Robots and Synthetics in the Third Imperium

[Ulsyus]

T5 has components devoted to both robots and synthetics. The use of robots is considered if not well documented for the 3I (and been of some debate in Robots of the Imperial Army )

This topic relates to the Common History & Culture thread, but could be a distraction there as it only relates to part of what creates the culture of an peoples or empire.

So where do these things fit in? How prevalent are they at different tech levels? At what point does a world go from seeing lots of dumbots used in manufacturing to domestics cleaning the home, to robot vehicles tied into automated traffic systems: think some of the scenes from the movies Minority Report or the original Total Recall here.

When do synthetics become commonplace? When are there enough of them that their presence needs to be considered as a social element and not just a technical curiosity? When do they present a legal challenge to society? The B³ p504-505 lists Artificial Persons on the TL16 line, Effective cloning & Forced Growth at TL13, Geneering at TL14, Biologics at TL13, Wafer Tech at TL13, and Self Aware computing at TL14. Do we start to see squadrons of synthetic engineering and gunnery operators in coldsleep (the good stuff, not some of the dodgy low tech freezer boxes that were debated here) for TL15 Imperial reserve vessels in mothballs at Depot systems after a certain point? At TL15 would the IISS say to a scout they put on detached service "Hey bud, here's an old Type S for you to scoot about it, but so you don't break it we're going to include this Syntheic, Harvey, to maintain it for you. Don't break it/him/her either..."?

There will be multiple possibilities and variations for YTU's, but what exists for the OTU? What would fit in with the OTU?

Note for the moderators: I wasn't sure if this was a better fit for Ships Locker, T5, or Lone Star, or some other location.

 

[mike wightman]

The Imperium is culturally biased against robots, so it tends to keep them as dumb as possible and only use them for similar things we do today, robotic construction of other machines.

There will also be a lot of robots in the background that do not look like robots, a computer controlled grav floater for shifting cargo - that sort thing.

Also the point made by Carlo on the robots and army thread is good one - robots are expensive while training meat beings which are in plentiful supply is more cost effective.

 

[Carlobrand]

The Imperium is culturally biased against robots, so it tends to keep them as dumb as possible and only use them for similar things we do today, robotic construction of other machines.

There will also be a lot of robots in the background that do not look like robots, a computer controlled grav floater for shifting cargo - that sort thing.

Also the point made by Carlo on the robots and army thread is good one - robots are expensive while training meat beings which are in plentiful supply is more cost effective.

Bots aren't expensive when they have the opportunity to "live out" their usual service lives. They're actually cheaper than humans. It's just that they're not cheaper when they're in some role that will result in damage. In that case, you're weighing costs and benefits. For the military role, life is literally cheap: you use robots to supplement and enhance, not replace, taking advantage of those abilities a robot can deliver that a human cannot, but it's ultimately the living that fill the front-line combat roles. For other roles ... well, it's probably worthwhile to have the expensive robot in the experiment room where they're investigating hazardous radiation, and let the talented and difficult-to-replace scientist direct him from safety in an adjoining room.

(Well, on some of those high-pop worlds with despotic governments, it might be cheaper to hire some desperate human. Or the world may have an interest in restricting the use of robots in order to ensure a high employment rate. Idle hands are the devil's workshop.)

I'm curious as to the origin of that "culturally biased" bit. I've heard it before - I think I've even said it on occasion - but I can't find an actual reference to cite. The actual cause is pretty clear: adventure writers prefer to write human-human (or related sapient) interactions because those offer much more opportunity for roleplay. You can't very well bribe a robot clerk, and a living opponent in a firefight can run away or be bargained with at the discretion of the gamemaster, where a robot is singularly deadly, single-minded, and leaves the gamemaster few options. However, I'm having trouble finding a canon mention of a reason.

Book 8 describes how a robot's fuel cell was rigged to explode in -112 and how this set the stage for the Shudusham Concords, a now-nonbinding but nonetheless informally accepted set of guidelines on the development and use of robots in the Imperium. I vaguely recall some piece somewhere saying that the incident also formed the basis for an Imperial aversion to robots, but Book 8 does not mention such an aversion and I can't find anything in my stuff. Does anyone recall some source talking about that?

There are robots popping up in the Imperium - they show up in Research Station Gamma, some sort of farm bot offs Dulinor in Survival Margin, same book mentions allegations that the re-emerged Strephon is a bot. However, they are curiously absent in settings where you might expect to see them, such as in the passenger lounge of Ad Astra in Signal GK or aboard the laboratory ship in Death Station. For that reason, I tend to lean toward the "don't look like robots" hypothesis that you mention. I figure the bots fill "invisible" background roles like construction, factory work, cargo work, "engineer's assistant" (a.k.a. the toolbox that sits there and hands you the tool when you ask for it - I'd like one of those), but people prefer to see a human (or at least living) face when they interact with someone serving them, and they find humaniform bots "eerie".

