Robots and Synthetics in the Third Imperium

[rancke]

of course with the resultant doubling or tripling of value of said brain. (make your money back on each brain of course) and they have to be doing the job that they were designed for during that year.

I'd have to analyse the numbers to figure out the resultant costs. You could build 36 Int 6 brains and wind up with one Int 1, 2 Int 2, 3 Int 3, 4 Int 4, 5 int 5, and 21 Int 6 brains. Or you could build 36 Int 1 brains and wind up with 21 functioning Int 1 brains. Sounds to me like we're talking somewhat less than twice the cost, but my intuition could be wrong. What was the cost of brains?

As for doing their job, I'd expect virtual reality to work fine.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

... and like it or not... T5 is now OTU

So is CT. This isn't like a new CT supplement or an errata page. It's not like mentioning a new noble or adjusting Regina's tech level. It's a different rules system. Short of an errata to CT (and there's been a bit of that), one can no more impose the new game rules on the old game rules than one could impose GURPS on it, and for the same reason: there are people playing under different rules.

Book 8 is CT canon. If we want to errata some T5 rules into Book 8, that's Marc's privilege and pretty easy to do. However, I don't think anyone's suggesting that the publication of T5 means we need to toss our CT stuff into the trash. Until and unless someone decides to add a rule about annual flux rolls to Book 8, we still have two very different views of the milieu - and it is perfectly fair to discuss the Book 8 version.

 

[rancke]

Actually, a small chance of a robot brain failing might be just the thing to increase the effective cost of employing one. Not that huge 15/36 chance, but perhaps 1/36 every year. That would give a robot brain 75% chance of lasting 10 years and 50% chance of lasting 25 years. I'm not sure what the economic consequences would be, but I think it could be a step in the right direction.

And if you want an old robot, well, 6 out of 100 robot brains would last 100 years and more. 4 out of 1000 would last 200+ years.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

Actually, a small chance of a robot brain failing might be just the thing to increase the effective cost of employing one. Not that huge 15/36 chance, but perhaps 1/36 every year. That would give a robot brain 75% chance of lasting 10 years and 50% chance of lasting 25 years. I'm not sure what the economic consequences would be, but I think it could be a step in the right direction.

And if you want an old robot, well, 6 out of 100 robot brains would last 100 years and more. 4 out of 1000 would last 200+ years.


Hans

Well, things don't break, not according to canon: not bots, not ships, not even your gramma's TL5 Tin Lizzie, not unless you miss an annual maintenance or abuse the thing - which is odd. It'd be difficult to program in a random break chance in roleplay, 'cause even the smallest roll accumulates over days and weeks to near certainty. Might be possible to program something into the annual maintenance, say a chance that the mechanic finds something on the verge of failure that significantly bumps up the cost of the maintenance.

1 in 36 is not going to make a bit of difference economy-wise. You're only talking about a less than 3% increase in costs, and that only if the unit is a total loss and can't be sold for parts. You could do 1 in 36 for dumbots with basic parallel and linear processors and then do a higher chance of problems for bots with synaptic processors: say the maintenance man on the annual maintenance reports the synaptic processors are starting to go bad - requiring a complete replacement of the synaptic assembly - on a 6 or lower on 2D6 at TL11 (where synaptics are experimental), with a +1 to your role per tech level after 11. Bots at TL12 would have about the same failure rate as a 60's car, 28% increase in annualized costs (well, a bit less since they can still be sold for parts). By TL14, they'd be reliable enough for a manufacturer to be comfortable offering to sell you a 5-year warranty. By TL15, they're as reliable as linear and parallel processors, and a manufacturer's comfortable offering a 10-year warranty.

Problem is, that pretty well scrubs the robot life expectancy table and the loan terms, since the brain is one of the most expensive parts of the bot. It'd have to get errata'd out and a new table errata'd in. Or it'd work for an IMTU version where one wanted limited robots.

 

[rancke]

Well, things don't break, not according to canon: not bots, not ships, not even your gramma's TL5 Tin Lizzie, not unless you miss an annual maintenance or abuse the thing - which is odd.

Which is why it's presumably not true.

