This was almost a 'media & Inspiration' thread.....

After my G:T campaign dealt with the issues of Cyborgs, Robots, and Androids as Player characters and NPCs.

I'm not positive that mankind will ever make them in a large number like we've seen in movies and read in various fiction books.

 STAR TREK :The Next Generation (and TOS TREK as well) may have stumbled on the reason by accident because of the simple fact that its would be a budget-buster to show lots of Robots. They finally had someone right up the real reason in a 2nd season episode.  It was the episode "The Measure of a Man"."

Any number of "Robots" that get made over a certain population number means that we are creating a mimicry of the human fporm so that we cvan have Slaves or slavery withj no guilt. The problem is that as these machines get possibly more complex they border on being a new or different kind of intelligence ...maybe even a life-form. At that point we're right back to being slave-owners.

In one of the last sessions of that campaign that I ran - a player got quite pissed ....in-character because she saw a robot being abused (in her opinion). She then , in-character bought that robot, gave him his freedom then hired him to be a member of the crew.

The woman hadn't gamed much until the past year and felt the need to apologize if she got too emotional. I told her "No, that was all in character and made perfect sense to me in the game's conmtext."


From now on , ANY game I run with androids or robots in it - I will be thinking about this angle. Just can't help it now.

What do the rest of you think?

- Ed C.



The TNG episode referenced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

I don't think it's a problem with robots (we have millions working around the world today - do you consider them enslaved) but rather artificial intelligence. Until you have self-awareness, then you can have any number of robots doing whatever work you like without the moral dilemma, IMO - unless you consider draft animals slaves too. Of course, there is a whole other mess of moral issues with how we USE them (war machines that can fight non-stop, and that if they are destroyed can be easily replaced, might lead us to solve more problems with roboticized conflict, is one of many that I've seen batted around).

I think there's a pretty broad line between forcing a self-aware being who was kidnapped from their homeland to work in your fields and plugging in a purpose-built machine that does the same thing. It's also a reason I think that as robots become more ubiquitous, there will NOT be a trend towards humanizing them, or even making them humanoid in form, because it's easier to think of them as just a machine if they don't look like a person. How many stories or movies do you know of where the sympathetic machine is shaped like a box on wheels? Except for WALL-E, of course.

I forgot the adjective - of course I was referring to human-similiar shaped robots as we've seen in countless, movies, TV shows, comic books and Science Fiction books over the years.


- Ed C.

Well of course, but would you be more inclined to worry about the welfare of a non-sentient but humanoid robot, or a box that was self-aware? The tendency is to be concerned with the Like, and less concerned with the Unlike, even if there is no objective reason to do so. In the case of your player, was the robot she rescued humanoid AND self-aware? If so, she was justified in her feelings if it was being mistreated - it was an intelligent being, even if manufactured; but not because it was humanoid. If it was just someone kicking a malfunctioning Coke machine that could write poetry, I doubt her reaction would have been the same.

The robot in that session looked 'barely human shaped'...or more mechanical.

Imagine a sled shape or the flatbed of a large picvk-up truck.Now at the front of that stick a hemisphere with the flat side facing the ground. On top that hemisphere is another smaller one on top of a short cylinder shape. That top bulge is what might be considered a 'head'. So this particular 'bot was more mechanical looking than human-looking. It also spoke in a monotonre voice halfway between Peter Cullen (Optimus Prime) and Bob May (B-9 on Lost in Space).

Think of an air/raft or hover version of a pick up's flatbed with a hemisphere and globe shapes smooshed onto the front of it.

He was being used as a delivery/cargo robot when the players met him.

- Ed C.

Yeah, it's more about being truly self-aware than it is about anything else, and it's unlikely we'll have to worry about truly self-aware machines for a long time. Even then, given that the discussion has already started, the debate over their rights will likely be short when machines become fully aware. Plus, fully aware machines won't just happen, like they did with Skynet in the Terminator films. They'll come as a result of specific, dedicated projects, and may even be specifically designed to only have a limited amount of awareness related to whatever purpose they are to fulfill. A fully aware machine with a definite personality will be a long time coming, if it ever does.

Human-shaped robots may never be designed or built with such intelligence, simply to avoid the obvious concerns. I'd say human-shaped robots will be built as "companions" or for entertainment, or possibly for exploration, especially of other planets. The latter would be useful for indicating how humans would have to be equipped and enhanced to explore the same environments. Any of them will likely only have a limited amount of "intelligence," able to respond appropriately in their respective roles, but not intelligence like a fully aware human.

So, to make a long explanation short, I think it's unlikely we'll ever really have the problem to begin with.

Quote from: Koltar;324813This was almost a 'media & Inspiration' thread.....

After my G:T campaign dealt with the issues of Cyborgs, Robots, and Androids as Player characters and NPCs.

I'm not positive that mankind will ever make them in a large number like we've seen in movies and read in various fiction books.