So, the farmbot is a robot thresher/tractor/whatever. The robot cashier looks like a cash register with manipulators attached to the belt to move and handle grocery items. The medical assistant looks a lot like like that assembly you see in a dentist's office - and you expect to see a doctor in the room with you when it's working. The restaurant down the street has robot cooks but human waiters, but the five star restaurant wouldn't be caught dead with even a robot dishwasher in its kitchen - their reputation is based on human service.

I'm wondering where else they pop up in canon and how they're handled there.

 

[rancke]

Bots aren't expensive when they have the opportunity to "live out" their usual service lives. They're actually cheaper than humans. It's just that they're not cheaper when they're in some role that will result in damage.

What are the rules for maintenance, malfunctioning, and repairs? Is it possible that the usual service life of robots are shorter than implied? (What are the service lives implied?)


Hans

 

[aramis]

What are the rules for maintenance, malfunctioning, and repairs? Is it possible that the usual service life of robots are shorter than implied? (What are the service lives implied?)


Hans

real world data from the US automotive industry shows that a typical construction bot is useful for at least 15 years, and on average, costs less than a trio of union workers for the same time*, produces more, and has no need for coffee breaks. What it can't do is adapt to changes.

* 35 hour a week, $15/hour employees, getting 52 paid weeks per year... Salary for 3 workers at that rate is about $82K per year starting, plus benefits. Even on a 5 year program, a $250K robot is still cheaper, even after accounting for the $150K per year maintenance technician per 10 bots...

 

[Carlobrand]

What are the rules for maintenance, malfunctioning, and repairs? Is it possible that the usual service life of robots are shorter than implied? (What are the service lives implied?)


Hans

Basically they treat the beasties like ships. You can take the 40 year loan, and the maintenance rules are similar to ships:

"Routine Maintenance: All robots require routine annual maintenance equal to 1% of their original cost. If this maintenance is not performed, roll 11+ each month for a breakdown to occur. When a breakdown occurs, roll on the Mishap Damage Table."

The details of the 40 year loan bit are not fleshed out. There are only two examples, both casually mentioned. One relates a person paying Cr4500 annually for 40 years on a Cr75,000 bot, which is a bit more than the 1/240 monthly of the ship loan. A second example talks about buying a Cr77,500 bot and having the cost work out to only Cr10 a day, which is about where a 1/240 loan would be and is a good deal less than Cr4500 annually, though the second bot cost more than the first.

There are rules for unusual damage - battle damage or damage from unusual events. Cost depends on the extent of damage, naturally. 3+1D6% of cost for superficial damage for the affected component, 7+(1d6*1d6)% of cost for minor damage for the affected component, 11+(2Dx5)% for major damage, 15+(2Dx2D)% for a destroyed component. Repairing a "destroyed" component could therefore cost anything from 19% to 159% of the cost of the original component, averaging 64%.

So, routine maintenance is relatively inexpensive, and as long as you keep up with your annual maintenance, malfunction and repair isn't a problem. However, if you throw your bot into dangerous situations, it can get expensive.

Add: Oh, service life. Service life is based off a table and comes out to 10 years at TL10 and 15 additional years per TL over 10, so 40 years at TL12, 85 years at TL15. Same table sets the maximum loan period, which is roughly half the life of the bot up to a maximum 40 year term, but no other details, though you could probably keep with the convention of paying twice the bot's value over the life of the loan and just divide things to get a monthly.

 

[robject]

Add: Oh, service life. Service life is based off a table [...]

Huh. Seems to me that it should have been based on quality.

And Wil is also right when he mentions pay. Some robots and synthetics earn a wage or salary, just like other characters. They could go through career generation, as well.

 

[rancke]

Too bad. I was hoping the writers had overlooked maintenance and repairs.

Ah well, back to my saboteurs notion.


Hans

 

[Timerover51]

If Traveller 5 allows for synthetic humans, what would prevent a player from deciding that he or she would like to play one, and then because of genetic engineering, specify precisely what characteristics that his/her character should be? No more die rolling for character traits.

 

[Ulsyus]

Basically they treat the beasties like ships. You can take the 40 year loan, and the maintenance rules are similar to ships:

"Routine Maintenance: All robots require routine annual maintenance equal to 1% of their original cost. If this maintenance is not performed, roll 11+ each month for a breakdown to occur. When a breakdown occurs, roll on the Mishap Damage Table."
...
Add: Oh, service life. Service life is based off a table and comes out to 10 years at TL10 and 15 additional years per TL over 10, so 40 years at TL12, 85 years at TL15. Same table sets the maximum loan period, which is roughly half the life of the bot up to a maximum 40 year term, but no other details, though you could probably keep with the convention of paying twice the bot's value over the life of the loan and just divide things to get a monthly.

The 40 year loan would be modified by the serviced life of the thing. Additionally, how long would they be able to be serviced for before they were basically replaced? There'd be a maximum life span of the things. Aramis' reference to the 15 years for current automotive bots could be a benchmark to modify your ideas above towards...

If Traveller 5 allows for synthetic humans, what would prevent a player from deciding that he or she would like to play one, and then because of genetic engineering, specify precisely what characteristics that his/her character should be? No more die rolling for character traits.

What would stop them in my game? Me: the ref!

