Robots of the Imperial Army

[rancke]

It is stated in several sources (eg the GT core rulebook) that such technology exists it is just in the background and not worthy of mention.

But the point I was trying to make, and still think is valid, is that the fact that such technology is in the background and that jobs like starship crew are not routinely filled by robots is at odds with the canonical costs of robots. To get a setting like the one the OTU has appeared to be throughout the history of Traveller, robots shouldn't be vastly more economic than real people; they should be at least a bit less economical, so that they would be used only if other concerns applied. Like the scientist in RSG who had staffed his facility in order to get rid of independently thinking people.

(Even then the cost of starship life support makes it a real problem to explain live crew).


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Trouble is in the real world robots are vastly more economical than people in developed economies.

The only countries where labour is cheap also happen to have the lowest living standards for the workers and the greatest imbalance between the bosses and workers.

I do not believe the OTU postulates a setting where living beings are a cheaper option than machines, rather I think the machines are so advanced that only a few people are needed to operate them.

The crew of a typical PC scale starship is far too small to be plausible unless the ship is almost a robot itself - with the computer/robotic system so commonplace that they don't warrant a mention.

Ever wonder why the bridge is 20t on ships regardless of size up to 1000t - it includes all the robotic stuff that would otherwise require you to have ten times the crew.

 

[rancke]

Trouble is in the real world robots are vastly more economical than people in developed economies.

Actually, autonomous AIs are infinitely more expensive than intelligent beings in the real world. Literally infinite, since they don't exist. But that's really not the point.

The crux here, IMO, is that if you want PCs to have a role in a setting, you can't have robots that make them redundant. And if you want your setting to be self-consistent, you can't have ships with cabins for live crew instead of cupboards for robot crew if robots are able to do the job of crewmembers and cost a lot less to operate.

So in the OTU, robots CANNOT be vastly more economical than people for the jobs you see people perform. Because if they were, people wouldn't be doing those jobs. At least not without providing some explanation why they're not used despite the vast economic advantages.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

We are not discussing AI - we are discussing robots.

It remains my contention that the reason 1 person can operate an x-boat or a scout/courier is that most of the ship is a robot.

 

[flykiller]

robots CANNOT be vastly more economical than people for the jobs you see people perform

you appear to be conflating "robot" with "ai". not the same thing at all.

 

[flykiller]

most of the ship is a robot

this conflates "automation" with "robotics". a 747 may be programmed to take off, fly, and land, all automatically. this does not make it a robot.

 

[mike wightman]

Define robot

If you define it as a machine controlled by a computer - which is what robot manufacturing machines in the real world are - then an autopilot controlled plane is a robot.

 

[rancke]

Define robot.

The kind of autonomous self-propelled mechanical entities that you design using Traveller robot design rules with a chassis, a brain, peripherals, etc. that can replace a human worker, of course. The classic SF trope used in countless SF stories. You know, REAL robots.


Hans

 

[Meeko100]

It was a response to a post I saw while watching this thread. I read it as The other "Robots and Synthetics in the Third Imperium" had a Link in the OP to this thread. I already stated my opinions on robots in that thread, so I just replied to this comment.

I think that a small human crew will always be needed for factories, or for spaceships. You need QC folks watching the robots so they don't muck anything up, glitch, hack or otherwise. 2-3 Per station of robots I'd think. A large factory still might employ 30-50 people as QC, watching the process and making sure the product is made according to proper specs, and to notify management when a robot needs servicing, or to service it himself. They fulfill peoples roles, but they don't make people obsolete in the workplace. There still will need to be people there to make sure that the 50 tons of depleted uranium for your gun shells are made to the exacting specifications that future guns may have.

On a spaceship, More people would be needed. If there's one engineer, and you get bashed by a Commerce Raider, and your robot gets shot, and you need to fix the J-Drive to get to a Starport with the proper facilities. Or, if you haevthat same scenerio, but the engineers been shot, is the robot smart enough to go and fix the complicated J-drive w/o supervision? Would you trust the machine to fix the correct part, in the correct way?

If they are that smart, then robots could fulfill the role they often are cast as in Sci-fi. If they aren't then you will always need people to fill the roles of QC at least, and Director/Supervisor at worst with Robots. Or, they might be seen as a hassle that leaves people preferred to bots.

I keep people as QC personnel, and as the primary workers on small services (Like Free Traders, or Specialty Manufacturing). And, if you are employing people anyway in your factories, and you are making so much for so little, you'd think the fat-cat CEO's might just build more factories, in orbit, in the asteroid belt, on big factory ships, on land if thats how it is.