 STAR TREK :The Next Generation (and TOS TREK as well) may have stumbled on the reason by accident because of the simple fact that its would be a budget-buster to show lots of Robots. They finally had someone right up the real reason in a 2nd season episode.  It was the episode "The Measure of a Man"."

Any number of "Robots" that get made over a certain population number means that we are creating a mimicry of the human fporm so that we cvan have Slaves or slavery withj no guilt. The problem is that as these machines get possibly more complex they border on being a new or different kind of intelligence ...maybe even a life-form. At that point we're right back to being slave-owners.

In one of the last sessions of that campaign that I ran - a player got quite pissed ....in-character because she saw a robot being abused (in her opinion). She then , in-character bought that robot, gave him his freedom then hired him to be a member of the crew.

The woman hadn't gamed much until the past year and felt the need to apologize if she got too emotional. I told her "No, that was all in character and made perfect sense to me in the game's conmtext."


From now on , ANY game I run with androids or robots in it - I will be thinking about this angle. Just can't help it now.

What do the rest of you think?

- Ed C.



The TNG episode referenced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

It's written into the StarCluster setting. The biggest difference between the Diasporan Community and SaVaHuTa is the question of sentient slavery. SaVaHuTa has outlawed it, while the DC allows its member states to decide the question. Only Humans cannot be slaves somewhere in the DC.

I've had tons of awesome play out of that one question for years now.

-clash

I have something far more day-to-day that tends to keep them out: maintenance, repairs and upgrades.  It's a time and money sink that most players don't appreciate, don't account for and don't like to deal with in play.

Quote from: Koltar;324813Any number of "Robots" that get made over a certain population number means that we are creating a mimicry of the human fporm so that we cvan have Slaves or slavery withj no guilt. The problem is that as these machines get possibly more complex they border on being a new or different kind of intelligence ...maybe even a life-form. At that point we're right back to being slave-owners.

Given that we're considering the moral issues now, I think that by the time we actually have A.I., it won't be guilt-free to treat them as slaves.  I am rather shocked at the number of sci-fi movies where humans blatantly ignore outright slave-holding of sentients, from Star Wars to WALL-E.  There'll be lots of debate, but I would expect that the civil rights battle would be going on at the same time as the first A.I.'s are being developed.  I can see all sorts of discrimination and unequal treatment issues, and a lot of gaming the fuzzy line between sentient and non-sentient robots.  However, I don't foresee having something that is clearly of human intelligence and sentience and yet treated as property.  At the very least, doing so would be controversial.  

For example, I could definitely imagine sexbots that are deliberately built to be not-quite-sentient and thus avoid being given humans rights, but toe the line in being convincing and reactive enough to turn people on.

I really wish I could find a scan of the one page of Alan Moore's Top Ten, where the robot-racist Shock Headed Peter, is made fun of by their new officer the robot Joe Pi...for feeling up his retarded back woods cousin. (the soda machine when it didn't dispense his soda...)

If humanity hasn't worried much about the enslavement of other human beings, why ever worry about a robot?

Our history shows that slave owners can easily have children with their own slaves and throw their own children into the slave pens without any qualms.  If the robo-slaves ever demand better treatment, then we can junk them and start over with new toasters.

In my Traveller games, all Robots are very purpose built with the exception of some ancient Darrian experiments in total awareness and humanoid replication.   There are two in my Spinward Marches, one hides and the other is a shadow of its former self and now works as a ship's steward.

Quote from: Koltar;324813In one of the last sessions of that campaign that I ran - a player got quite pissed ....in-character because she saw a robot being abused (in her opinion). She then , in-character bought that robot, gave him his freedom then hired him to be a member of the crew.

[...snip...]

What do the rest of you think?

Did the robot want to be free?  What did it do with the wages it earned from her?  What did it do in its free time?  If I was the GM, I'd lay it on this player pretty thick.

She buys the robot and sets it free?  Fine.  What does it do?  Nothing.  It just stands there until she tells it what to do.

She pays the robot a fair wage for a day's work?  Fine.  What does it do with the money?  Nothing, until she suggests something for it to buy, which the robot interprets as an order and immediately makes the purchase.

She let's the robot off at the end of a workday?  Fine.  What does it do?  Nothing, until she makes a suggestion, which, again, it interprets as an order and follows to the letter.

The robot is a tool built specifically to serve.  Any reward it receives is the care and maintenance necessary to perform its design function most efficiently.

Androids, intended as an independent, artificial life form, are another matter.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;325202Androids, intended as an independent, artificial life form, are another matter.

!i!

"Fiery the angels fell. Deep thunder rolled around their shores... burning with the fires of Orc."

"I want more life, fucker/father!"

Regards,
David R

"The report read 'Routine retirement of a replicant.' That didn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back."

!i!

"Not very sporting to fire on an unarmed opponent. I thought you were supposed to be good. Aren't you the "good" man? C'mon, Deckard. Show me what you're made of."

Regards,
David R