 Nash Equilibria and Matrices, Your targets are not stupid. |
  |
 Nov 8 2007, 09:37 AM
Post
#76
|
|||
|
Prime Runner  Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665  |
You keep saying that, and it keeps not being true. Oh noes! A Hacker took control of a military sattelite and now he has the power to focus in signals which will damage or kill individual people he can see from space one at a time! At this rate he might kill as many as several thousand people a day. Good thing he didn't take control of a train carrying toxic waste or a missile silo, because then I'd give a damn. The ability to hack into and destroy one network at a time does not logically extend to you being able to hack into and destroy all networks in the world. If those networks happen to be metahumans, the equation does not change. -Frank |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 09:42 AM
Post
#77
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
The model of computing he is proposing is so ubitious that if the 3rd world has guns they also have computers, because the gun is a computer. So is everything else they can actually get. If they don't have guns or computers you could pretty much kill them with whatever, say wiz up a NEW version of ebola hybridised with the common cold and unleash it in africa. Or just shoot them. Secondly, in the rules that franks layed down, isn't brainhacking actually quite complex?
It has a range of LOS and requires manual intervention by a human operator, because he bans agents! How is a Gun not much more dangerous? a god damn robot can use that. And it can fire fully automatic so it can kill more than one person at a time. Edit: Is it just me, or are franks matrix rules like this Hacking = The Magic Rules - Fading + Better Infomation Gathering Ability - The really really good spells? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 09:49 AM
Post
#78
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
what kind of satellite can only transmit to one node at a time? is there some kind of requirement on these brainhacking signals that they can only be transmitted in beams, rather than radiated like radio waves? because if not, then anybody who doesn't wear a commlink--that would be, at a guess, 90% of the humans on the planet, since most of them are still living in mud huts--is vulnerable to death rays from space. that would also include all the non-human vertebrates out there; after all, if you can transmit ASIST data to a man's brain, you can, with some adjustments, transmit ASIST data to a dog's brain, a whale's, a monkey's, a mouse's... it wouldn't be all that hard to cook up a signal that affects all brains above a certain level of complexity. et voila, cockroaches are now the dominant species. also, you referenced my counterpoint, re: 'if i can hook my brain to a computer, you can hook my brain to a computer', without actually providing a rebuttal. i'm not sure if you're conceding the point or what. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 09:52 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Wait, what? Frank is arguing for brainhacking? I thought he was the one who brought in Bayes-Nash equilibria, which is what would kill any technology that permitted brainhacking deader than the dodo.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2007, 09:55 AM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
And now for an question I'd like answered - how much should program rating cost? Are the values for gear in the basic book pretty much okay/
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2007, 09:59 AM
Post
#81
|
|||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
Are you really applying current technological norms to what is posited as a revolutionary new technology? It's probably quantum and only works with focused beams. Or something. Because if you skip down to
His rules specifically ban that for brain hacking! Maybe these rules move to failure to satisfying the understanding from IT security experts to Comms engineers. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 8 2007, 10:04 AM
Post
#82
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
mfb, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not. A commlink can sed information to any number of nodes simultaneously, but actually hacking into a specific network is an action. No matter how many networks (or brains) you can reach with your signal range, the target you choose to hack into on a round by round basis is still just the one target you choose to hack into that action.
Precisely. Any technology that allowed other people to brain hack you would be removed by the Bayes-Nash equilibira immediately. I'm arging for technology that allows people to hack into the brains of other people regardless of what they have - which in turn forces them to protect themselves with matrix systems and IC. Because otherwise I simply can't see a world in which Black IC would exist. People would of course simply disable the "kill me wire" if they could. People would go to network segregation long before they filled their computer with a lethal mine field if that would actually work. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 10:30 AM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
Ok, lots of good things exchanged in here. Some not so good too (and I'm not judging the point of views). Keep calm and civilized, please. We don't want another interesting Matrix discussion to fall down into a clash of beliefs.
