Computers

[Spartan159]

What is the relationship between desktop/hand/equipment computers and starship and core computers? Are starship computers networked "desktops"? What about Core computers?

Can a Hand Comp, Computer weave and smart weapon be networked? If so what is the advantage?

Pertaining to the Robots book by 13 Mann, Can I build a network of computers to make perhaps a Computer/40 ? Would I need to buy Int/Edu/Soc for all the computers in the network or just the controlling computer?

These are just some of the computer questions that I have been thinking on, I would be glad to see other thoughts on the subject as well.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

In Traveller every computer gets a Rating, which defines what types of programs it can run. Your TL7 Laptop is a Computer/0 and the best programs that you can run are Rating/0.

There hasn't been much about networking but I would say that at a guess, you could do it geometrically, so 2xComputer/0 = Computer/1 and 2xComputer/1 = Computer/2 etc. There is no rule for it though that I know of.

Exactly what a Ship or Core computer is is deliberately left vague. Originally, it was thought of as a single big "main frame" computer (based on 1970's technology), but now most people consider it a mixture of networked computers, CommDots etc. That is how I envision it.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, your tech level twelve iPhone has an app for that can run your entire adventure class starship; note well, despite marketing from Apple, not your iPhone 12.

 

[Spartan159]

(Hides the Vic 20, looks innocent) Mainframes? What hulking mainframes? Thanks for replying. Not having seen much about computers in the game around these parts I was hoping to spark some kind of discussion on the subject.

 

[Anonymous]

The problem with networking computers is that assuming they are digital and work like ours, some problems are not inherently parallelizable, and will not see much gain. Then there's Amdahl's Law.

Today we are struggling with Amdahl's Law which is rapidly infringing on the territory of Moore's Law. Amdahl says that in any concurrent process, the speed gain is limited by the speed of the slowest component. This is kind of obvious, but how it's applied is not intuitive. For example consider computer chess. We can get different computers to analyse different moves and thus we might be able to run faster, but the problem is that multiple moves can lead to the same position, and the machines will duplicate their efforts. As we add more computing nodes, the percentage of duplicate positions increases and each new node provides proportionally less gain. We need some kind of shared memory to tell them what's already been done by another node, and that adds a communication and storage delay to the system. Given that computer chips run the storage systems and networks, it's likely that the processors must always be faster than the communication or storage system. Chess is basically a storage problem as well as a computing power problem. (By the way, a full database of all possible 7 piece games is 7 Terrabytes. Chess software uses these "tablebases" to play perfect endgames). It's likely that no computer would ever be able to analyse completely a game like Go or Chess due to the the fundamental physical laws governing information density and light sped communication.

And then we have the problem of calculations that can't be parallelised. A calculation with lots of serial steps; if you have to do step 1 before step 2, and so on, parallelising that task is not possible. Computations based on feedback loops also suffer from this, where the output is put back into the system as the input. Compression (zip) is a primary example of this kind of algorithm that can't be easily parallelised. And of course physical based feedback systems (targeting computers) can't be easily parallelised if they have to first fire and judge inaccuracy to correct for the second shot.

Ultimately these problems are solvable, but likely not with anything we'd recognise today as a conventional computer or existing mathematics so feel free to add whatever sci-fi magic you require. My own personal opinion is that the brain is just a massively parallel computer but that means a mechanical one has the possibility for consciousness unless very carefully programmed to not do that, and Traveller does NOT like AIs.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The problem with networking computers is that assuming they are digital and work like ours, some problems are not inherently parallelizable, and will not see much gain. Then there's Amdahl's Law.

Which doesn't apply to fiction.

Traveller does NOT like AIs.

That's an odd statement.

 

[Anonymous]

That's an odd statement.

Can you be a little more specific? A single sentence objection doesn't really carry any meaningful information beyond the fact that you don't like *something*, and I'm not telepathic.

