Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Why is Bio SOTA

Posted by: Cynic project Aug 11 2007, 02:02 AM

Why is Bioware at least look at the rules SOTA over cyberware? Even if you buy the bullet about it should be..When will Nanoware replace bioware as the SOTA?

Posted by: Ancient History Aug 11 2007, 02:06 AM

When you hit Diamond Age.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 11 2007, 02:40 AM

Speaking as someone who types with wretched grammar, your post just bitchslapped me into illiteracy. I have no idea what you just said, Cynic. Could you rephrase it maybe?

Posted by: l33tpenguin Aug 11 2007, 02:45 AM

Its bad grammar? I thought it was a reference that I had no clue about what so ever, and like some many complicated dissertations on abstract theory, I figured it was just beyond my understanding

Posted by: Wakshaani Aug 11 2007, 02:46 AM

He's asking why Bioware is seen as State of teh Art instead of Nanoware.

Sort of like how Bio pased Cyber.

Cyber --> Bio --> Nano

Posted by: Aristotle Aug 11 2007, 02:50 AM

I believe the question is: Why is Bioware the current state of the art? When will nanoware be the current state of the art?

I'll counter that with: Nanoware, and now Genetech, are state of the art as far as I can tell. Once upon a time you had to wait for bioware until after you generated you character, or at least until the bioware book was released. Now bioware is in the core rules, while these "newer" technologies are in the advanced book and (in at least one case) are specifically called out as being so new that characters should not be allowed to acquire them during character generation.

Did I get it right, or did I misunderstand?

Posted by: Casper Aug 11 2007, 07:32 AM

Speaking of SOTA, are rules similiar to those in 3rd ed being thought about or being intended for 4th ed.

Posted by: Critias Aug 11 2007, 08:30 AM

QUOTE (Casper)

Speaking of SOTA, are rules similiar to those in 3rd ed being thought about or being intended for 4th ed.

Christ, I hope not.

Posted by: Synner Aug 11 2007, 09:43 AM

QUOTE (Critias)

QUOTE (Casper @ Aug 11 2007, 02:32 AM)

Speaking of SOTA, are rules similiar to those in 3rd ed being thought about or being intended for 4th ed.

Christ, I hope not.

No. We do not intend to reintroduce SOTA at this point.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 11 2007, 09:47 AM

..the 'at this point' part scares me.

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 11 2007, 12:33 PM

SOTA rules make baby Jesus cry.

Posted by: Cynic project Aug 11 2007, 05:47 PM

Mainly I am sick of well wet-ware being better. I honestly think that even if for whatever reason you can make bio-logical implants that are more cutting edge than machinal devices...I fail to see how it would keep up.

We understand machines, and machines are easy to adapt,and change.. Look at the speed of change and develuments in say call phones in the real world..Or just the way things change in shadowrun's computing power... But Cyberware...Nah that largely has to stay the same?

Posted by: Antongarou Aug 11 2007, 06:03 PM

Biology shows us that the clumps of molecular machines we call cells are much more efficient then any metal machine built to date- take the efficiency of human glucose to ATP conversion process if you want an example:IIRC it's around the 40% mark, when cars are somewhere in the teens at best and the maximum theoretically possible is 54%.Yes, machines are able to do things meat currently can't do like communicate over radio frequencies or get direct input from radar, but when you check it meat is actually more efficient in about anything both do.I think it's due at least in part to the fact meat had several hundred million years more of time to sophisticate itself.

Posted by: Cynic project Aug 11 2007, 07:00 PM

Yes but things like transmitting data is better with machines...The human brain is really slow compared to modern computers. Unless you can honestly say that you can send signil along your normal nervus system close to the speed of light..You can along machines.

Things both machines and meat does...machines do better or at least faster.

Posted by: Ophis Aug 11 2007, 08:39 PM

Machines are quicker at specific things, biological computers (yes brains) are vastly more complex than any computer that exists, I seem to remember a quotation that the number of connections the brain can produce rivals the number of atoms in the universe.

Also nerves do work by electricity, fairly quick close to light speed. Synapses slow it down a bit. Bioware is subtle and hard to detect (guess what, it looks like the rest of you) cyber is easy to spot. Which one is better for a professional criminal?

Cyber can do things like exceed to bodies capabilities (see cyberlimbs in Aug) but for enhancing things bodies do already a biological solution will be better.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Aug 11 2007, 08:44 PM

QUOTE (Ophis)

I seem to remember a quotation that the number of connections the brain can produce rivals the number of atoms in the universe.

That's a paradoxon.

Posted by: Ophis Aug 11 2007, 08:56 PM

Fair enough, can't remember the source for that. My point was that the neural networks of our brains are vastly more complex than any computer.

Posted by: cx2 Aug 11 2007, 11:19 PM

Well given that they are I believe working on biological computers, since they can show unusual efficiency in some regards...

Posted by: Buster Aug 11 2007, 11:21 PM

QUOTE (Ophis)

Fair enough, can't remember the source for that. My point was that the neural networks of our brains are vastly more complex than any computer.

For now... But I'm working on that.

Posted by: Black Jack Rackham Aug 12 2007, 02:25 AM

QUOTE (Ophis @ Aug 11 2007, 03:39 PM)

Machines are quicker at specific things, biological computers (yes brains) are vastly more complex than any computer that exists...

