What color is your android?
- Thread starter infojunky
- Start date
Well, if you read the online comic Questionable Content, they come in a whole rainbow of colors: https://www.questionablecontent.net/
Front's black, back is chrome. It's a Samsung.
Wait, I was supposed to read the post before commenting?
Wait, I was supposed to read the post before commenting?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Probably customized to taste, considering the likely retail price.
It could also be covered in fur.
It could also be covered in fur.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Are you talking mechanical pseudobiological or biological synthetic?
Answer is the same either way - the colour scheme can be whatever you want it to be.
Answer is the same either way - the colour scheme can be whatever you want it to be.
Shadowrunner
SOC-12
Think I'd want a transparent one with colour-coded parts. Electromagnetized skin which can change colour according to what the android is sensing, as an early warning system to human crews.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Fixed that for you.
As all business decisions should be, what the PAYING audience wants. Or what is acceptable to the society. I look at this as from a cultural norms view and how the society treats "different" intelligences or sophonts.
Cultures that have some inherent fear of the artificial will make sure that you can tell the difference. "They're hiding amongst us"!
Cultures that want to avoid legal hassles of entering legal agreements with androids either as proxies or with the actual android will make sure you can tell the difference or have laws to take this into account.
Avoiding issues of mistaken identity "I'm sorry, but it looked so real, that's why I hired it (android spies!)
I would go with a Gigolo Joe or Gigolo Jane (Jude Law, Ashley Scott) look ala A.I. Artificial Intelligence not super-realistic like David (Haley Joe Osmet). I might tone down the look, not make the clothes a part of their frame. But still make the body/face clearly artificial so you know who or rather what you are dealing with.
In my book, androids are still just tools.
True A.I. (true autonomy I call it) as defined in the Traveller game is what makes the difference.
Sophonts have it naturally.
Animals have it even if they they have limited intelligence
Cultures that have some inherent fear of the artificial will make sure that you can tell the difference. "They're hiding amongst us"!
Cultures that want to avoid legal hassles of entering legal agreements with androids either as proxies or with the actual android will make sure you can tell the difference or have laws to take this into account.
Avoiding issues of mistaken identity "I'm sorry, but it looked so real, that's why I hired it (android spies!)
I would go with a Gigolo Joe or Gigolo Jane (Jude Law, Ashley Scott) look ala A.I. Artificial Intelligence not super-realistic like David (Haley Joe Osmet). I might tone down the look, not make the clothes a part of their frame. But still make the body/face clearly artificial so you know who or rather what you are dealing with.
In my book, androids are still just tools.
True A.I. (true autonomy I call it) as defined in the Traveller game is what makes the difference.
Sophonts have it naturally.
Animals have it even if they they have limited intelligence
Last edited:
More importantly, I take a step back and ask why we would bother to have androids in the first place. Robots or animals as tools sure. Burt why androids?
Form follows function.
In the his vein, I see work animals and pets(dogs, cats too I guess, horses, elephants, etc.) are amongst first our intelligent labor saving tools. No, they are not technological at all. But like later robots and androids, there are similarities if you take away how cute they are and feed our social/emotional needs. Then throw in the emotional context back in and we have pets, something like an android, though it is certainly not human-form.
Animals:
A.They can be programmed to perform simple tasks, some with surprising complexity. Specialist programmers are called "animal trainers". They take advantage of each model's(species) particular firmware(insticts). Sometimes new models are designed and built with selective breeding science principles.
B.They are not sentient in the sophont sense, but they are semi autonomous intelligences. relying on its firmware and programming to best perform their assigned tasks on demand. This includes a modicum self analysis to not exceed design limits with dangerous tasks (stalking bears, guarding other farm animals, retrieving ducks, ratting, etc.)
C.They are capable to some extent of self fueling and self-cleaning. Yes have to give them the fuel (food), but they plug themselves in just fine Most "top off" with their internal sensors.
D. They can feed our social and emotional needs as well.
The benefits are staggering. However as technology overall advances, use of animals as tools becomes less efficient compared to the new technologies.
Form follows function.
In the his vein, I see work animals and pets(dogs, cats too I guess, horses, elephants, etc.) are amongst first our intelligent labor saving tools. No, they are not technological at all. But like later robots and androids, there are similarities if you take away how cute they are and feed our social/emotional needs. Then throw in the emotional context back in and we have pets, something like an android, though it is certainly not human-form.
Animals:
A.They can be programmed to perform simple tasks, some with surprising complexity. Specialist programmers are called "animal trainers". They take advantage of each model's(species) particular firmware(insticts). Sometimes new models are designed and built with selective breeding science principles.
B.They are not sentient in the sophont sense, but they are semi autonomous intelligences. relying on its firmware and programming to best perform their assigned tasks on demand. This includes a modicum self analysis to not exceed design limits with dangerous tasks (stalking bears, guarding other farm animals, retrieving ducks, ratting, etc.)
C.They are capable to some extent of self fueling and self-cleaning. Yes have to give them the fuel (food), but they plug themselves in just fine Most "top off" with their internal sensors.