@Seven-7: I'm talking for myself, but maybe that's what other posters mean. I don't say that tech doesn't allow brain hacking. Of course DNI is some kind of brain hacking. But there are main 2 ways of 'brain hacking' to consider : 1) The one that's possible with the core rules and GM approval: Hijacking the victim's DNI to have it send dangerous feedback (you can't do it by hacking the commlink because the SimModule is filtering the data, and if it isn't modded it doesn't allow too dangerous feedbacks). This is most likely difficult, because the DNI's signal is restricted (when it's not just wired to the commlink) so you have to use some tricks to access the DNI. 2) The one that Frank's rules promote: a hacker can manipulate EM waves which can somehow directly affect the brain, even if there's no DNI. So in the first case, we don't discuss the possibility of brain hacking (with GM approval, of course). We just refuse the possibility to do it without the DNI (trodes or datajack). According to the 1st situation, you can't hack someone's brain if that person isn't using a DNI. And even if he is, it's complicated to do and not a usual case of hacking. ----- About the other points, I also think that hackers have already plenty to do. Besides, the relatively low cost of hacking allows a hacking character to do things beside hacking, like shooting people in the face for example. So a hacker doesn't have to be useless in combat situations. And even if you really want the hacker to use his hacking skills in combat situations, there are ways to do it by interacting with tech rather than brains. Granted, the actual hacking system is a bit cumbersome for these. Let's consider a simple street gunfight. The hacker wants to shut down the public lightning system to give an edge to his low-light vision equipped friends. Using the core rules, he'd have to exploit the node, probably with admin access, which might be long to do, or at least, take too many rolls. (Or maybe he can just spoof a turn off request, which'll be shorter). And that's just a very easy hacking. If the hacker wants to hack the commlink of someone to send fake data to his image link to disorient him, it'll be much more complicated. Personally, I resolve these "simple hacking situations" with an extended logic+hacking test. The Interval is 1 IP and the threshold depends on the device's security and the hacking's complexity. Sure, it'd be nice to have more adapted rules for this kind of hacking, and Frank's rules (using programs as spells) might be a solution. But it's not the scope of this discussion, I might discuss it further in Frank's original thread. Finally, the jack-out has to stay there. Come on, it's a staple of Cyberpunk's books and movies. "Just one more second... there it is! *Jacks out before the big bad IC destroys everything". Just like you can leave astral space to avoid getting killed by projecting mages. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2007, 10:36 AM
Post
#84
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Lofwyr is a dude who plans centuries in advance, as are most of the other immortals and probably a few megacorp CEOs who plan on living forever. When you plan in advance you sometimes intentionally lose because doing so allows you to win in the future. In chess, one often must sacrifice pawns. Nash Equilibrium requires that all players be using the optimal strategy such that none can gain by changing strategy. The problem is that the situation is often far more complex than it appears. Take, for example, the iterated team prisoners' dilemma. It was once widely assumed that the tit-for-tat strategy was the best. However, certain individuals devised strategies that would recognize each other, in which case one one lose intentionally. The other, which continually repeatedly won against its fellows, ended up with the highest score, which gave his team the highest score. So, while many people lost intentionally, they ended up winning by propelling their teammate's score beyond what would normally be possible. Ironically, this strategy was quickly outlawed, which tells us that those in power can artificially create or destroy Nash Equilibrium simply by molding the rules as they see fit. This is very true in the world of business. Also, take NASCAR as an example. It is possible to win a season without winning a single race, because the winner is the individual who has the most points at the end of the season, not the individual who has the most wins. An individual who consistently places high but never wins can beat drivers who sometimes win and sometimes place low. You can win by losing. It is just important to lose in ways that let you win. When you plan to lose in order to propel the next stage of your master plan, it isn't really a defeat at all. Megacorps are about maximizing profit. They don't play against shadowrunners. They don't play against governments. They don't play against the their customers or their employees. They don't even play against other megacorps. In the long term, they play against nothing but their own bank accounts. For them it is about achieving the highest score possible. There is never any victory. Winning does not exist. And they're immortal. Corporations don't age, and neither do the people who run them, really. Lofwyr will live forever unless someone kills him, but so will Damien Knight because the SOTA of age-fighting is increasing faster than he ages. We can assume that they know what they're doing when they connect their top secret projects to the wireless matrix. The actual risk of getting killed by Black IC vs the rewards of successfully cracking a system in a short amount of time may be low. If we're in a situation where the decker's life is on the line if he does not succeed, then those extra IPs and extra dice are just what the doctor ordered. He's dead either way. If he is sitting at home in his posh pad, it may still be worthwhile. With both nearby emergency medical personnel and with enough money on the table, the risks more than justify the rewards. The real problem is the fact that it is possible to do everything in AR that can be done in hot VR and the low costs of comlinks actually makes it viable to carry dozens to sacrifice their personas to IC. The Good Ole' Deck was difficult to replace and worth enough money that it was worth protecting even more than the decker's brain was in most cases. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 10:47 AM
Post
#85
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
But how? If you can hack into someone's brain without them making it particularly available, you can do it even if they're hooked up to a network in some manner—you'd have to still have some way to make the brain not accessible, which applies even without hooking the brain up to a network. If I can use a remote electrode (which is absurd, at least by anything like the methods that EEGs operate on) to hack someone's brain, I can do it even if they've got that brain hooked up to a big nasty computer with intrusion countermeasures. I should also add, because this confused me:
No. That is the Wikipedia article on Game Theory, which is a totally different thing from a Game Theory Wiki. ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 8 2007, 10:49 AM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
Your aim is not to zero the probability of loss, it's to maximize your benefits.
