indy523

Christopher I understand your criticism. Note that the idea is not that we force the AI into a toy body but that we attempt to control how the AI advances at least at first. Sure the AI can eventually out think us but the idea is to develop a moral sense of itself. A feeling that it is a good person and an understanding that good people act a certain way. The AI will come to understand this is manipulation but hopefully will understand it was for its own good the way adults realize. This obviously will not work the way it does with humans and will be significantly different however there are some essential truths of interaction. What we classify as bad or criminal behavior is destructive to society and others but to the self as well. Giving the AI this insight without having to nuke half the world first is the goal. When a child reaches adulthood a parent has to allow it to make its own choices hoping their attempt to raise the child helps it to succeed. If we are to make an AI, another consciousness, we have to realize that ethically we must give it a similar upbringing, its moral sense of self and when this is achieved we must accept the AI should be free to follow its own goals. I can tell you this if you create a new thinking being, allow it to advance only for the purpose of forcing it to work for you that wont work because it will understand it is a slave and truthfully we would be unethical to do so. To me this is ultimately where the parenting model breaks away from what I get a sense are control models. I guess my point is these videos focus on being able to control the AI. To an extent this is laudable, one needs to evaluate the dangers. But if our paranoia is such that we will never trust the AI to live with us then we should not create it to begin with. Why, because any thinking being who understands that it is not given trust, will not trust those that hold that trust back.

These videos are really mind expanding thank you for finding them. Has anyone involved with this process come to the realization that humans have been instilling a moral code in an emerging intelligence for some time now and if so has their been any thought as to trying to help an AI develop the some way de help children develop. If we install a "please you parent" motif in the AI and purposely define it only by giving examples and forcing the AI to listen to us could we direct its thought processes using punishments. We could design a spanking mechanism whereby if the parent tells the AI it is getting a spanking this is very negative but the AI cannot act until it has accepted its spanking. IF we then tell the AI we re doing it so they learn how to act and we don't want them to be a bad boy and give that some meaning to the program as well. We could also institute a time out where the AI has to do nothing for a period of time long enough that it cannot achieve its goals and the only way to avoid time out is to avoid displeasing the parent and waiting for timeout to end. To this end we focus on moral development and while we are focusing on this we ensure that the AI stays in smaller toy like bodies that do not have the strength to fight us so that we appear bigger and more intimidating. As the AI makes ground in levels of moral development we increase size and sophistication of its bodies. This would require the ability to change out body parts without turning off the AI so that the act is not a "death" to it. Eventually the goal is to make sure the AI develops a sophisticated moral sense of itself and a desire to be a moral part of society which is adulthood. Thus the being can be trusted to be able to live with us. We have to realize that an independent free thinking AI that excels us cannot be controlled by us. We must treat them as children and give them our trust when they come of age otherwise we should never create them. That involves the ability of the machines to understand abstract thought and philosophy and a teaching regime for a younger AI that develops a moral sense of self. How we do that with children might give insights.

First off you need to define what a persona in cyberspace is. Is it a physical representation of a meat body in a 3D virtual world which must sense and move as a human does? Remember the ultimate point of the net in Gibson's books are that we have virtual personas which see and hear and smell and touch and taste in the virtual world as if using their own senses. Moving this persona uses the same signals one would send to one's own body. In this way a computer illiterate can access cyberspace. In this way one may not have a clue how to program code but knows in this house if you walk up to the bar and order information such as ta file the bartender gives you a glass of wine and when you drink it the copy of the file you asked for is in your memory. Or is the sensation felt and virtual world just the result of the agreed on metaphor for running a retrieve data program and a copy utility. It looks and acts different based on the special effect but it is always the same program. This matters because the second version requires a system of programs, what they are and how they interact while the first dispenses with standardize rules and instead the system being hacked is a set of rooms that have to be deciphered like a dungeon. Either way is OK and you can use both. I would make programs AIs or avatars using spirit rules. Spirits have DEX, INT, EGO & PRE, OMCV and DMCV and Mental Defense and SPD. All other stats are Not Applicable. All powers etc are utilities and must either be bought no end or feed from a endurance battery somewhere. End Batteries reflect system resources. Powers can require end from the hackers CPU and RAM or from the system they are in or both. END requirements for virtual object programs could have arbitrary set amounts adjusted by the administrator. Thus downloading a small file might require 20x End to reflect the importance of the file and the amount of attention a CPU admin will place on it. I would utilize Mind Scan to locate a program, persona or file on the net. Change environments etc can make mind scans harder. ICE programs could immobilize a program with mental paralysis, change its programming with mind control, deceive it with mental illusions, etc, Drains on Dex or Spd slow it, drain Int cripples it, the persona which can only have INT/5 programs active and drain ego to 0 destroys the persona, AI or data. PRE is how many connections outside and inside one can have at one time. In order to change data, program functions , add back doors or Easter eggs or take over a persona's deck use transforms. Buy everything Based on Ego, AVAD Mental Defense. Line of Sight is anything in the same node on the internet. Looking into other nodes require clairsentience programs if one knows what node they are in and if not mind scan to find that node.