I'm using the term "AI" to mean the popular sci-fi sense - Cylons, self-aware pilotless starships, all that - and not the 21st century machine learning definition (Siri and the Netflix recommendation engine). I don't really think it's disputable that such concepts are uncommon in Traveller (I think the Hivers have it, but the number of games set in Hiver space is low) so I assume you're debating the definition of AI?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

That's an odd statement.

Can you be a little more specific? A single sentence objection doesn't really carry any meaningful information beyond the fact that you don't like *something*, and I'm not telepathic.

I'm using the term "AI" to mean the popular sci-fi sense - Cylons, self-aware pilotless starships, all that - and not the 21st century machine learning definition (Siri and the Netflix recommendation engine). I don't really think it's disputable that such concepts are uncommon in Traveller (I think the Hivers have it, but the number of games set in Hiver space is low) so I assume you're debating the definition of AI?

You use "Traveller" and "AI" as buzzwords. Anyway, there are AIs in Traveller's setting. And there are AIs in Traveller's rules.

 

[Anonymous]

You use "Traveller" and "AI" as buzzwords. Anyway, there are AIs in Traveller's setting. And there are AIs in Traveller's rules.

AI's very difficult to define. If we say it's when you can't tell the difference between a human and a computer, or if it can pass a self-awareness test, well those tests have already been passed. It's much easier to just call it C3P0 or a Cylon or whatever's currently trending. I chose Cylon because their fighter-planes have animal intelligence which is likely equivalent to Traveller's introductory AI TLs of 11. I can choose to annoy people who don't like Battlestar, or I can choose to annoy computer scientists. Either way, someone will be ticked off. If you are, I apologise.

I'm not actually criticising Traveller. I'm just mentioning Traveller has a strong bias towards humans and a very low integration of automated systems into its universe. This is in no way a bad thing and obviously some people like it. The fact that it exists is what I meant by "Traveller not liking AI".

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I'm not actually criticising Traveller. I'm just mentioning Traveller has a strong bias towards humans and a very low integration of automated systems into its universe. This is in no way a bad thing and obviously some people like it. The fact that it exists is what I meant by "Traveller not liking AI".

I'll agree to disagree. There is a difference between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence. Traveller rules and setting work with both.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not actually criticising Traveller. I'm just mentioning Traveller has a strong bias towards humans and a very low integration of automated systems into its universe. This is in no way a bad thing and obviously some people like it. The fact that it exists is what I meant by "Traveller not liking AI".

I'll agree to disagree. There is a difference between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence. Traveller rules and setting work with both.

Is there a difference?

Without the supernatural or the divine, there's no difference between a (edited: add "high quality") artificial intelligence, and a natural one. The brain is a physical structure with a network of interconnected nodes, and if you duplicate that network, either you must have the same thing, or there's divine intervention. People get upset about it, and like to say consciousness is somehow special but it's the same: either its God or it's emergent from the machine, like a wave on the sea. Dig a lake, you'll get a wave. If you don't, start praying.

However in Traveller we don't have to decide. The decision is made for us. Mongoose's Traveller has what they call "true" intelligence which does run like a brain. Mongoose Core, page 4. TL 11. "The first true artificial intelligences become possible, as computers are able to model synaptic networks". They're quite careful to use the word "true"', and to say it's brain-like.

We wouldn't normally say amoeba are true intelligences, so that implies a trainable animal. If this statement in the rulebook is correct, I'd assume that by TL14+ every major device on a high-tech world could be at least dog-smart and have a personality unless the prevailing culture has some philosophical opposition to this (higher than dogs and you might have rebellion issues). So where is all this in the rulebook? Where is the sentry turret and self-flying jetpack? At what TL am I expected to add a computer and expert/intellgent agent to everything? Where's the AI element in the plot/encounter/patron table?

I have to assume there's some game designers edict that chooses not to touch this stuff and leave it to the players. Sure you can add it for high tech worlds, and remove it for low tech worlds (it's an RPG and you can do what you want), but it's clear that the rulebook by its omissions, makes some assumptions about what is available and what people will use.