 

[Carlobrand]

Huh. Seems to me that it should have been based on quality.

And Wil is also right when he mentions pay. Some robots and synthetics earn a wage or salary, just like other characters. They could go through career generation, as well.

Not too worried. Nothing I design is likely to earn a paycheck until they start paying mules and monkeys.

The major robot makers are pretty big concerns. You might get a recall, but other than that the quality should be pretty uniform. I guess some clever gamemaster could introduce low-cost local robot builders that might have some quality issues.

Too bad. I was hoping the writers had overlooked maintenance and repairs.

Ah well, back to my saboteurs notion.


Hans

"Too bad"? I'm a little confused as to your goal. Do you not want robots in the game, or do you want to find a reason that explains their apparent absence?

 

[robject]

Hans must have his own ideas about the matter.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Too bad. I was hoping the writers had overlooked maintenance and repairs.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]And of course, he means "writer", not writers. I.E. Marc.

 

[robject]

If Traveller 5 allows for synthetic humans, what would prevent a player from deciding that he or she would like to play one, and then because of genetic engineering, specify precisely what characteristics that his/her character should be? No more die rolling for character traits.

Genetic engineering is carefully circumscribed in Traveller 5. If you're just picking characteristics, then you're just doing "genetic engineering", period, and you have to talk to your referee about that. This is not part of the synthetic process, nor the clone or chimera process.

 

[rancke]

"Too bad"? I'm a little confused as to your goal. Do you not want robots in the game, or do you want to find a reason that explains their apparent absence?

The latter. As always, I don't consider game rules significant except insofar as they reflect the OTU and support the running of Traveller adventures. It's a fact that in the OTU robots (or Autonomous Artificial Constructs -- unseen robot brains in human-controlled artifacts I don't mind) aren't used, or at least not seen to be used, as much as their utility and cost imply that they should be. If robots are better AND cheaper workers than human beings, they should be far more prominently featured than they are. Better and more expensive works; not as good but cheaper works; better and cheaper does not work (for me, anyway).

If maintenance and repairs hadn't been covered, I hoped to sneak in some operating expenses through the back door, as it were, but that won't work. So I'm back to terrorists, human rights activists, and hackers increasing the security and insurance costs of robots. Perhaps not something that will work for you, but the best I've been able to come up with.

Mind you, I've nothing against a setting that has lots and lots of robots. I could see some sort of Roman Empire vibe with robots taking the place of slaves, a fortunate few humans in the role of the Roman upper classes, and most of the human population as the unemployed mob.

It just wouldn't be the Third Imperium that I know.


Hans

 

[rancke]

And of course, he means "writer", not writers. I.E. Marc.

I try not to make my critical remarks any more personal than absolutely necessary. But in any case, Marc Miller may be the auteur of the OTU but he's scarcely the only writer.


Hans

 

[robject]

I try not to make my critical remarks any more personal than absolutely necessary. But in any case, Marc Miller may be the auteur of the OTU but he's scarcely the only writer.


Hans

Whups! I was thinking about the T5 book. Pardon me.

 

[Ulsyus]

The major robot makers are pretty big concerns.

If that's the case, they must sell lots of units. If that is so, then there's a lot more robots out there than we initially consider. However, this could explain why there's worlds in the 3I with populations below the 10's of millions or even millions that continue to exist with a fair degree of tech. They could have a significant majority of their labour carried out by robots. These don't have to be anthropomorphised, but rather optimised for their roles.

So, could there be a lot more robots out there, at least particularly at starports (no local laws limiting labour types) than is normally painted for players?

 

[rancke]

If that's the case, they must sell lots of units. If that is so, then there's a lot more robots out there than we initially consider.

Well, if one household in twenty (i.e. the top 5% elite) on ultra-tech worlds has one domestic robot, there's a market for a couple of hundred billion robots in the Imperium. Make them cheap enough for middle class families and we're talking a trillion.

However, this could explain why there's worlds in the 3I with populations below the 10's of millions or even millions that continue to exist with a fair degree of tech. They could have a significant majority of their labour carried out by robots. These don't have to be anthropomorphised, but rather optimised for their roles.

That's not a problem (unless, perhaps, you start to wonder who paid for those robots in the first place); the real problem is explaining why every world doesn't have a lot of robots if they really are cheaper than human labor.


Hans

 

[Ulsyus]

Some more food for thought about the extent of robots in Imperial society (which is where exactly??)

 

[Ulsyus]

That's not a problem (unless, perhaps, you start to wonder who paid for those robots in the first place); the real problem is explaining why every world doesn't have a lot of robots if they really are cheaper than human labor.

Hans

Initial capital expenditure. Why don't all of us living in appropriate areas have solar panels on our roofs to cut down on our electricity costs? Well, besides Aramis, who would have to clear a little snow off his too often for ease. Why don't all 1st world nations institute massive wind power schemes now? Who has the money for them just floating around with those things being the highest priority?

The argument that human power is cheaper is a valid one on a world where birth rates are high and the government(s) may not spend a lot on education or health. Human life, we know from this world, can be cheap.