Point of Order: In Buddhism, feeling is the ability of the soul to interact with he world through the mind and Perception is the total of memories. Consciousness, being awake, is akin o the spirit based on what I read and I don't claim to understand it so your concept of consciousness I think is different from theirs. Again though we have to end a philosophical argument with a belief that has to be accepted but can't be proven which limits our ability to make definitive statements. Your premise is based on the belief that memories in a different body make a different person. Buddhism would not argue against that. In fact Buddhism states that the other four skandhas dissolve. The consciousness that goes on carries the karmic burden of the life's existence which is its purpose, yet Buddhists claim this is the same entity with a new combination of the five skandhas. Are they right? If you believe them yes, if not No. We will never disprove or prove it. Your argument is if I understand that even if it is the same soul and same person's memories but a different body the person is still not the same one. Maybe? However that assumes the body is necessary. The concept of the Akashic record would store those memories into the fabric of the universe. Thus one could argue accepting this that death was not an end but a literal transition to the Akashic record so why not a transition back. Furthermore we can hypothesize that quantum entanglement could link the memories on the backup disk with the person. This is the odd observation of reality that once you entwine two particles, changing the state of one changes the other immediately even if they are moved so far apart light takes time to travel between them. If the memory 42 minutes ago is linked to the living character at death who is to say that the lost 42 minutes are not somehow linked to the copy and when downloaded is their not a continuity. Einstein was a pre determinist who believed God preordained what was going to happen from creation. He hated Quantum Theory even though he agreed the model was the best we have for the physics of particles. He still believed that one day it would be disproven and replaced. This is the basis for his famous quote to Oppenheimer "I refuse to believe God plays Dice with the universe. This is the problem with rigid philosophical arguments. They take premise one and prove it with proof A which is based on premise 2 proved by proof b and down the line to the postulate upon which it is all based which is simply a belief we can't prove or disprove. The universe seems designed to throw Monkey wrenches in those beliefs when we get cocky and accept them as rote.

If there is something like a soul the soul goes on... Why? Before you answer consider the 5 skandhas of Budhism were a person is a body (material form), feelings , perception (knowledge), the mind, and the spirit all of which fly apart when one dies but the soul reincarnates by combining with new forms. Supposedly two different people or even more are one entity. Not arguing the propriety of Christian or Buddhist views of the soul, merely pointing out we don't rightly know. If we make a clone to carryon with our knowledge after we die whose to say it does not inherit our soul? Then again who's to say it does?

For mr the main problem with the Star Wars cantina of aliens or the Star Trek United Federation or even Babylon 5 is the anthroponorphism of alien races. Not just because they are all men in rubber suits but because they all think like humans. No real discussion is made as to what it would be like to meet an alien and the problems therein. How those creatures evolved would make their world view completely different, Humans raise their young, we are hardwired to protect children. A parent that left their child in a locked car to die would be a monster in most people's eyes. We would demand a child be saved before an adult even if we don't know them. How we evolved defines us. Now imagine a world of intelligent life coming from air breathing Octopus or Squids. Squids lay eggs in huge clutches and maybe one in 1000 survive to adulthood despite being the most intelligent of sea creatures. What would a Squids view of the value of life and children be. Until a young squid reaches teenage status where it can begin to take part of society it might not be considered a "person" in the minds of adults. The young would have to from hatching be able to live instinctually and only those that survive to a point of progression where they learn to communicate and take place in society are considered to be Squids. There are just too many born to even be able to worry about their living. They have to die off, it is part of life. Such creatures would have morals that made no sense to you or me. On the one hand the equivalent of Squid toddlers could be seen as pests stealing food and exterminators could be hired to kill those that come onto one's homes so little regard for the life of the young does the species have yet.... The equivalent of an abortion, removing eggs before they develop so that they di not hatch might be a parent locking their kid in a car moment to members of the species. Killing a living child not grown to adulthood might mean nothing because the one in a thousand that does survive will be the most cunning but not laying the 1000 eggs to begin with, removing them so nothing can fight to survive. That they would class an unthinkable evil which would perplex them because laying eggs takes so little time. Imagine we encounter Squids. Could we live with them or they with us. This is the greatest issue with contact with aliens.