Everyone might go into orbit for their jobs in factories as Robot Watchers, and come down to a city-planet with plenty of land for everyone to have a nice suburban townhouse. Or live in small slums, it entirely depends on the Population.

So I avert the employment crisis with that, and so people still work, but also the tech that should reasonably be used, is used.

 

[rancke]

I think that a small human crew will always be needed for factories, or for spaceships. You need QC folks watching the robots so they don't muck anything up, glitch, hack or otherwise. 2-3 Per station of robots I'd think.

But AFAIK Traveller robot¹ design rules allow you to design robots that don't need supervision.

¹ Autonomous self-propelled mechanical entities, that is.​

And even if they did, starships wouldn't have one stateroom per crew slot; they would have a couple of staterooms for the captain and the roboticist and half a dozen cupboards for the crew.

On a spaceship, More people would be needed. If there's one engineer, and you get bashed by a Commerce Raider, and your robot gets shot, and you need to fix the J-Drive to get to a Starport with the proper facilities. Or, if you have that same scenerio, but the engineers been shot, is the robot smart enough to go and fix the complicated J-drive w/o supervision? Would you trust the machine to fix the correct part, in the correct way?

Commerical ships don't usually take expensive precautions against remote contingencies. And, again, unless there are no robots at all, you'd have fewer crew staterooms than crew slots. How many fewer may be open to debate, but ships would be designed for the maximum practical number of robot crew, whatever that may be. And yet, OTU starships don't have provisions for robot crew. It doesn't even have ship design rules for robot crew.

Never mind the canonical setting descriptions; robot rules that make robot crewmembers vastly cheaper than live crewmembers are incompatible with ship design rules that don't account for robot crew.


Hans

 

[Meeko100]

But AFAIK Traveller robot¹ design rules allow you to design robots that don't need supervision.

¹ Autonomous self-propelled mechanical entities, that is.​

And even if they did, starships wouldn't have one stateroom per crew slot; they would have a couple of staterooms for the captain and the roboticist and half a dozen cupboards for the crew.


Commerical ships don't usually take expensive precautions against remote contingencies. And, again, unless there are no robots at all, you'd have fewer crew staterooms than crew slots. How many fewer may be open to debate, but ships would be designed for the maximum practical number of robot crew, whatever that may be. And yet, OTU starships don't have provisions for robot crew. It doesn't even have ship design rules for robot crew.

Never mind the canonical setting descriptions; robot rules that make robot crewmembers vastly cheaper than live crewmembers are incompatible with ship design rules that don't account for robot crew.


Hans

Hmm.

I suppose that for large commercial enterprises, its all fine to not worry about remote possibilities, but for a small captain who's paying what amounts to a massive amount of money to have in one persons paw on a spaceship, i'd certainly want to have that back-up. And for the navy, to care for in case it gets beat up in a battle.

I imagine that room for robots are not counted because they are never turned off. Robots don't need sleep. Or, if they do need to charge their batteries, they prolly fold up nice and neat into a small bit to charge, and the next one that was charging is doing his job now. Maybe the charging stations fit into the crew commons, with the Robot Tech, Captain, possibly Pilot, and the rest of any supporting roles in the crew (Lawyers, ex-marine, doctor, etc) filling the staterooms. Then, if your running minimum crew, you have room for passengers in high passage staterooms.

Accommodations for Robo-crew are likely left out because they aren't considered worth keeping track of given their possible size, and negligible effect on game play. Few people likely care about the robot's charger being some place, and more concerned about the specifics of what the robots are doing, and how its being done. Its too specific for some people to care about.

 

[samuelvss]

But AFAIK Traveller robot design rules allow you to design robots that don't need supervision.
... And yet, OTU starships don't have provisions for robot crew. It doesn't even have ship design rules for robot crew.

Never mind the canonical setting descriptions; robot rules that make robot crewmembers vastly cheaper than live crewmembers are incompatible with ship design rules that don't account for robot crew.

IIRC, the LBB8 allowed, up through TL15, "semi-autonomous" logic. While LLB's 2 &5 did not provide for robotic crew (in addition to whatever computerized automation was there), there was no technical problem putting a LBB8 robot into a LBB2 or LBB5 crew position. Having designed robotic crew, and costed them out, I remember they were a bit more economical that humans, but not grossly so. They had to be supervised, under Imperial Law, and as a prudent measure in the recommendation of LBB8. That being said, there are myriad things that are economically viable in a society, that are culturally frowned upon. If times are tough, however, I can lay off my gunners; I may have a harder time stopping payments on my robotic gunners.

 

[rancke]

By 'account for robot crew' I meant 'not include staterooms for the crew that the robots would logically replace'.

