Rupert writes:
>computer form. In recent years I've thought that Traveller understates
>the level of computer power at higher tech levels, but then (as Catie Helm
>mentioned) we are playing Traveller, not Cyberpunk aren't we ?
Well, I would dispute the odd notion that using realistic computers is
playing Cyberpunk -- classic science fiction had good computers and AIs
before
William Gibson was born. BTW, using the definitions for Robotics/Computer
TLs
listed in Book 8:Robots, I could make a case for the U.S. being on the edge
of
TL 11 in computer tech.
> Larry Niven came up with organlegging and I think it was Niven &
Pournelle
>in Oath of Fealty who came up with direct neural computer connections.
Well, everyone that answered got Larry Niven for organlegging, and you
get an honorable mention for Jerry Pournelle (though he came out with
implants
in High Justice long before he and Larry wrote Oath of Fealty), but no one
else seems to have remembered the Sockets used in Sam Delaney's "Nova". Am
I
the only one here who has read that book? I read the book in the mid-70's;
I
don't know how much older than that it was.
Jim Baranski writes:
>humans aren't really intelligent as it is, at least not as intelligent as
we
>think we are.
Something I've long suspected. Question for everyone: how much of the
day do you get thru on habitual (pre-programmed) reactions? Things like:
in
the morning you get a cup of coffee, get the mail, say "good morning" to
everyone you haven't yet greeted this morning, make decisions based on
long-ago established rules-of-thumb (heuristics) or company/school policies
(rules), etc... How much of what you do is true creative work, or
decisions
that require you to deal with a new situation for which you have no rules?
I'll bet the split is a lot more toward habitual (you can be replaced with
a
computer) vs. creative (you are intelligent) than most people would like to
think. (and no, I am not a follower of Marvin Minsky.)
>Now an AI programmed in a different way might of course be very
unhumanlike,
>and quite dangerous. Imagine how an AI with a strong 'instinct' for
survival
>in one of today's computers in today's society would act. It might do
some
>very nasty things to ensure it's survival, and it would have to in a
society
>when it's survival was not valued. It would have to ensure that it had
>***assured*** power supply, and that it's programming would not be erased
or
>modified, or possibly copied, and that it had a fault tolerant machine and
>plenty of spare parts. Think about how well that would go over...
A favorite topic of science fiction. "Colossus", "The Adolescence of
P1", "Neuromancer", ...
>Then again, perhaps some of the AI projects suceeded their objective of
>creating an AI, but that the AI was, from our viewpoint, unstable,
psychotic,
>crazy, or suicidal, or was driven insane? It's likely that most AI
created
at
>least at the beginning of the technology would be 'imperfect'.
Some novel by Poul Anderson whose name I forget, several of Asimov's
(RIP) robot stories, lots of stories about computers who take their
instructions too literally...re:"Colossus", "Octagon"; or computers that
acquire unusual personalities: "Cybernetic Samurai" for example. Suicide
seems to be a common theme for AIs who realize that "humanity is better off
without them" or some such BS -- usually a cop-out in bad TV/Movie SF for
writers who don't want to deal with the long-term implications of fully
self-aware AIs running about. Even Anne McCaffrey has been guilty of it.
James writes:
>[email removed] (Rather B. Fishing) writes:
>> (So you're probably all thinking that that's the last time you
>> encourage me to expound on something... Sorry if I got pedantic - I
>> suffer from nerd attacks every now and then... I can usually tell when
>> I'm in the middle of an excessive nerd attack at my weekly traveller
>> game, since Jim the GM and everyone else is giving that long suffering
>> look again... Life is so hard for us nerds... I shoulda listened to my
>> Mom and gone to music school...)
>There are not enough female "techno-weenies" around. Applause. Keep the
>faith.
Cat isn't the only one suffering from lecture attacks. Notice my last
letter and all the preceding text. Just ask my PBEM players....
Scott "2G" Kellogg writes:
>(I also
>prefer the notion of somthing I can understand (fusion rocket) as opposed
to
>something I can't (gravitic propulsion).
You keep saying things like that and I'll post *my* universe's
definition
of "How Traveller Gravitics Really Work". It even accounts for the
volume-limited starship drives and the mass-limited vehicle drives. Pretty
amazing bit of hand-waving, in my conceited opinion.
Steve Higginbotham writes:
>A small agility effect at long range I can live with. How about
>this: If your acceleration (in meters per second squared) is over
>your ship's radius (compute as if the ship WERE a sphere, even if not:
>a table could be generated in about 5 minutes), then you get an
>agility of "1" (used exactly as it is now, but only at one light
>second or greater range). If greater than two times, you get a "2",
>and so forth. That way nothing gets an agility except for small
>stuff: your Tigris is SOL.
Of course, if you do that, my agil=6, 6G, DefDM=+17 MegaTraveller
version
of the Sylea Heavy Fighter won't be able to kick ass on any ship in the
fleet,
*sniff, sniff, whimper*.
- -- Via DLG Pro v0.991
[email removed]