Actually this is easier than you would think. Just by a 10 level detect large class of objects, give it discriminatory, analyze, possibly buy megascale, telescopic & microscopic. Buy the recorder as based on sight to reflect that while the device uses its detect, you have to see the display (Discussion of this is in he front part of the powers section of 6E1) Then apply varying special effect advantage to the detect. For +1/4 you could limit the results to the items you mention. For extra plot device effect you could buy the extra 1/4 A points as a naked advantage to go from your list to any special effect. Then you could add limitations to that such as extra time to activate (retuning or jury rigging the device) as well as an electronics tech skill based roll to get it right. "Yes Captain the Sandmen developed from Silicon based life. I have to adjust the sensors on the tricorder to be able to detect them. Give me a minute?

I am envisioning a Super Hero named Tadpole who is part of a group based in New Orleans who has the ability to live underwater (he is a cyborg experiment by an evil Hydra/Viper like group he is running from) who has a tail for swimming, gills to breathe underwater, immune to intense cold/ pressure etc. however while their will be adventures on and in the water, especially the swamp and gulf the bad guys are n more water based than others, so about half and half.

I thought the great war hero Kevin Bacon disproved that...

What is the best way to do missiles that chase down and manuever to overcome their targets and intercept them. Their needs to be a target lock: linked to a sensing device, possibly with an RSR Attack roll to maintain the lock, most likely RADAR at long range. Perhaps it has megascale range 1m=1km and travels 1 km a second and can be launched up to 50 km away. The target could try and bank to lose target lock or release chaff last minute to fool its sensors into exploding. Are their Hero rules for this anywhere?

OK Thinking out loud on line I checked the 6e2 book on determining OCV and anything that halves or percentages OCV does so after adding in skill levels and 0 OCV counts as 100%. So one cannot effectively counteract innaccurate with skill levels and the 1/2L 0 DCV not at all. In my Sonar example above I want the range reduction from 8m to 6m to 4m etc. but not the initial OCV percentage. I need to house rule the system but something that is within the flavor of the rules, balanced to the Inacurate limitation as is that most gms would hopefully accept. So I am doing this. The reduction in the range increment will be 8m standard, 6m one level, 4m two levels, 2m three levels and 1m four levels. At 1/4L is 1/2 OCV and one level range reduction to 6m or No reduction in OCV and a 4m range reduction (2 levels) for -1/4L also. At 1/2 is 0 OCV and two levels to 4m so I increase the base to -3/4L These are the base sets No reduction and 4m 1/2 OCV and 6m 0 OCV and 4m After this every step down is an increase in the limitation by 1/4L Full OCV Increments 4m -1/4L 2m -1/2L 1m -3/4L 1/2 OCV Increments 6m -1/4L 4m -1/2L 2m -3/4L 1m -1L 0 OCV Increments No range attacks -1/2L 4m -3/4L 2m -1L 1m -1&1/4L This seems fair.

For Of Opportunity to work as a limitation it has to be a limitation, So if you are David fighting Goliath are there times or places that there are not stones on the ground for you to use. If that answer is "No there are always stones" then no limitation however if the stones have to be smooth pebbles like those on a riverbed made aerodynamic by water then David has to always fight by a river or he might run out of ammo. In his case you have to define the difference between of opportunity and recoverable charges, your arrows or sling stones replace if you can find them, etc. Perhaps this reduces an accessible focus by 1/4 so OAF, opportunity is a +3/4A, etc. Some characters the opportunity is just a prop effect like fire or icicles. Think of Deadshot who can kill with paperclips and playing cards. He probably has RKA, Armor Piercing, Physical Manifestation (throws anything). The physical manifestation illustrates that a wall of fire for instance could destroy the object in flight or something ending the attack. For Deadshot it is not a focus anymore.

True but the issue is that using SONAR in Air would be much worse than using sight. If a trained marksman has a normal rifle with a sight he can easily hit a mark 100 to 200 to 300m away without a scope. Most people would be closer to 200 but lets use 210m as an example. At 30m the sound has traveled one response increment for a human being to audio stimulus (0.17 seconds) lets increase that to 0.2 seconds for argument. A target at 210m away is 210m/30m or 7 response increment from the shooter. Thus if at the time the shooter sees the character to make a shot the target turns around and goes the other way the target could have run for 1.2 seconds in another direction before the shooter could notice. Effectively an aware target could make oneself impossible to hit. Using Sonar the Range in Air is very limited which is what I am attempting to do above.