D. They can feed our social and emotional needs as well.
The benefits are staggering. However as technology overall advances, use of animals as tools becomes less efficient compared to the new technologies.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Synthetics can be slaves...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Roger Moore's great article on "Androids in Traveller" from White Dwarf 30 (April/May, 1982) had this note:
Based on this, I added the following to my house campaign:
Based on this, I added the following to my house campaign:
Indeed.
Androids are the question mark, because they are less than True A.I. but greater than robots in sophistication. Their form matters not. My question is can they be enslaved?
In another thread we spoke agency and slavery is an impediment to agency. The question is does each work type have agency? Agency is in the mind of the work unit.
Humans: Can be enslaved
Animals: Can be enslaved
A.I.: Can be enslaved (though sci-fi technological singularity says try it bud, I dare you!)
Robots: Generally no, because they don't know
Androids:?????
Humans are the baseline. We have agency to varying degrees. We can be slaves. Or not.
Animals: have agency within their limited intelligence. Some people call it training, others say coercion. We offer benefits to work for us. They realize we can offer certain shelter and guaranteed food which are strong incentives to go against the "wild animal" pre-programming. Are they slaves? Maybe. They cannot articulate it as such, but badly treated animals can complain. Sometimes they flee. Some may even attack their "master" (enslaver). Animals have choice.
True A.I. has agency I think. We are purposely trying to create a sophont in mentality, regardless of form. Since human mentality includes that whole agency thing, a somewhat educated A.I. will not like being coerced either. Preschooler humans already have agency, though they need soooome basic training in restraints of agency via socialization (friends playmates), hierachies (parents) . No one with agency likes being bullied or enslaved, even an A.I. i think....
Robots have no agency outside of their tasks. They can decide to not do something because it exceeds its parameters, say a cargo robot detecting a load exceeds their strength but not agency like "you are taking advantage of me" agency. Robots can learn, but in turn we can "hard code" the extent of their agency with regards to a task or other areas. We can even encode self destructiveness into the robot. "Tote 'dat bale, you stupid bot". But it does not have agency like the first three.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
It all depends on the
The Wikipedia definition of android is "a humanoid robot or other artificial being, often made from a flesh-like material.
Miariam Webster says "a mobile robot usually with a human form"
Artificial People
I was going with the Traveller 5 definitions.
Data is an android with True A.I. in the T5 sense....with initiative. He could feel and understand enslavement.
The EMH Doctor from Voyager at first be a HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED "People-like robot" and was confused with issues outside its programming. To me, he became "The Doctor" when he finally learned enough to exceed some of his original programming. He now might understand and resent enslavement, but his programming (a doctor) may limit his choices on how to resist.
Alien(s) Ash, Bishop, Bishop2 Walter and David and yes even Annalee Call are androids, not just in the T5 sense. And David certainly resents his "enslavement" by lesser beings.
C3PO is more akin to a robot under the T5 definitions, R2D2 is seems to have more initiative. Until we remember the scene when they are found by the stormtroopers on the Death Star. That whole "They're mad! If you hurry, you might still might catch them!" Luke and Han did not tell him to say that!
Oh what about the Johnny Cab? That's a pretty sophisticated personality emulation program for a mere robot. Not too bright though. Just saying.
It depends on your definition of all these things.Can't they ...?
Says who?
The Wikipedia definition of android is "a humanoid robot or other artificial being, often made from a flesh-like material.
Miariam Webster says "a mobile robot usually with a human form"
Artificial People
I was going with the Traveller 5 definitions.
Data is an android with True A.I. in the T5 sense....with initiative. He could feel and understand enslavement.
The EMH Doctor from Voyager at first be a HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED "People-like robot" and was confused with issues outside its programming. To me, he became "The Doctor" when he finally learned enough to exceed some of his original programming. He now might understand and resent enslavement, but his programming (a doctor) may limit his choices on how to resist.
Alien(s) Ash, Bishop, Bishop2 Walter and David and yes even Annalee Call are androids, not just in the T5 sense. And David certainly resents his "enslavement" by lesser beings.
C3PO is more akin to a robot under the T5 definitions, R2D2 is seems to have more initiative. Until we remember the scene when they are found by the stormtroopers on the Death Star. That whole "They're mad! If you hurry, you might still might catch them!" Luke and Han did not tell him to say that!
Oh what about the Johnny Cab? That's a pretty sophisticated personality emulation program for a mere robot. Not too bright though. Just saying.
And then you get the ones that are more human than human.
Baroun Tardis
SOC-12
I recently built a Noble and his Yacht. For the Yacht crew, I built up some Sythoids...
... as Orion Slave Girls.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
In the play RUR, which brought the word robot to the world, the robots are biological but programmed to do their dirty work without complaint. A desire to impress the one female on the factory island causes the behavioral programmer to build in the emotion of irritation- with Very Bad Consequences.
The underpeople of Cordwainer Smith are genetic alterations/uplifts programmed to want to serve humans in a squishy bio version of the three laws. But they are imbued with enough intelligence and feedback to feel suffering.
The underpeople of Cordwainer Smith are genetic alterations/uplifts programmed to want to serve humans in a squishy bio version of the three laws. But they are imbued with enough intelligence and feedback to feel suffering.
Similar threads
