... except a Traveller Starship computer.In other words: the Positronic Brain is whatever you want it to be.
Why not more Robots?
- Thread starter Greylond
- Start date
IMTU, it's only in Jump Space that the positronic (read in Book 8 terms: synaptic processor based) brains go all screwy, and semiconductor computers get fuzzy around the edges too... See J-Space, even through the bubble, slightly alters the semi-conductance just a tiny bit...
And that effect also is related to Jump Madness (see TNE's anagathics rules).
Yes, I've considered that too, but it fails to explain away the whole problem: why are robotic crew on space- and star-ships not ubiquitous? It does explain it as far as starships are concerned, but not for spaceships. According to the RAW it's not even possible to design a spaceship (boat) for a robot crew. If you have a crew slot on a boat that is designed for extended operation (more than 24 hours, is it?), you have to have a corresponding crew cabin. Granted, that's probably a simplification and I wouldn't object to spaceships designed for robot crew per se. But none of the examples we have of spaceships have been designed that way, so I think it's fair to argue that robot crew is at the very least not the norm.
Still, I suppose that since most of the canonical designs we have are for starships, "saving" them alone is a lot better than nothing.
Hans
perhaps they are and you just don't know it. maybe THEY don't know it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
This sounds familiar, and is both reasonable and a big advantage over the 4dton & 500kCr/crewman of CT. Maybe this compartment has special shielding for their positronic brains...
One would think that you could somehow electromagnetically shield a positronic brain from such effects...
Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
When it takes tons of shielding to protect a ship's computer?!?
Seriously (so to speak
), it's very difficult to shield against handwavium particles.Hans
How do you shield against fundamental changes in semiconductance due to being in a parallel universe?
Lord Blaine
SOC-7
When it takes tons of shielding to protect a ship's computer?!?
Seriously (so to speak
Hans
But by the same token, handwavitronic shielding is very difficult to get through. Really, it's always going to come down to a load of bull one side or another, so I guess it's just up to the group to decide which side they're on.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Well, without reading the whole thing, I can tell you that IMTU, which is a TL10 early Terran breakout verse, has bots as an integral part of things, but with limits.
They are heavily used as augmentation for vacuum work as they can operate for the most part without vacc suits or delay besides maintenance and fueling, in mining and space industry. They are very important for building and running the Cities.
They are used in ships most often in a server/client bot format- the expensive CPU portion is the Ship's Robot, normally a fixed server installation and powered by ship's power (with provision for a few hours of emergency power), with typically two or more wireless controlled bots as the working parts.
They are cut off from direct access to ship's computers to avoid breaching threats, and have to interact much like the humans do. This is a safety thing as bots are not as hardwired isolated as ship computers.
Bots are also not allowed to replace crew on a 1:1 basis, due to HAL concerns and lack of flexibility/problem solving with critical ship tasks. Ships are allowed to have robots repair, pilot, etc. but with a human supervising in more or less required crewing levels. This is partially a jobs thing, but mostly a stupid bot crashing into space station/planet thing.
Scouts, warships and unlicensed craft of course do not need to observe such limits, and G limit issues sometimes make bot pilots irresistible to some space forces, with unfortunate consequences at times when facing crafty pirates.
Bots are the nucleus of Autodocs, a very popular feature of rescue ships or large liner/warship medical bays.
For infantry support suits, powered man-sized exoskeletons, I use the Robots rules, leave enough room for a human pilot AND a bot running systems and guns for the pilot, bot will take on tasking and firing at pilot command and can return a wounded pilot automatically if programmed to do so.
In general bots are not used in warbot mode simply because again they can be fooled too easily, mostly as a crew reduction or safety move- smart 'shoot this now' augment, autoloading ammunition, drive home, etc.
At TL10 the very limited lifespan of bots, 10 years so more like the replacement cycle of cars, PCs etc. means that the full value of a big investment in a bot, especially smart and self learning, isn't worth it.
So I have them dropping in value at a precipitous rate, 10% every year past the point they start being used.
This economic factoid gives rise to an itinerant class of unskilled robot owner, where they will pick up a 90,000 Cr bot near end of life for 9-18,000 Cr, use them to earn passage or money before discarding them at breakdown and buying another one.
They are heavily used as augmentation for vacuum work as they can operate for the most part without vacc suits or delay besides maintenance and fueling, in mining and space industry. They are very important for building and running the Cities.
They are used in ships most often in a server/client bot format- the expensive CPU portion is the Ship's Robot, normally a fixed server installation and powered by ship's power (with provision for a few hours of emergency power), with typically two or more wireless controlled bots as the working parts.
They are cut off from direct access to ship's computers to avoid breaching threats, and have to interact much like the humans do. This is a safety thing as bots are not as hardwired isolated as ship computers.
Bots are also not allowed to replace crew on a 1:1 basis, due to HAL concerns and lack of flexibility/problem solving with critical ship tasks. Ships are allowed to have robots repair, pilot, etc. but with a human supervising in more or less required crewing levels. This is partially a jobs thing, but mostly a stupid bot crashing into space station/planet thing.