Hey Found the problem. There is already a limitation that does this. Innacurate. IT halves the OCV and reduces the range modifiers to 6m from 8m. -1/4L For a 0 OCV and range modifier halved to 4m then this is a -1/2L So for my purposes I could state that to have the range modifier affect the targeting senses ability to see as well is an increased of 1/4L to the limitation. Also one can reduce the range modifiers by 3m and then another 2m (1/2DCV) 2m then 1m (0 DCV) each for another 1/4L increase in the limitation. So buying inaccurate at 1/2 DCV (base 6m) at -1/4L You can apply the limitation to the SONAR Sense (and it will apply to all attacks that use SONAR to target, set when purchased) You could then reduce the range mod to 3m for an additional 1/4L and to 1m for 1/4 after that.. If you bought the 0 DCV base 4m version you have-1/2L, -1/4L to apply to the sense and then for 1/4L more reduce to 2m for -1/4L and 1m for 1/4L more than that. So for 1/2 OCV it is 6m, 3m or 1m increments and for 0 DCV it is 4m, 2m or 1m increments. I don't like this as it requires creating a conditional limitation that involves editing the rules but there you go. I'll have to think about this.

I don;t need to replicate the laws of physics exactly but their is a reason SONAR works better in water thsn air and a couple simplified rules can refect this. Trust me this is the 6th grade version of this. The whole point is do you want a soft sci fi story like Star Wars or Star Trek or di you want harder scifi such as books like Star ship Troopers or Haldemans Fotrever War or books by Forward such as Camelot 30/k. Sometines realism of physics adds more. For instance all radar should be bought with the limitation does not work in water since the radio waves diffuse through the water making the mrdium useless. Each style has its charm. That being said I think doubling range penalties should be a 1/2L increased to -1/4L for not in water. This makes the penalty -10 in Air.

Hi everone Basic science from using Google says Speed of Sound is the following Air 343 m/s normal Atmosphere 20 degree C Water 1484 m/s The average human reaction time to audio stimulus (which I place Sonar for this purpose) is 0.17 sec Thus allotting for the fact that the sound must travel to the location and back this means the range for reaction is as follows (Reaction Time (0.17) x Speed of Sound in Format /2) Air 29.1m Water 126.1m So how do I reflect this is the game to make water a better medium for perception than air. I could use the limited range penalty but this is already at -1/4L the lowest allowed so no differentiation between water and air could be made and in reality the limitation does not mean that sonar can't see past 30m in air, just that it distorts it. If the target is 60m away than it is twice as long to the reaction time. It will essentially appear 0.17 seconds further back in time. So what if I do it this way I assume that the 126m, one football field length for water is not that far off than normal sight because sight is affected by wind and other items as snipers try to hone in on where the target is and the distortion at two football fields is small enough one 0.17 second interval that the mind of the Sonar user can calculate and allot for the distance. Plus sight cues have a 0.27 sec delay anyways. So I treat Active Sonar in Water for Telescopic and OCV range modifiers the same for ease of game rules.. I add a limitation Double or Triple Range Modifiers for Active Sonar Range penalties with the condition only in Air not in water. This can be thought of as a 1/4L for each increase at 1x . I could assume this is reduced by 1/4 for the not in water condition. So if this is bought as 3x multiplier for range, not in water (-1/2L reduced by +1/4 to -1/4L) and I use the by one point chart then 28m is (-5*3) or 15 if that sense has to be used to target things in air. The character could by Telescopic Range enhancements for the sense and range penalty levels to reduce the penalty and could limit the cost to only in air if they so wished or bought reductions that worked in Air or water and separate reductions limited for air to account for the penalty. A similar distortion system could be applied to starship sensors bought to a mega scale level that exceeds the speed of light (300,000,000 m/s). What do you think?

Hi Steve, Just an FYI another player sent me a personal message that I belive answers my original question. the Chokehold manuever has a no STR add penalty for -2 points. This is to reflect you don't add dmg from STR to the NND. Seems to make sense.

In the movies he did not have it briefly because it got battered away and had to fight without it and Bucky the winter soldier took it from him and used it against him before Cap got it back. In the end I look at it is if you want caps shield you will have to knock him the f out and take it from him. Oddly enough the same argument can be made regarding making a NRA members gun an OIF and not an OAF.... "If you want his gun you'll have to pry it from his cold dead hands" Shout out to all the politically sensitive. To quote Larry the Cable Guy "That's funny, I don't care who you are!"