It's not so much that, for example, the Hercules Class heavy merchant doesn't have space designated for a dozen crew robots (though I think 12 robots actually would take up a couple of dT). It's that it has 15 staterooms for three¹ live crewmembers and 12 robot crewmembers. If robot crew truly was the economic no-brainer the robot design rules seem to make it, the Hercules would have three staterooms and another 48T of cargo space.

¹ Guesstimate.​

Hans

 

[Meeko100]

By 'account for robot crew' I meant 'not include staterooms for the crew that the robots would logically replace'.

It's not so much that, for example, the Hercules Class heavy merchant doesn't have space designated for a dozen crew robots (though I think 12 robots actually would take up a couple of dT). It's that it has 15 staterooms for three¹ live crewmembers and 12 robot crewmembers. If robot crew truly was the economic no-brainer the robot design rules seem to make it, the Hercules would have three staterooms and another 48T of cargo space.

¹ Guesstimate.​

Hans

Well, then I suppose it need to have been designed for robots. Sadly, it seems that, since canon overruled the designs, that its designed more for people to use instead of robots. OTU has people be big, so its ship designs are built around people. If robots were big in the OTU they'd be designed around them.

You always could just change the designs to the minimum needed crew, and return the staterooms to spare cargo if its a big issue. I imagine having spare rooms for passengers would be a nice idea. Some extra cash for your run to the next planet.

It should also be mentioned that those ships likely keep the staterooms under the assumption that they could be taken and used by particularly massive parties of Travellers as their ship. Whoever has 15 people to play trav with be praised. Metadesigning and all that.

 

[samuelvss]

By 'account for robot crew' I meant 'not include staterooms for the crew that the robots would logically replace'.
...

Hans

I got your meaning. The space for robots is essentially irrelevant, but the space dedicated for housing the crew they replace is then just given over to revenue-generating uses. (Type A, more passengers; Type C, more mercs). Don't design ships for robots, but design the robots to work well in ships that are human-friendly. There are always more humans around....

IMTU, the robotic crewmen are typically second and third engineers, gunners, and medics; all essentialy "live" at their workstations, but could move throughout the ship if needed, and had a volume of 350 liters, IIRC.

The ships were not so much designed for robotic crewmen, as the robotic crewman were designed for the ship. Get flush on some speculative trading on 50 dtons of Computers? Buy a brace of robotic gunners, triple turrets, and six missile racks. Lean year? Sell the gunners... Take on a working passage, just for that leg. Or, robot gets shredded, the Engineer can jump in the turret.

 

[rancke]

I got your meaning. The space for robots is essentially irrelevant, but the space dedicated for housing the crew they replace is then just given over to revenue-generating uses.

Not really. Most official ship designs separate crew quarters from passenger quarters in order to reduce the risk of hijacking. Crew staterooms and passenger staterooms are conceptually different. And the Hercules I used for an example is (supposedly) designed for freight only; no passengers.

(Type A, more passengers; Type C, more mercs). Don't design ships for robots, but design the robots to work well in ships that are human-friendly. There are always more humans around....

But they cost a LOT more than robots. Savings in life support is Cr50,000 per year and 4T of cargo space is worth up to Cr100,000 per year.


Hans

 

[samuelvss]

Not really. Most official ship designs separate crew quarters from passenger quarters in order to reduce the risk of hijacking.
But they cost a LOT more than robots. Savings in life support is Cr50,000 per year and 4T of cargo space is worth up to Cr100,000 per year.

Hans

I agree, and the capitalization of the stateroom (Cr 500,000 in CT) essentially already covers the cost of certain robotic crewmen. Classic Type A has four crew staterooms, on one deck, and six passenger stateroom on another. If I am not carrying High Passengers, and am unarmed, I need no Steward, and either bring the potentially seventh passenger into the secured crew area, or leave the stateroom empty. If, OTOH, I carry gunners, then they are spilling over into passenger territory, and really costing me.

Robotic gunners stay in the turrets, IMTU; Ballard Designs runs competing "standard" designs of ships, made to so qualify, but the crew section is three, and the passenger seven. I can run it with a human crew of five, without breaking anything; putting crew in with passengers is a lesser security issue than the other way around. A Ballard Type M would have three crew staterooms and ten passenger.

Now in a commercial ship, with passengers, or even engaged in trading, I am not cutting the crew below 3. Someone is always awake to deal with human frailty, drama, and potential wrongdoing. Robots, IMTU, which is based on as close a reading of LBB8 as I could make, make great technicians. My gunners are typically exercising initiative; they are shooting at who I tell them, when I tell them; they are typically shooting better than a human gunner, are cheaper, less likely to ogle the passengers, or be passed out in some startown flophouse when I'm closing the hatch.