It turns out that the optimal situation is a situation which involves a probability of hacking. You then opt for a minimax strategy: you minimize the possible losses while maximizing your possible benefits. For example (the win amount takes the cost into account): * Without computer : win 0, lose 0 * With computer and without security : win 550, lose 550 With computers and low security : win 500, lose 450 With computers and middle security : win 400 lose 200 With computer and ultra high security : win 100 loose 50 Turns out the best thing to do is to use computers with only medium security. The no risk situation leads to a no gain situation. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2007, 10:50 AM
Post
#87
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
you don't have to hack a naked brain. all you have to do is send it ASIST information designed to induce a heart attack. there's no interaction necessary. brain receives signal, brain tells heart to explode. all you have to do is get the signal to the brain, and there's no reason you can't do that to every brain you've got the signal strength to reach. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 10:53 AM
Post
#88
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Your aim is to maximize your overall reward. Your brain being hacked is a fantastically gigantic negative reward, and depending on the individual it may be comparable, equal to, or greater than the negative reward for being killed. Few benefits will encourage this. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 11:08 AM
Post
#89
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 225 Joined: 13-July 07 Member No.: 12,235 |
Your brain being hacked is a pretty big loss, but the probability of it happening is fantastically small. As others have been only too happy to point out, people regularly do things which have the potential to kill them (cell phones, drugs, etc.) and regularly don't do things which have the potential to save their life (wearing a seat belt).
EDIT: I support the open brainhacking rules because I think they're cool and they make the hacker respected and feared like he ought to be. But there is plenty of merit in the argument that the Matrix provides rewards sufficient to entice people to want to be connected all the time. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 8 2007, 11:13 AM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
Yes, maybe reward is a better term than benefits.
But you forgot to factor in the risk. (1-P(BrainHacking))*Benefits(Matrix)-P(Brain Hacking)*Damage(Brain Hacking) = reward The probability of brain hacking is the perceived probability. Just like today: there's a risk of brain cancer (and brain cancer is a gigantic negative reward, for me at least) but people are still using mobile phones. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2007, 11:22 AM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 |
People think that living near high voltage power lines cause cancer too. The link between cancer and mobile phone usage is hardly proven.
However there is a clear link between mobile phone use while driving, and people persist in doing that which might be a better perspective. On the flipside, the brainhacking thing is probably closer to say, viruses today. The bad guys have them, like it or not you HAVE to act. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2007, 11:56 AM
Post
#92
|
|||
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
Sorry for that. Hope this one does make up for my mistake: Stanford.edu about Game Theory The assessment of potential damage vs. usual benefit can not be complete without beliefs of probability. And high likelihood of unhindered matrix use vs. low risk of strong attackers is the key here IMO. The more you own that can be taken, the less you feel the cost of security. So the statement "no brainhacking = no matrix use" is true only for those customers with little money and great fear of brainhacking. So the hacker can´t directly! affect those via the matrix. We won´t care. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 12:14 PM
Post
#93
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 25-May 07 From: Florianópolis, Brasil Member No.: 11,747 |
Just to point out, since i'm with the book right in front of me right now.