It'd be difficult to program in a random break chance in roleplay, 'cause even the smallest roll accumulates over days and weeks to near certainty. Might be possible to program something into the annual maintenance, say a chance that the mechanic finds something on the verge of failure that significantly bumps up the cost of the maintenance.

You don't actually need to have rules for it. Just make it a setting detail, ignored for game purposes but very much taken into account for world-building.

1 in 36 is not going to make a bit of difference economy-wise. You're only talking about a less than 3% increase in costs, and that only if the unit is a total loss and can't be sold for parts.

But you put the kibosh on the financing option, going from having to pay a few thousand credits per year for 40 years to having to pay several hundred thousand credits up front.

You could do 1 in 36 for dumbots with basic parallel and linear processors and then do a higher chance of problems for bots with synaptic processors: say the maintenance man on the annual maintenance reports the synaptic processors are starting to go bad - requiring a complete replacement of the synaptic assembly - on a 6 or lower on 2D6 at TL11 (where synaptics are experimental), with a +1 to your role per tech level after 11. Bots at TL12 would have about the same failure rate as a 60's car, 28% increase in annualized costs (well, a bit less since they can still be sold for parts). By TL14, they'd be reliable enough for a manufacturer to be comfortable offering to sell you a 5-year warranty. By TL15, they're as reliable as linear and parallel processors, and a manufacturer's comfortable offering a 10-year warranty.

Sure, you'd have to fiddle with the numbers to get them to come out right.

Problem is, that pretty well scrubs the robot life expectancy table and the loan terms, since the brain is one of the most expensive parts of the bot. It'd have to get errata'd out and a new table errata'd in.

If there was nothing that would have to be retconned, there would be no need for a retcon in the first place. The trick is to come up with the fix that takes the least effort and provides the most interesting setting. "Ignore the life expectancy table and don't allow financing" is pretty easy to implement.


Hans

 

[aramis]

What is "The B³"?

B³=BBB="Big Black Book" - a reference to either The Traveller Book (CT) or T5 Core Book.

Note that use of "Big Black Book" for CT have dropped off a lot since the release of MGT in 2008.

 

[Ulsyus]

While there's a need to quantify things for game play, the ref should be able to use the elements provided in the rules for guidance and not inflexibly unwavering dogma. If an annual service is going to pick up most problems, then great. If self-diagnostic mechanisms connected wirelessly to a maintenance monitoring network will pick up most operating problems, then great. If a 'bot is taken out of this supportive environment and sold to some two-bit free trader who doesn't fork out for the software monitoring the self-diagnostics, then there'll be a greater chance of breakdown in between scheduled maintenance, which if he reduces to save some credits will further increase the chance of breakdown.

Are we mathematically modelling the world here or playing a game that brings us joy?

 

[Carlobrand]

Which is why it's presumably not true.

Agreed. Things break. Even if there aren't specific rules for it, it's a part of reality.

...But you put the kibosh on the financing option, going from having to pay a few thousand credits per year for 40 years to having to pay several hundred thousand credits up front. ...

Why? This isn't like starships; they most likely know where to send the knee-breakers. It does change the financing, but it doesn't mean you have to pay everything up front. So we're saying a brain has a 1 in 36 chance of breaking down in a given year. Say we're dealing with a high end TL12 Cr125,000 brain with low autonomous programming and full command. I buy insurance at Cr4,000 a year against breakdown; insurer makes a bit of profit and I'm covered for the repair. Raises the cost a good chunk, and the bank's probably going to insist I maintain the insurance to protect their loan, but that's not a new thing in loan-making. We can quibble over the cost of the insurance, but the bots are not out of reach - they simply cost a chunk more in monthly fees. The bot only becomes more expensive than the human worker when you raise the breakdown rate to something around 3 in 36. For the dumb-bots, the cost is half that.

...If there was nothing that would have to be retconned, there would be no need for a retcon in the first place. The trick is to come up with the fix that takes the least effort and provides the most interesting setting. "Ignore the life expectancy table and don't allow financing" is pretty easy to implement. ...

