alex_greene
Guest
Dear chaos wept.
See? That's why we'll still need people, if only to keep those racist robots in line.
See? That's why we'll still need people, if only to keep those racist robots in line.
The Perennial Robot Question
- Thread starter alex_greene
- Start date
alex_greene
Guest
Indeed.-Daniel- said:Interesting how they placed the blame on the algorithm and not on the biased humans who programmed the AI.Condottiere said:
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
Could be the programmers were being as neutral as possible but the machine itself used all information available and determined its interpretation of human beauty. It wasn't being racist but as logical and objective as it could. If society now demanded the programmers now program 'racism' out, it could be they're showing a bias.
This is also a good time to realize giving machines the ability to self determine their concept of right and wrong especially in reference to humans could lead them to decide If humans are wrong in one way or another and logical steps need to be implemented to correct a wrong condition.
This is the voice of Colossus.
This is the voice of World Control.
This is also a good time to realize giving machines the ability to self determine their concept of right and wrong especially in reference to humans could lead them to decide If humans are wrong in one way or another and logical steps need to be implemented to correct a wrong condition.
This is the voice of Colossus.
This is the voice of World Control.
-Daniel-
Emperor Mongoose
That is possible. But to be honest, I have an easier time believing the programmers allowed their personal bias to taint the information (samples) they gave the computer and thus it fulfilled their bias as it was told to do. Do I think the programmers did it by design, no to at all. But did their bias taint the process, yes, that is the easiest possibility to believe.Reynard said:
In any case, it is an interesting story.
alex_greene
Guest
It is the least complex, and therefore the most logical, explanation - human bias in the algorithm's design and in the supply of samples, and not the AI's fault - because the AI did not achieve a goal, or feel triumph or defeat in its actions. The AI just ran a program, and that's all.-Daniel- said:But did their bias taint the process, yes, that is the easiest possibility to believe.
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
I just think it odd that a bunch of racist programmers happen to be hired together on such a project so they could create a program featuring racist views with no reviews of what was going and would be so obvious the moment the computer was turned on yet they thought they would get away with it. Sounds like a conspiracy theory based on an event that is now deemed politically correct. Maybe the computer should have been programmed for intensive political correctness somewhat in the vein of Robocop.
alex_greene
Guest
Reynard said:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
-Daniel-
Emperor Mongoose
And there we go from reasonable to extreme. :roll:Reynard said:
No one said they were a bunch of racists. Everyone who has a brain has some sort of bias in their thinking. Bias does not equal racism, bias could be just about personal preference. To pretend that the AI just happen to come up with this outcome on its own is just naïve at best. But as we have moved from a subject focused on our game or related topic to one that is clearly political I am going to suggest this topic be moved to a thread in the off topic section rather than continue here. :|
alex_greene
Guest
And since topics in the Off-Topic forum have the lifespan of a Star Trek redshirt on fire in a dynamite storage area, that's a shortcut term for "Let's stop this discussion right now till we're mature enough to handle it." Possibly never, but what the hey.
It's my topic, so I'm keeping it open, but we're talking here about the original question which is "Why do we need humans when robots can do so much?" - the answer being that robots need for there to be humans around to override their actions. And I proposed the rule that, without a human around to override them, their skill Effects are capped at +1, they cannot enjoy the benefits of a natural 12 and they cannot accept a Boon die.
That might be waived if the Travellers happen to be sentient robots, but NPC droids cannot escape the restriction.
It's my topic, so I'm keeping it open, but we're talking here about the original question which is "Why do we need humans when robots can do so much?" - the answer being that robots need for there to be humans around to override their actions. And I proposed the rule that, without a human around to override them, their skill Effects are capped at +1, they cannot enjoy the benefits of a natural 12 and they cannot accept a Boon die.
That might be waived if the Travellers happen to be sentient robots, but NPC droids cannot escape the restriction.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
That might be true for low TL dumbbots, but not Hi tech smartbots:
Sorry, the bumbling protocol droid is smarter than me or you.
-Daniel-
Emperor Mongoose
Good Point, we need to be clear what their programing level is. Heck some of the "dumbbots" might be smarter than some of my characters. :wink:AnotherDilbert said:
But in the end, I do think the need to keep robots as "equipment" vs "replacements" is important for the game. If the robots can do it all then it becomes quite a bore. Regardless of if I am playing the human waiting back on the planet for the robot to do everything or if I am playing the robot who has zero chance to fail. Either would be a bore to play.
One book I read that I liked was about a team, one human and one robot. They were paired up to take advantage of the best of both. I would not mind seeing the game move that direction and I see Alex's proposed rule as a way to do just that. :mrgreen:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Cannon fodder.
alex_greene
Guest
... and the "ultra-smart" protocol droid alike are not able to work around their programming without a human to override them.AnotherDilbert said:
It only means that it gains extra skill levels, and can handle Difficult, Very Difficult and Formidable tasks, but never able to gain an Effect of +1 no matter how easy or hard the task.
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
More than super robots running around, I wonder more about the motives of the creators and users who want such units that are both physically and computationally superior. Purposely designing their own species extinction or a portion of the species considered less useful? I'm also a little concerned how many here seem to lean toward a Traveller universe run by superior machine and it feels as if humans or any other sophont are more of a pet or protected trinkets.
Star Wars, for me, got it right, with robots as tools and property but with enough programmed personality for some to achieve a companion status. The ones that show more cunning and intellect are the exceptions often plot device level.
What helps moderate the robot in Traveller is the diversity of technology compared to other scifi setting. The sophistication of robots is not even or homogenous. Unless someone is pumping them out at the higher (14-15) tech levels for some reason, machines that really might compete with sophonts should not be common let alone in abundance through the galaxy. The diversity of governments and law should also determine how accepted robots, especially superior designed ones, will be. "We don't want your kind in here." could be a frequent phrase in one's travels.
Star Wars, for me, got it right, with robots as tools and property but with enough programmed personality for some to achieve a companion status. The ones that show more cunning and intellect are the exceptions often plot device level.
What helps moderate the robot in Traveller is the diversity of technology compared to other scifi setting. The sophistication of robots is not even or homogenous. Unless someone is pumping them out at the higher (14-15) tech levels for some reason, machines that really might compete with sophonts should not be common let alone in abundance through the galaxy. The diversity of governments and law should also determine how accepted robots, especially superior designed ones, will be. "We don't want your kind in here." could be a frequent phrase in one's travels.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Most of RPGs tend to be humancentric, by design.
The danger of robots and androids is that they make the humans irrelevant, something that our descendants will have to deal with, and game designers have to figure out as to where to strike the balance, between the inevitable, and something the players can relate to.
The danger of robots and androids is that they make the humans irrelevant, something that our descendants will have to deal with, and game designers have to figure out as to where to strike the balance, between the inevitable, and something the players can relate to.
-Daniel-
Emperor Mongoose
I guess that is where I am struggling, is it inevitable that humans will become irrelevant? Will the biological be over-ran by the mechanical? Or will they merge into some, as of now, unknown blended existence?Condottiere said:
I can't help but think of the "Therians" from AT-43. Where they came from and how they got there is quite an interesting possibility for us humans.