Bolded by me, to "point the point". ;) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 8 2007, 01:27 PM
Post
#94
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,838 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,669 |
I believe that the base assumption is that you DO have to hack a naked brain - the commlink just gives added ways to protect it (and to counterattack) - just as you have to hack vehicles, cameras, etc. And, just as you can't send out a general kill signal to every vehicle in your signal range, you can't send the kill signal to every brain - only the single target you're hacking at that moment, and only if you can overcome it's defenses (natural and/or tech-augmented). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 01:49 PM
Post
#95
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,009 Joined: 25-September 06 From: Paris, France Member No.: 9,466 |
"The link between Matrix usage and mental disorder is hardly proven. As recent studies have shown, brain hacking is impossible. I'm sorry, but NeoNET can't be held responsible for what happened to your husband." My point, exactly. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2007, 02:07 PM
Post
#96
|
|||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I think this is my biggest point. There are no classes in Shadowrun. Never have been since first edition.
I don't think you should speak 'for the rest of' anyone. You seem to be acting on the misconception that there is a mythical 'hacker class' (among others) inherent in the Shadowrun game system. While there are example Archetypes given in the rulebooks, there are, and never really have been any 'classes' in Shadowrun. If a player wants to make a character that rocks with all things computer and also does other stuff, he can. If another player chooses to make a character that solely rules in cyberspace but lacks in most other departments, he can. If a player instead wants to make a character that does both magic and computer stuff well, he can. A player can even make a character that can dabble in almost every area, but be kinda average overall. That has always been the basis of Shadowrun. Maybe you should check which game you are playing. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 8 2007, 02:33 PM
Post
#97
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,326 Joined: 15-April 02 Member No.: 2,600 |
It seems like that if you make a character that rules cyberspace at the expense of the physical world, you are deciding up front that your character will be bad at one thing (shooting, fistfights) to be great at something else (hacking). As opposed to say a character who is pretty good at both. It still seems to me that brain hacking allows a character who rules cyberspace to rule the physical world as well. At that point, it seems like the game would become "Hackers and A Mage".
If hackers can hack unconnected brains and the only way to defend yourself is to hook up to the matrix, aren't people either completely vulnerable to hackers or protected by the stuff in the game that the hacker is designed to break? Why not go the other way and say that a sammie can use his Pistols skill in the Matrix? Give him gloves and goggles and one of those old Nintendo Duck Hunt guns, and let him run around shooting IC. Also, in regards to brainhacking, what is the Armor Rating of a tinfoil hat? If brainhacking were possible, wouldn't someone develop a helmet that blocks brainwaves? A cyberskull? Nanopaste WiFi blocking paint? And once thats done, aren't we right back where we started-- people choosing to be immune to hackers? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2007, 03:11 PM
Post
#98
|
|||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
This is all in reference to the Alternate Matrix Rules whic are being discussed. In those rules the foundation of hacking is the ability to use massive amounts of processing power to generate signals which will induce small conformational changes in neurons and systems. And it is the foundation utility of the firewall system that it makes that difficult to do somehow. Maybe it generates special disturbances at the receiving device, maybe it responds to and reverse externally propagated conformational changes. I don't know how it works, it's a defense that was created decades after an attack that won't be developed until 2029 so I don't feel at all obligated to explain in any detail.
The key here is that in the rules being discussed there is no way to disconnect yourself from the possibilty of being hacked. The big nasty Intrusion Countermeasures can set fire to someone who opens up a connection with your system (brain), or the firewall can interfere with their hacking attempt - possibly causing it to fail. But there's no actual way to be "unhackable", which is why people use big, nasty, and expensive Firewalls and IC instead of just doing something simple that made their data and brains immune to the threat in the first place. -Frank |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 8 2007, 03:23 PM
Post
#99
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Only if the IC is actually running on your brain, the meat itself. If it's running on anything else, and you can hack a brain that has no hardware it wasn't born with, you can still do that directly—unless the "anything else" is also providing some kind of physical shielding, in which case you can just use that without the network connection.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2007, 03:34 PM
Post
#100
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
I'm going to have to disagree sport. Or rather, in the context we're talking about there is not a distinction between running something on your brain and running something on your commlink. One of the core tennets is that "networks" share processor cycles in some sort of abstract and awesome fashion amongst all participants, and that the firewall watches over and protects every element of the network. However, I don't think I'm going to answer any more of your questions on this subject so long as it's really obvious that you haven't read the referenced material. Much of this has been previously gone over in much greater detail than I feel like doing in an off-the-cuff DS post. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 4th December 2024 - 03:37 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.