Depends on your goal. If you don't want bots in the canon universe - or not many - then retconning Book 8 is a solution, and a good one. If you DO want bots in the universe, or at least want them more accessible for the players and for your particular adventure ideas, then retcon the universe. It's as easy to say, "You don't see bots because they give people the heebie-jeebies," as it is to knock out the life expectancy tables. Sociological explanation worked quite well for psionics.

Frankly, I think my earlier analysis is adequate: you don't see bots because 9 out of 10 worlds can't make them and the nobles and wealthy who might otherwise be tempted to show them off consider them to be low-status slumming. They only show up on 1 in 10 worlds and then mostly invisible in the background because a roomba doesn't need to have a head and a face to be a roomba and a robot car looks like any other car.

In my home I have a dishwasher, refrigerator, range, flush toilets, sinks and tubs, washer and dryer, items that are ubiquitous in the modern home - and yet to read the typical deck plan, most of that does not exist. Some thoughtful designers mention a fresher, but how many have mentioned a washing machine? When was the last time you read an adventure in which the clothes dryer was mentioned? A writer doesn't mention the phone in the room unless someone's about to use it; if you time-ported in from the 19th century (or late 21st, when they'd all been replaced by portables) and did not know that phones were common features of 20th century homes, you'd never know one existed in a room unless the writer drew attention to it. Likewise, he might not mention the roomba cleaning the carpet unless the roomba cleaning the carpet was an important point.

The bots don't have to be B-9 cruising around with his sparkly lights shouting, "Danger, Danger." They may be no more noticeable or worthy of mention than a dishwasher in your kitchen or a block-and-tackle on a barn - unless there's some specific reason you want the player thinking about the dishwasher.

A sociocultural solution is easier to implement than a rule change, and Chekov's gun is only mentioned when the writer plans for someone to use the gun. We can have robots in the TU without it needing to be obvious.

 

[Ulsyus]

A sociocultural solution is easier to implement than a rule change, and Chekov's gun is only mentioned when the writer plans for someone to use the gun. We can have robots in the TU without it needing to be obvious.

So what about synthetics? How often are they seen? Or like 'bots are they unnoticed in everyday society?

 

[Carlobrand]

So what about synthetics? How often are they seen? Or like 'bots are they unnoticed in everyday society?

If they're like that picture you showed, they probably go unnoticed. Canon plays around a bit with cloning and genetically modified humans - interesting quandary when you're trying to balance a sapient's rights against the fact that he wouldn't exist but for this company's efforts - but true synthetics are above Imperial tech. I've seen very few mentions of them. The Imperials wouldn't suspect they were synthetic because they wouldn't know it was possible. Even if the synthetic looked strikingly inhuman, they're more likely to believe it's an alien species if it looks like a biological.

Of course, if T5 or GURPS or Mongoose paints a different picture, I wouldn't know. I expect a synthetic would face the same challenges a bioengineered human would face, and maybe a bit more since he/she/it can't lay claim to human genes. On the other hand, if you engineered them to be content with their circumstances ...

 

[Ulsyus]

... but true synthetics are above Imperial tech. I've seen very few mentions of them. The Imperials wouldn't suspect they were synthetic because they wouldn't know it was possible. Even if the synthetic looked strikingly inhuman, they're more likely to believe it's an alien species if it looks like a biological.

Of course, if T5 or GURPS or Mongoose paints a different picture, I wouldn't know. I expect a synthetic would face the same challenges a bioengineered human would face, and maybe a bit more since he/she/it can't lay claim to human genes. On the other hand, if you engineered them to be content with their circumstances ...

T5 lays the capability to conduct personality recording and editing at TL12, forced growth and cloning at TL13, then geneering at TL14. So by TL14 the design and production of synthetics has all the components it needs. By TL15 it'd be established technology. Only some of these are advanced from MT (see the Referee's Companion p28), but enough so that we should consider the implications in T5.

It seems to me that they would be fully available, though cost effectiveness becomes an issue as with robots.

 

[rancke]

T5 lays the capability to conduct personality recording and editing at TL12, forced growth and cloning at TL13, then geneering at TL14. So by TL14 the design and production of synthetics has all the components it needs. By TL15 it'd be established technology. Only some of these are advanced from MT (see the Referee's Companion p28), but enough so that we should consider the implications in T5.

