AIs, Making sense of the SR4 variants Options

[The Jake]

So long story short, its 'practically' impossible for an A.I. to grow to those levels, but not 'actually' impossible?

Well said. But to look at it another way...

Your original AIs evolved from extremely complicated semi-autonomous knowbots (SKs) - the forerunners of what in SR4 are called agents. Many of them had dedicated home systems that were the most powerful and complex computer systems on the planet. Individually, the "Big Three" had abilities that ranged from the upper limits of SKs to almost unmeasurable - because those three were unique. There was nothing like them before, they were a new paradigm. Like when the first cyberterminal users were able to waltz over existing security like it was nothing, those first AIs had the capacity to bend or break the rules.

Comparatively, the AIs we have now are smaller, fragmented things. Their intelligence varies in awareness and comprehension, their resources are much more limited, and they have active competition now. Even if an AI managed to establish itself in the ACHE and fully utilize the technology once used to support Deus, the AI would not be Deus; it's would lack one or more of the essential traits of that massive and powerful AI, and it has limitations that Deus might not have had, in terms of imagination, empathy, and the ability to emulate or stimulate Resonance abilities.

This infers almost that in order to stimulate Resonance abilities, that AIs are actually Resonance beings - rather than man made constructs like the AI of old. So in other words, there are two types of AI - manmade or Resonance.

With that in mind, surely it would be possible for man to recreate similar conditions or possibilities for another manmade AI to emerge,
Also, alternatively, a Resonance based AI could further evolve into a super AI - for example using Codivore, consuming other AIs and growing (kinda like the MCP of Tron).

The two different types obviously have different constraints in their evolution/appearance but I guess what I - and Mordinvan are trying to say - is that it isn't out of the realms of possibility.

Cheers/thanks

- J.

- J.

[Dakka Dakka]

I always thought that "Toasters" was another derogatory name for a Jarhead...

Jarheads? I thought Cylons, wrong universe though.

Apart from the whole "if you give it stats, the players will try to kill it" argument I thoroughly believe in theoretically killable NPCs.

As for the Siege Engines, it wouldn't be Shadowrun anymore, but those aren't the only ways to bring down a fortress. Sapping is more shadowrunlike. For example the PCs could take out the backup generators and then cut the power. No Power, no AI. Timing howver would be a problem so that the AI cannot escape to another node.

[Ascalaphus]

As I said, if your story calls for an invincible AI you can always go for one. However, your players will never be able to go for their own plans but will always have to relay on the options your story offers to them.

Huh? Players can only rely on the options the story offers them? I don't think my players would take that comment very seriously. Just because I'm often ahead of them in thinking of possible solutions and countersolutions, doesn't mean they don't occasionally plan in a wholly different direction.

And if course I let them; I try to make everything in the setting behave reasonably, so you can do things with it that I never expected. If they come up with a plan that can work to do something they weren't supposed to, that could work.

I don't really see how this has all that much to do with rules though.

As for the Siege Engines, it wouldn't be Shadowrun anymore, but those aren't the only ways to bring down a fortress. Sapping is more shadowrunlike. For example the PCs could take out the backup generators and then cut the power. No Power, no AI. Timing howver would be a problem so that the AI cannot escape to another node.

My thoughts exactly. Taking out an AI could be precisely the job for a prime runner team; you need very special B&E and computer skills, and the level of magic runner teams boast could likely put the implant-Essence-loss-hamstrung minions of the AI to shame.

[The Jake]

To make clear, I just see all powerful AIs as, well, deus ex machina for want of a better term (no pun intended btw) - a McGuffin or similar way to drive the story.

Hell, I was thinking just the threat of one of the old school AIs possibly emerging would be sufficient.

- J.

[The_Vanguard]

There's nothing wrong with having a stat-less entity. One of the main themes of cyberpunk is that you can fight against the man, but you can never really win. Also, just because an entity is named, doesn't mean you have to fight it directly. "Deus" was an entity like "Aztechnology' is an entity.

That's what I'm talking about: The difference between a narrative element and a gaming element. None is essentially better than the other one because they're just tools for storytelling. However, I prefer AIs to be presented as a gaming element because I can always opt for turning them into plot elements if this is the story I want to tell. This just makes you more flexible without losing anything.

Huh? Players can only rely on the options the story offers them? I don't think my players would take that comment very seriously.

And if course I let them; I try to make everything in the setting behave reasonably, so you can do things with it that I never expected. If they come up with a plan that can work to do something they weren't supposed to, that could work.

Playing fair and reasonably is the mark of a good GM. However, not every GM subscribes to this (or has the skill). There are groups with a very antagonistic play style that emphasizes the gaming aspect, where it's essentially players vs. GM. Yet even if you do it differently you're still the last arbiter in all things Deus. A player might employ a tactic against the AI that worked perfectly in another campaign under another GM that you simply outrule because your Deus works differently. If your players' definition of Deus differs from yours they will always be overruled by default.

Once again, I don't want to say that this is a bad thing. It all depends on the story you're telling. An AI with stats just gives you more story options.

[Sengir]

This infers almost that in order to stimulate Resonance abilities, that AIs are actually Resonance beings - rather than man made constructs like the AI of old.

I think what AH was saying is "the new AIs are far more limited than the old ones, because things like imagination, empathy, and the ability to emulate or stimulate Resonance abilities are far less developed, or even missing completely". The old AIs had could interact with the Deep Resonance and even create Otaku, the new ones have no connection to the Resonance (at least no more than a mundane person is connected to astral space).

There is an obscure quote in Emergence about possible Resonance abilities among the new AIs, but that idea was probably dropped because a resonant AI would be 99% like a sprite.

[Falconer]

I just wanted to throw this out there... current AI's as in runners companion just feel very limited to me even as characters.

The cap on attributes is just really low, limiting advancement.
Innate programs are nice... but still again, nothing a normal decker can't buy. (optomize + ergonomic runtime limits still apply)
They don't benefit from cyber/bio enhancements like a meat decker.
Then you get people who don't want to give the things like the +2 for 'hot sim' despite them being in their native perception mode.
Program costs are so rediculously low... that it's trivial to max out starting programming resources w/ basic rules (even worse if you allow people to start w/ black market craced versions).

That much said, as complimentary NPC's they seem like they could be rather usefull.
And an AI could easily have a day job quality w/o too much hassle as it doesn't need to sleep... yeah my 'day job' is being a half-time programmer for this warez group cracking/writing software on the net using my sat uplink.

[The Jake]

I just wanted to throw this out there... current AI's as in runners companion just feel very limited to me even as characters.

The cap on attributes is just really low, limiting advancement.
Innate programs are nice... but still again, nothing a normal decker can't buy. (optomize + ergonomic runtime limits still apply)
They don't benefit from cyber/bio enhancements like a meat decker.
Then you get people who don't want to give the things like the +2 for 'hot sim' despite them being in their native perception mode.
Program costs are so rediculously low... that it's trivial to max out starting programming resources w/ basic rules (even worse if you allow people to start w/ black market craced versions).

That much said, as complimentary NPC's they seem like they could be rather usefull.
And an AI could easily have a day job quality w/o too much hassle as it doesn't need to sleep... yeah my 'day job' is being a half-time programmer for this warez group cracking/writing software on the net using my sat uplink.

If you treat the AI as just a virtual hacker, this has been our experience true.

Making full use of drone bodies however opens up some interesting possibilities.

- J.