collision" on the ramp (within 30', IIRC), and one a week that's a near collision in flight. Also, at least one a day that's "Failed to follow ATC directives"...

The following is a discussion of the meaning of the terms and the reporting requirements.
http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10374517/accidents-vs-incidents

But it gives new meaning to "mishaps" - a superficial flight mishap might be a 1-3 page incident report form needs to be filed. A minor might be a near miss that results in 2-3 lost hours of paper chase...