I am not going, in Imperial space, to have a robot that normally interacts with the public, or has to make complex decisions: Stewards, Pilots, and Chief Engineers are always hoo-MAN IMTU; the Medic, well the average passenger will never see the Medic, so I go with robot medics. Boat pilots or Gig gunners, maybe. The "pilot flies the launch" line makes my blood boil: then who's flying the ruttin' ship? Robot flies the launch, and Steward can go with, if it comes to it. Robot navigator, I'm alright with. Second, and third engineers are a natural. While robot crew are not as independent, they can be even more versatile; it is peanuts to add Ship's Boat-2 to a Gunner-4.

Two principals guide these choices: first, IMTU, the canon guides the "science," if we can call it that with a strait face. All of the scientific assumptions in science fiction are guesses about terra incognita, and I just temporarily suspend my disbelief as to whether any of those in CT are true. Second, from personal experience, military history, and canon, I believe that the more specialized (therefore more efficient at its designed purpose) a mobile system is, the more likely it is to be used in manner different from its design. (e.g.: US tank destroyers in WWII).

Crew staterooms and passenger staterooms are conceptually different. And the Hercules I used for an example is (supposedly) designed for freight only; no passengers.

IMTU, only passenger staterooms that are known to only be used for High Passage are distinctly different. All staterooms are capable of double occupancy, for safety reasons if nothing else. A specialized design that relies on robotic crew is a GM call, in my book. In the Imperium, I might get some pushback from officials; I think of a black aircrew flying into Mississipi in 1935. Also, the more specialized, the harder to resell.

I read "a commercial ship must have one stateroom for each member of the crew" to be legal, rather than a technical requirement, of LBB2. I want to employ people in my empire; my subjects hate robots; I want to promote the expansion of the number of subjects who have "skin in the game" of interstellar trade. I don't allow you to license a ship to commercially carry cargo or passengers between SPA starports without a stateroom for each crew position. In New Jersey, I may not pump my own gas; there has to be an employee to pump it for me. That is a political and social decision that is analogous to my reading of this LLB2 requirement; I lack the time to dig into LLB5, and the other rule systems.

 

[rancke]

IMTU robots are not cheaper to employ than live people. That's how I handle the discrepancy. That doesn't say anything about whether there is a discrepancy between the two sets of rules (robot design and ship design) or between the rules and the canonical setting descriptions in the first place. If there are discrepancies, then I'm right, and if there isn't, I'm wrong. What any of us do in our own Traveller universes doesn't influence that at all.


Hans

 

[samuelvss]

IMTU robots are not cheaper to employ than live people. That's how I handle the discrepancy
....
Hans

IMTU, robots are cheaper in the long run, but harder to integrate. That is also my read of the OTU.

People are motel rooms, and robots are condos!

 

[WistfulD]

This is hardly the first instance where the OTU description of the universe as-it-exists and the economic implication of the physical rules as-they-are-described do not mesh when subjected to extensive scrutiny. I always remind myself that the rules exist to facilitate gameplay, not to model a perfectly functional universe (OTOH, heaven help any poor fool who tries to make a Dungeon and Dragons economy work, etc., etc.). And when the system breaks, the solution is to provide an explanation that most quickly and easily explains how the PCs travelling together in the ship that they have doing what they are doing makes perfect sense.

To that end, I always rule that at Imperium standard tech level, factory robots are economical. The parts of the ship that are effectively robots, from the autopilot to the cargo-bay loaders to a targetting computer, are economical. The robot who takes over for a crew member and therefore should justifiably replace a PC is in fact either more expensive than a human crewman (perhaps their parts are so expensive, that the maintenance cost exceeds a salary and life support), or is simply not reliable enough to trust in that position (the same way that self-driving cars are right now. They are getting reliable-enough to use, but not reliable enough to replace the driver's decision-making capacity outright). If a player wants to play a robot, that should be a higher tech level model whose probably too expensive an investment for a merchant ship's owner to buy, but most of the cost is a sunk cost. Once the robot is there, it costs roughly as much to keep going as a salary + life support.

In my campaigns, ships are very efficient at air and water management, and grow significant amounts of food as vat-bacterial protein. I have reduced the monthly cost of life support, and increased the overall maintenance cost, making most of the cost of a crew person being salary and the lack of their crew space as more space for cargo. Thus if a robot worker still takes space, and their maintenance costs starts to equal a salary, then the robot/human decision is closer to a coin flip. On the other hand, I've tried to re-write the economics of owning a ship to make it make sense about a hlaf dozen times.