Scrap the OTU and start over?

(Only half joking).


Hans

 

[robject]

and like it or not... T5 is now OTU

It may be more appropriate to say that T5 supports the OTU.

 

[rancke]

It may be more appropriate to say that T5 supports the OTU.

Well... that's just it. On a number of points it doesn't support the OTU as we know it. Like the forcegrown clones and memory upload that apparently have been around since before the Civil War. With that sort of technology we get an Eternal Emperor and an immortal upper class. It's the sort of thing that an upper class -- ANY upper class -- will use regardless of social mores. Even if you get a successful Imperium-wide jihad to exterminate the godless life-extenders, within a generation the new elite will be using it.

Mind you, there are obvious ramifications to the previous medical technology that haven't been dealt with adequately or at all, such as the influence of procreational technology and extended lifespan (even without anagathics) on families. Every noble family, for example, would be able to ensure that there would be a direct heir no matter what.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

T5 lays the capability to conduct personality recording and editing at TL12, forced growth and cloning at TL13, then geneering at TL14. So by TL14 the design and production of synthetics has all the components it needs. By TL15 it'd be established technology. Only some of these are advanced from MT (see the Referee's Companion p28), but enough so that we should consider the implications in T5.

It seems to me that they would be fully available, though cost effectiveness becomes an issue as with robots.

What are you defining as a synthetic? I wouldn't define a geneered forced-grown sapient as a synthetic. He/she/it is an artificial life form but clearly organic. I would define a synthetic as a construct built up from chemicals with no genes or cells - a third way of doing things, so to speak. The myomer muscles of Battletech are a step in that direction. Build a robot that takes in organic foodstuffs and process it for his needs, but that does not use cells and genes. One idea might be using nanobot technology to take the digested organic chemicals and us it to build/repair/maintain the synthetic's body parts.

 

[Ulsyus]

Scrap the OTU and start over?

(Only half joking).

Hans

Why do that? If the game and setting can't evolve with the rest of us, how brittle is it, or how dogmatic our approach to it? Should a vision of the future stay fixed, despite us having a seen much more than what it could originally contain?

It may be more appropriate to say that T5 supports the OTU.

It certainly does that, but the elements of the Technology chapter specifically refer to the 3I. The vessels given as examples are from the 3I. While the mechanics of Traveller can be used for any setting, they're customised for tech 3I. Why fight it?

Well... that's just it. On a number of points it doesn't support the OTU as we know it. Like the forcegrown clones and memory upload that apparently have been around since before the Civil War. With that sort of technology we get an Eternal Emperor and an immortal upper class. It's the sort of thing that an upper class -- ANY upper class -- will use regardless of social mores. Even if you get a successful Imperium-wide jihad to exterminate the godless life-extenders, within a generation the new elite will be using it.

Hans

This'd be limited by the social contract as I commented on here.

What are you defining as a synthetic?

From B³ p124:

A synthetic is an organic or biologically based artificial being manufactured according to a master template or blueprint. Synthetics blend biological and non-biological processes (the specific proportion may vary). For example, a synthetic may use biological processes to produce energy but have a mechanical pump to circulate blood. Synthetics are distinguishable from clones (duplicates created from existing genetic templates), chimeras (the result of genetic engineering), and robots (truly mechanical or non-organic beings).

So your battlemechy thing could be a synthetic if it had a mix of mechanical and biological parts. They're also independent organisms though as I understand it, so having one a dozen metres tall that takes a pilot sitting inside it to make it go probably wouldn't fit the definition.

 

[Carlobrand]

...Should a vision of the future stay fixed, despite us having a seen much more than what it could originally contain? ...

Well, no, but it would also be nice if the known parts that we have become comfortable and familiar with don't suddenly morph into something strange and bizarre. That was a good deal of the unhappiness with the Rebellion milieu, if I recall. As with a Marvel or Star Trek movie, you risk alienating a segment of your old fan base if the familiar elements are too casually twisted or warped in the search for something new and exciting with which to bring in new fans.