 

[dragoner]

What is the relationship between desktop/hand/equipment computers and starship and core computers? Are starship computers networked "desktops"? What about Core computers?

Can a Hand Comp, Computer weave and smart weapon be networked? If so what is the advantage?

Pertaining to the Robots book by 13 Mann, Can I build a network of computers to make perhaps a Computer/40 ? Would I need to buy Int/Edu/Soc for all the computers in the network or just the controlling computer?

These are just some of the computer questions that I have been thinking on, I would be glad to see other thoughts on the subject as well.

There was a fairly long conversation on AI, computers, and such, here: http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=107761

 

[Spartan159]

Moppy - Thanks for the input. I'll be honest, you just took what knowledge I had on the subject of real life computers and swamped it. Does this mean that we are pretty much just hand-waving the abilities of Traveller computers?

Dragoner - Thanks for the heads up, my search-fu was lacking. Now for more reading!

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I'm not actually criticising Traveller. I'm just mentioning Traveller has a strong bias towards humans and a very low integration of automated systems into its universe. This is in no way a bad thing and obviously some people like it. The fact that it exists is what I meant by "Traveller not liking AI".

I'll agree to disagree. There is a difference between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence. Traveller rules and setting work with both.

Is there a difference?

Without the supernatural or the divine, there's no difference between a (edited: add "high quality") artificial intelligence, and a natural one. The brain is a physical structure with a network of interconnected nodes, and if you duplicate that network, either you must have the same thing, or there's divine intervention. People get upset about it, and like to say consciousness is somehow special but it's the same: either its God or it's emergent from the machine, like a wave on the sea. Dig a lake, you'll get a wave. If you don't, start praying.

Not sure what you're going on about. If they are both the same thing, then they are both simply called intelligence. KISS.

 

[Anonymous]

What exactly do you not understand? If this is about your definition of artificial intelligence, would you care to supply one? It's clear to me that you aren't using the Traveller rulebook AI's definition, or the common sci-fi one as understood by everyone since Asimov, and you seem to have an objection to me calling Siri or Netflix a machine learning system, so what definition are you using?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

What exactly do you not understand? If this is about your definition of artificial intelligence, would you care to supply one? It's clear to me that you aren't using the Traveller rulebook AI's definition, or the common sci-fi one as understood by everyone since Asimov, and you seem to have an objection to me calling Siri or Netflix a machine learning system, so what definition are you using?

You're all over the map, dude. Anyway, a couple of brief mentions on AI in a book is hardly a definition. Technically, nothing in the book is much defined.

 

[phavoc]

What is the relationship between desktop/hand/equipment computers and starship and core computers? Are starship computers networked "desktops"? What about Core computers?

Can a Hand Comp, Computer weave and smart weapon be networked? If so what is the advantage?

Pertaining to the Robots book by 13 Mann, Can I build a network of computers to make perhaps a Computer/40 ? Would I need to buy Int/Edu/Soc for all the computers in the network or just the controlling computer?

These are just some of the computer questions that I have been thinking on, I would be glad to see other thoughts on the subject as well.

While potentially I would say yes, from a gaming perspective I would say no. Computers will scale up and down and be designed for certain things regardless of the timeframe. And it just makes it easier to keep them somewhat separate so you don't have to track all those things.

I would say that you would only need to purchase one set of each, but the loss of any one node causes the system to reduce it's overall ratings in Int/Edu (I wouldn't use SOC unless you are building an AI system, and even then that would/could be rather dicey, as SOC is a much more nuanced trait.

 

[phavoc]

What exactly do you not understand? If this is about your definition of artificial intelligence, would you care to supply one? It's clear to me that you aren't using the Traveller rulebook AI's definition, or the common sci-fi one as understood by everyone since Asimov, and you seem to have an objection to me calling Siri or Netflix a machine learning system, so what definition are you using?

I would say you are wasting your breath here arguing with him. Best just drop it and avoid the aggravation.