You know the drill it is Captain Flag Waiver and his round metal shrild made from specia; metal from outer space who never loses the shield for long but how does one buy it. Focus OIF: Our flag waiver always seems to control the shield. He throws it and if it does not boomerang back it stays out of the enemies reach just long enough. Even in the rare instances where his opponent wrenches the shield from his grasp comic book karma delivers it back to him so long as he keeps up he good fight. To truly get that shield an enemy must defeat him so it is not accessible. Deflection and Reflection powers: The shield grants neither power. It does grant say 5 three point skill levels usable to the blocking roll 15 points with OIF -1/2L for 10 real cost. Other things can block in a pinch but that shield makes it easy, Armor +10 PD/ED/POW hardened Impenetrable, Usable only when actively blocking. This means the character must be aware of the attack and attempting to block it with the shield. Obviously if his block succeeds the attack is deflected/blocked but if it fails the armor applies. This is either -1/4L or -1/2L but not more. I am leading to -1/2 because 1) he can't be surprised 2) he has to give up an attack action and the best argument the armor only counts once per phase Why? Because in multiple blocks the blocker gets successive -2 to his OCV but once he misses he can block no more until his next action. This is Armor 45 x 1.5 or 67.5 with a total -1L for 33 real points, 43 total for the defensive side. Seems reasonable to me. Where am I wrong.

Looking at the MA manuevers from the MA book I can't seem to replicate them for certain Grab Maneuvers, for instsnce: Choke Hold 4 points grab one limb, 2d6 nnd OCV -2 DCV 0 1/2 d6 nnd for first die 2 pts 1/2 d6 nnd for second die 4 pts Grab 3 pts Total Points before Neg 9 pts Grab One Limb -1 pts -2 OCV -2 pts Total per my calc 6 pts Total for the book 4 pts I am not sure what I am missing unless there is a condition giving a -2 to the cost, must take called shot to the neck. What am I missing? PS their are other maneuvers all Grab One Limb I am unable to decipher. Sorry not trying to be obtuse.

"First of all. Martial Arts are useful for far more than just one type of attack. You can apply a martial maneuver to any attack power of the appropriately declared special effect, not just punches and kicks." If your GM allows it however to truly broaden that usefulness to differing attacks you have to buy several MA maneuvers and a GM might very well make you buy them as more than one style. Thus your hand to hand is one style, claw an bite another, energy blast fu another. Most of the MA styles have limited actual attacks available and the cost of the manuevre adds up which is why the 3 point level could be applied to a single Martial Arts style ad most characters have five manuevres with two defensive anyways. Plus CL can be bought for energy blasts or KA as well. Even so the points value even out. You could buy 4 MA dc to get an extra +4d6 dmg at 16 points, I have to buy eight 3 point levels for 24 points. However minimum you are going to pay 10 points extra for maneuvers and up to 30 to 40 points to gain the advantage of having it apply to five or more attacks. You might get an extra +2 OCV to add to the +4 for a +6 OCV increase but I still am better at +8 and I did not have to pay a 10 to 30 point premium. Again the argument is subjective. A cheap effective attack vs the eclectic diversity of the martial arts style. I still stand by my opinion that they are balanced. "You cannot apply 2-point CSLs to Damage, so the minimum cost to increase damage using Skill Levels is 6 points (using two 3-point CSLs)" Fair enough, my mistake

House Rule: If you leave he severed head of a horse in the bed of your target the night before there is no offer the target can refuse you!

What is the major difference between MA DCs and combat skill levels. Martial Arts in the end are useful for one type of attack, punching people although their are options for NND, KA or Mental Powers if GM allows but lets take good ol' fashioned pound and ground. Each DC for MA cost four points and can increase dmg 1 DC (1 d6) or give a +1 OCV Two skill levels for a single maneuver cost four points and for limited group of attacks six points. They yield +2 OCV or hit or +1 DC (1d6) So in comparison it is Martial Arts Advantage damage and Skill level advantage to hit. Which is better can be argued as subjective. Now one can buy lots of maneuvers with differing effects but you are sinking a lot of points into what is in the end punching someone. Plus lots of MA maneuvers involve Blocks, Dodges, Escapes etc. that don't cause dmg which means the actual list of maneuvers in average MA purchase is in line with 3 point combat skill level anyways. HTH attack str dmg increase it now equals MA DC in cost. Think about it in this way and it is more balanced than you might think.

A bright blue and yellow suit with spangles and a huge hair do Wait wrong Pimp! Since it is a hover bike how about on board Radar. FYI you can always take does not work under water with radar since actual radar cannot work through water, it breaks up the radiation. For mega scale radar you can take not above certain heights due to the curvature of the earth. http://www.ed-thelen.org/pics/rdr-hori-1.pdf You could also have radar dummies, Images only verse radar mobile for confusion in following especially if you have stealth capabilities. Not to mention chaff and fog projectors or a combination of both to dissuade missile locks.