...It certainly does that, but the elements of the Technology chapter specifically refer to the 3I. The vessels given as examples are from the 3I. While the mechanics of Traveller can be used for any setting, they're customised for tech 3I. Why fight it? ...

See note above on alienating a segment of your fan base.

I play CT. I'm learning some of the positives of MT, and I'm tasting bits of GURPS and Mongoose. I do not yet own T5. It's on the list, but these moments sometimes make me think twice about that. I'm not bashing it - I do not know enough to form any sort of reasoned criticism of it. That being said, while I have no problem with a third (or is it fourth) alternate reality of the TU setting coming onto the scene, I do have a problem with the setting I've known for 30+ years, the setting on which I have 30+ years of notes and files and what-nots, being sent to the dumpster so a new rules system can claim pre-eminence.

Some of the MegaTrav rules have made their way into the CT rules system by way of ret-conning and errata. It happens, I adapt, it's usually better for it. If they choose to do that with the some of the T5 rules - the bot thing in particular coming to mind - I'll have no complaints, it'll most likely be better for it. Well, no complaints after I've had a chance to calm down, anyway. I'm not wedded to a particular view of the milieu, though a few things like Virus make me wonder at some people's - umm, best not go there.

However, telling me that the milieu I've spent the last 30 years with no longer applies to the rules I own because there's this new rule set some people like and they feel like the old rule set should just be shoved to the side and ignored - that one gives me a bit of concern. That one is where we end up with divided camps of Trav players who trumpet their favorite rule set while criticizing the other guy's rule set - and I think we've already had too much of that.

...
This'd be limited by the social contract as I commented on here. ...

This MIGHT be limited by the social contract as you commented on there. Or it might not, and Rancke's point might be valid. Either view has equal validity in a high tech universe in which the truly powerful have the technology to guarantee the agreement of their supporters. For every Honecker there is a Stalin, using guile, craft, careful control of the flow of information, careful use of propaganda and deceit, the careful balancing of competing interests against each other, and a ruthless but carefully reasoned application of fear, intimidation and lethal force to maintain their power. I don't want to think too hard on what a Stalin could do with TL15 information gathering and control at his fingertips, nor how long he could endure given full access to TL15 medical resources, because the prospect is really quite frightening when you look too closely.

...From B³ p124: ...

B³ in this context clearly does not mean The Traveller Book, and I do not own T5, which Aramis tells me is the other frequent meaning of B³. Therefore, I can provide no useful comment on the subject of synthetics as they are defined in T5 beyond a few generic speculations. Sorry; they are beyond my current knowledge base. Maybe if I get lucky for Christmas.

 

[rancke]

Why do that?

Because I'm getting fed up with people changing the setting around me. Please note that I'm not invoking any special privilege to not have the setting changed around me; I'm just getting fed up with it.

If the game and setting can't evolve with the rest of us, how brittle is it, or how dogmatic our approach to it? Should a vision of the future stay fixed, despite us having a seen much more than what it could originally contain?

A shared setting like the OTU that has been 35 years in the making? Yes. Yes, it should,

This'd be limited by the social contract as I commented on here.

"It's the sort of thing that an upper class -- ANY upper class -- will use regardless of social mores. Even if you get a successful Imperium-wide jihad to exterminate the godless life-extenders, within a generation the new elite will be using it." [Me in the post quoted]​

Hans

 

[Ulsyus]

Because I'm getting fed up with people changing the setting around me. Please note that I'm not invoking any special privilege to not have the setting changed around me; I'm just getting fed up with it.

Hans

Maybe it's not so much the setting changing, but more our understanding of it, and the detail that is included now, that colours the picture differently to the way you originally saw it.

Think original BSG vs the later series. More detail, more story, still the same dudes fleeing the crazy genocidal 'bots (well, synthetics...) but with the story advanced for now.

Maybe the problem with harder sci fi is that it needs what we know now to build it, but what we know now changes all the time?

 

[rancke]

Maybe it's not so much the setting changing, but more our understanding of it, and the detail that is included now, that colours the picture differently to the way you originally saw it.

No, it isn't. Some of these changes are quite radical. The New Taste is just plain different from the Old Taste.


Hans