SNIP

Cyber can do things like exceed to bodies capabilities (see cyberlimbs in Aug) but for enhancing things bodies do already a biological solution will be better.

Machines can do specific behaviors faster (calculate numbers, sort discreet bits of data, etc.). However, there is one thing that the human mind has over machines in spades. That is the ability to make coorelations between different things. For example, if I mention a glass of juice and a cell phone, all of us could think of a vast number of things they have in common. Computers are limited by the foresight of their programming.

Mark

(See there IS a use for a Doctorate in Psychology after all...)

EDIT: I'm sure someone will want to point out that, at some point, the programming will be perfected. The problem is, our minds constantly evolve with new bits of information and new relationships built every second. Until we make a learning computer that doesn't rely on additional programming, it will never be as good.

Posted by: Draconis Aug 12 2007, 06:11 AM

QUOTE (cx2)

Well given that they are I believe working on biological computers, since they can show unusual efficiency in some regards...

Ghost in the Shell the manga has networked pigs as a bio computer.

In our SR game we've encountered cat nodes. They're good for storage and processing but they're uber creepy. I don't want my commlink staring at me.

Posted by: PlatonicPimp Aug 12 2007, 02:47 PM

Heh. I had a datasteal once where the data was stored in headware memory inside a cat. The entire mission turned into trying to find a stray.

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 12 2007, 02:51 PM

Headware memory in a cat ..... does that make it a Blackberry Cat?

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Aug 12 2007, 03:38 PM

QUOTE (Black Jack Rackham @ Aug 11 2007, 09:25 PM)

However, there is one thing that the human mind has over machines in spades. That is the ability to make coorelations between different things.

Actually computers can be really good at this as well. For example if you have titanic datasets, and you want to find all the relationships between two people, this is quite possible and quite effective (Like, they lived at the same house 2 years ago, went to the same school during these periods etc.)

Edit: I actually imagine that these technologies would be the bane of shadowrunners - say you have these two descriptions, the security types will find that they match these SINs (even if they are fake) and those two people went to this restaurant and ordered food at that table. The other 3 people at that table where etc, etc, etc.

However, that basically comes back to what computers are good at: Performing operations on large functional datasets. What they are bad at is dealing with ambiguity or large search spaces. (Note: The search space of all commercial transactions in LA at which perp 1 was present in the last week is probably very small compared to the number of movies in a chess game)

This is why computers are great at checkers, good at chess and really terrible at Go.

Posted by: WeaverMount Aug 12 2007, 05:27 PM

GO++ now barely playing at a pro level. FYI

Posted by: Wakshaani Aug 12 2007, 06:04 PM

Computers lack the ability to extrapolate as well. Language is *insanely* complex, thanks to inflection and slang. Soemthing as simple as "Way to go, Einstein!", which everyone who heard it would know as a sarcastic comment would, in fact, be logged as a positive. Something in an enthusiastic tone can also be missed, ie, "I laughed, I cried, it was better than Battlefield Earth!"

Without teh raw data that X means Y, computers can't *deduce* that X means Y. They only know that X means X.

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra"

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 12 2007, 06:48 PM

The ability to understand the complexity of human language is a matter of programing and input fidelity rather than processing power. Biological brains has the advantage of being self-programing and ears have a far greater fidelity for inflection than keyboards do.

Posted by: Antongarou Aug 12 2007, 07:18 PM

It's far more then that- language is only one of the "layers" of information two humans having a face to face conversation share:it constitutes something between 5% and 20% of the conversation.Body language and inflection convey much more information usually- think of a case when you listen to a sales' pitch with a group of people and after it is finished the guy/gal sitting by you simply lifts one eyebrow.

More then that, linguists still don't even have a good working model of semantics, and barely have skeletal one for syntax.Whole books have been written trying to explain how the human brain understands the semantics of a situation, including all the subtleties such as redirection of names and various readings.Human language with its propensity for metaphor and illogic is still long way from being fully understood.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Aug 13 2007, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (Ophis)

Also nerves do work by electricity, fairly quick close to light speed. Synapses slow it down a bit.

Sorry, I have to step in here.

First off, the part that was correct: Synapses are a chemical transmitter and yes, they're slower than the "electric" action potential that travels across a nerve cell.

The problem bit: Okay, nerves do use "electricity", but not in the same way that wires do. There isn't a wave of electricity moving down a nerve axon in the same way that it moves across a wire. Action potentials move by chemical gates on the surface of the cell opening, which changes the voltage. They do this in response to the voltage change adjacent to them. It's like "the wave" If a nerve cell (including the axon) is a baseball stadium, then each person is an ion gate. When each gate/person sees the ones next to them going "WOO!", then they go "WOO!" as well, and in that way a voltage can travel along the surface of the cell. And they travel at speeds of 10-100 m/s (depending on a lot of boring things).

One more clarification, that makes the quoted statement not 100% incorrect: Long nerve axons designed to transmit over long distances (like in your spinal cord) have what's called a myelin sheath. That's insulating cells that wrap around the axon. Because of the insulation, the area under that cell behaves in a much more wire-like fashion, with only the bits between the cells doing the "WOO!" wave. That speeds propagation up A LOT, but unfortunately it's already included in my 10-100 m/s range above.