Robot ships
- Thread starter Carlobrand
- Start date
esampson
SOC-13
Sorry. You did say avoiding an asteroid and not an asteroid field and under what should be normal operating conditions (i.e. the robot was given an explicit instruction that was better than 'fly straight forward') the robot would avoid the asteroid. I simply misread your statement.
Sure. I guess it could be reopened if someone has anything concrete. Nothing like that has been offered to show a decline in tech from TL 7 through TL's much higher. I'll check back from time to time.
No need to come up with any new arguments since you've simply ignored the counter-case instead of dealing with it:
""...no one has suggested that a robot with Pilot-4 wouldn't be able to negotiate the routine problems of operating a starship. What's been suggested is that it would be unable to cope with unanticipated problems. The sort of thing that comes up once a decade was what I implied when I talked about one serious accident per decade being enough to nullify any savings that a robot pilot would provide in daily operations costs. Though I actually think that's far more frequent than needed to make a robot crew a false economy. One serious accident in the ship's entire 40 year service life would probably do it.""
Hans
Incorrect. I have responded to any specific argument. Name a specific incident rather than a vague, undefined situation. It is YOU who hasn't put forth an actual case against.
...........
esampson
SOC-13
I'm sorry. Please provide some sort of reference to this abilities for the F-22. I can't find anything to support your claim that it can dog fight without pilot input. The best I can find is that it is capable of flying formation autonomously.
Likewise I can find nothing to support the claims of the X-47B being capable of autonomous air combat, though I can find a reference about a very recent incident where they were testing its ability to land on a carrier and the human operator had to tell it to divert to an airfield because of a mechanical failure (to be fair, however, it is quite probable that it still could have landed safely).
I am agreeing with you that semi-autonomous robots are possible, both here and in the Traveller Universe. What I am disagreeing with is that fully autonomous robots would be in use. Fully autonomous means there is no human operator. The drone would have detected the problem and then diverted itself without further instruction.
In real life, you're right. We probably will have completely autonomous vehicles within a hundred years (barring social issues).
However Traveller is a game. It says that what you need is X, Y, and Z, and the Imperium doesn't have Z. Maintaining that the Traveller Universe should have robot ships because of the current state of real world robotics is no different than if I point to recent experiments creating antimatter and then maintain that clearly within a few thousand years (or 5 Tech Levels) ships should be armed with antimatter weaponry.
I've always assumed it was influenced by Asmiov's Fundation robots are bad approach...
As LBB 8 tells, all intelligence in a robot before true AI appears (TL 17) is apparent intelligence. This can be understood that true intelligence is in fact 0, and so any task that requires true intelligence will be with the modifier of intelligence 0.
The problem is that this apparent intelligence must be represented somewhat, and int stat is the closer thing to it that Traveller has, but that does not mean in any case those robots have rational thought or improvisation capabilities, both good qualities (I guess) in a pilot.
And if you responded to that argument (robot intelligence is only apparent), I must have unintentionally skipped your post...
Last edited:
Technically true, since esampson did it before I got around to it (and did it much better than I would have done). However, you haven't refuted any of his points, so I am perfectly correct in stating that you have ignored th counter-case rather than dealing with it.
Hans
We've already covered what Trav says is required. It ALSO provides for those positions with robots/pgms.
Name Z.
ALL tech points have been counted. Name ONE that hasn't been...
esampson
SOC-13
How about this?
Please explain what the purpose of the FLP is? While by itself it doesn't appear to be too terribly expensive when you add in the requirements to support it it becomes far more expensive than the Pilot-4 program (to build a brain capable of Pilot-4 requires 1 INT and 3 EDU which can be had for 9,500 Cr. To build a brain capable of Low Autonomous the minimum cost would be over 150,000 Cr.)
If the skills of the robot are completely separate from its Fundamental Logic Program then why build robots with anything other than High Data?
esampson
SOC-13
Low AI.
No need to. You are engaging in what is known as a Red Herring fallacy. Stay on the subject being debated.
The existence of Low and High Autonomous programs, which imply that a robot needs more than just pseudo-intelligence and skill to function autonomously.
Hans
REALLY? Where does it SPECIFICALLY state that?
He is staying on the subject. You, on the other hand, is dodging the issue like someone with Pilot-4 in a dogfight. No, wait! Like someone without any pilot skill at all in a dogfight.
Nowhere. Where does it state that a robot without autonomy can function autonomously?
Hans
Nope. WRONG again.
ALSO, I never stated that a robot with pilot 4 could dogfight. By stating something that didn't happen, you are again committing a logical fallacy. I'll check back when the case has been successfully reopened...
esampson
SOC-13
No I'm not. My position is that a robot with pilot can't be an effective fully autonomous pilot because of the FLP. Your position is that the FLP doesn't matter.
If the FLP doesn't matter when a robot is trying to use a skill then you need to explain when it does matter.