Scouts, warships and unlicensed craft of course do not need to observe such limits, and G limit issues sometimes make bot pilots irresistible to some space forces, with unfortunate consequences at times when facing crafty pirates.
Bots are the nucleus of Autodocs, a very popular feature of rescue ships or large liner/warship medical bays.
For infantry support suits, powered man-sized exoskeletons, I use the Robots rules, leave enough room for a human pilot AND a bot running systems and guns for the pilot, bot will take on tasking and firing at pilot command and can return a wounded pilot automatically if programmed to do so.
In general bots are not used in warbot mode simply because again they can be fooled too easily, mostly as a crew reduction or safety move- smart 'shoot this now' augment, autoloading ammunition, drive home, etc.
At TL10 the very limited lifespan of bots, 10 years so more like the replacement cycle of cars, PCs etc. means that the full value of a big investment in a bot, especially smart and self learning, isn't worth it.
So I have them dropping in value at a precipitous rate, 10% every year past the point they start being used.
This economic factoid gives rise to an itinerant class of unskilled robot owner, where they will pick up a 90,000 Cr bot near end of life for 9-18,000 Cr, use them to earn passage or money before discarding them at breakdown and buying another one.
Patron Zero
SOC-13
Replacing humans with robots is always a concern for reasons of economics, just as automation has greatly changed employment opportunities in industrial-manufacturing fields in our world, so would robot-mechanical labor do so in Traveller.
However the use of droids-drones aboard a starship to act in support-maintenance roles would be a logical choice, given such have properly trained and qualified humans overseeing their assigned-regulated tasks as needed.
Mechanical labor would also benefit a starport, such freeing up human workers for tasks better suited to situations-duties where independent-creative thinking might be required.
In both applications, robots would make better rescue-emergency responders in the sense of not subject to the restrictions fragile human bodies in such environments, machines simply don't need to breath in a vacuum or fear the heat of flames or choking smoke of a fire.
All said, droids-drones make great assistants for engineers, can fill-in as stewards and medical officers given the proper programing and equipment. Do I want a machine alongside me in a trench in combat ? No, I think they're better suited as domestics and 'coolies' than bearing arms upon their creators.
However the use of droids-drones aboard a starship to act in support-maintenance roles would be a logical choice, given such have properly trained and qualified humans overseeing their assigned-regulated tasks as needed.
Mechanical labor would also benefit a starport, such freeing up human workers for tasks better suited to situations-duties where independent-creative thinking might be required.
In both applications, robots would make better rescue-emergency responders in the sense of not subject to the restrictions fragile human bodies in such environments, machines simply don't need to breath in a vacuum or fear the heat of flames or choking smoke of a fire.
All said, droids-drones make great assistants for engineers, can fill-in as stewards and medical officers given the proper programing and equipment. Do I want a machine alongside me in a trench in combat ? No, I think they're better suited as domestics and 'coolies' than bearing arms upon their creators.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
When a robot kills a person, as apparently happened in Germany, who is charged and held responsible for the crime?
Begs the question as to whether it's a crime.
When an airplane kills a person, who is charged and held responsible?
It depends. If the airplane was intentionally used as a weapon (per 9/11), then the person flying it is criminally and civilly liable. The airplane is doing what it is designed to do, follow the commands given to it (interpreted through software, in fly-by-wire). We do not blame the airplane!
If the airplane is defective, and kills by failing to perform as designed, then there may be civil, or even criminal responsibility, depending on the causality and gravity of the defect. This is a simple products liability analysis.
Now, if the plane is self-aware, and capable of changing its own programming, and decides to crash itself, or run over the wayward groundcrew, then maybe we blame the plane.....
Substitute robot for plane, and that's my answer.
Patron Zero
SOC-13
My question about such an incident is how many lawyers can a robot kill before it's considered a crime ?
In the OTU, the Shudusham Accords make it clear that the owner of a robot is responsible for its actions. I am not sure if there is any clause concerning manufacturer defects, however.
Puts an interesting spin on the disincentive for development of truly autonomous robots in the 3I. It also makes robot leasing problematic.
The perfect crime: hacking somebody else's janitor bot, and re-programming it to enter Room 123 when empty, park under the bed, and then vacuum by the bedside table of the victim at 3 a.m.. Vacuum's motor power is, however, connected instead to the electric blasting cap on hefty charge that fills the compartment where the dust normally goes. The owner is responsible for the robot's actions.....
Shadowrunner
SOC-12
Begs the question as to whether it's a crime.
When an airplane kills a person, who is charged and held responsible?
It depends. If the airplane was intentionally used as a weapon (per 9/11), then the person flying it is criminally and civilly liable. The airplane is doing what it is designed to do, follow the commands given to it (interpreted through software, in fly-by-wire). We do not blame the airplane!
If the airplane is defective, and kills by failing to perform as designed, then there may be civil, or even criminal responsibility, depending on the causality and gravity of the defect. This is a simple products liability analysis.
Now, if the plane is self-aware, and capable of changing its own programming, and decides to crash itself, or run over the wayward groundcrew, then maybe we blame the plane.....
Substitute robot for plane, and that's my answer.
I think in legal terms, the robot designed by a human, is not responsible and can not be punished. The robot designed by a robot, is perhaps another matter.
