Screw AI, SR computing is sufficiently unrelated to reality to make comparison meaningless.
~J
Full Version: Tech level in 2070
| QUOTE (Platinum) |
| I am also well read and extremely interested in science. |
Hmm, thats an interesting dichotomy.
| QUOTE (Platinum) |
| Who's words are you trusting? Nothing that is published in scientific articles. |
Well personally I tend to trust the words of the scientists themselves as they come on various shows, radio or otherwise. At the moment for the sciences that carries 'social baggage' with them my favorite is Science Friday on Talk of the Nation. (True, they tend to lean slightly left of center but then again that seems to me to be par for science in general when compared to the society at the time.)
On Physics, space, history, clutures, ect, I love the various Discovery and TLC type channels.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Old-fashioned neo-luddite. Spread the word! ~J |
*Head explodes*
Naw, tried Linux once, but went back to Windows after I got tired of trying to set up Emulators to run my programs... Never again. *winks*
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| you know what's funny? several of the replies to Platinum's posts have been largely dogmatic, responding more to what he is than what he actually says, and condemning his point of view on that same basis. isn't that hilarious? |
Not really, all it proves is that regardless of background, people are still people and will process information based off previously gleaned knowledge filtered through their own biases.
A man dressed in a nice suit and tie will be reacted to differently then someone wearing baggy shorts and gang colors, even if the 'message' is the same.
| QUOTE (Platinum) |
| I can't say I agree with persuing all avenues .... but if you do look at things objectively if you can put aside morals, you can definitely go much further. Look at the brain research done in ww2. More brain discoveries were mapped out then, than at any other point in history. I am not drawing a parallel but making a blunt statement. |
And we might not have been able to make the few babysteps into Space that we have if not for the rocket research during WW II and the Cold War, which would mean no Tang (Oh the Horror!) CDs, ect...
If it weren't for the Soviet Union then the corrective eye surgery I had wouldn't have been possible either...
*Just to tweak mfb* And don't forget that Galaleo's research was also decried by the church! (Yeah I'm sure I horribly butchered the great man's name.)
Seriously though, something to keep in mind is that what is considered morally objectionable changes from cluture to cluture and person to person, although thankfully I don't personally know anyone who doesn't have moral problems with the research of the Nazis or the Soviet Union, I do know people who take strong moral offense at the animal research being done today.
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| maybe you should divide this questions into different sub fields. for example: - computers (optoelectronics, quantumcomputers . . .) - cyberware - bioware - consumer electronics (trid, drones . . .) - software (SKs, AI . . .) - general physics (nanotechnology, superconduction . . .) |
Computers it is hard to say in forth ed, they are left to be vauge tot eh point of I can't be sure if can or can't improve on them.I like that.
Cyberware, hell yes.
Bioware, I don't know. The biological limits and such would make it hard to say.
consumer electronics same thing with cyberware.
Genreal physicas, the short anwser is yes.The long anwser is that in some feild it would be no as shadorun has some "magic", but mostly yes.
We keep hoping that with the escalation of computing power, we'll be able to crack the other sciences much better than we're doing now.
Dont forget that Gallileo was fundamentally incorrect. His model of a Stellar Centric solar system (based on planets moving in perfect circles) was incompatable with the observable universe untill modified by Copernicus (who incorporated elliptical planetary motion). The Church (the international institution of higher learning at the time) wasnt hostile to Gallileos theory untill he failed to reconcile it with the observeable universe. That he responded to such critics by calling them dogmatic fools did not help his cause.
I hope SR4 will have some tangent bordering on a Technological Singularity. Deus was a nice touch in that regard.
While the theory that we can get escalating returns on Intelligence Augmentation is still merely a theory in real life (and will be such, until we can figure out a way to improve someone's intelligence); it's pretty well a fact in ShadowRun.
In that a person with a Mnemonic Encancer and a Math SPU is likely to be able to invent better versions of those products.
In that a person with a Mnemonic Encancer and a Math SPU is likely to be able to invent better versions of those products.
True. But the different ratings only augment the inventor linearly, where as the difficulty of inventing each rating my scale logarithmically. So at a certain iteration the rating R will be insufficient to allow for the invention of R+1. Say, rating 3? 
Each augmentation also increases the resources available, though, so while the actual scientific effort required to get the next rating will go up geometically, the available resources will also go up geometrically. Whether the relative cost goes up or down is entirely unpredictable...
I'm not entirely sure that the enhancement adds to intelligence in a linear manner, either, but it could be imagined to do so.
All I know is that inventing a super-intelligence augmentation is much easier when you already have intelligence augmentation.
I'm not entirely sure that the enhancement adds to intelligence in a linear manner, either, but it could be imagined to do so.
All I know is that inventing a super-intelligence augmentation is much easier when you already have intelligence augmentation.
In SR4 it's measurably linear, as the difference between rating 1 and rating 2 is a 33.33% increase in capabilities.
Right. Thanks, James, that was my point. The game rules tell us that it adds linearly.
Even within the game, I don't think that's true.
The odds of getting the necessary 5 successes to "think of new tech" is not 33.3% higher with an extra dice added; it's some other number based on a host of variables.
The odds of getting the necessary 5 successes to "think of new tech" is not 33.3% higher with an extra dice added; it's some other number based on a host of variables.
Odds of getting 5 successes with 12 dice: 36.85%
Odds of getting 5 successes with 13 dice: 44.80%
Odds of getting 5 successes with 14 dice: 52.45%
Odds of getting 5 successes with 15 dice: 59.59%
Odds of getting 5 successes with 16 dice: 66.09%
For a 5 success test (non-extended) it's less than a 33.33% improvement.
Odds of getting 5 successes with 13 dice: 44.80%
Odds of getting 5 successes with 14 dice: 52.45%
Odds of getting 5 successes with 15 dice: 59.59%
Odds of getting 5 successes with 16 dice: 66.09%
For a 5 success test (non-extended) it's less than a 33.33% improvement.
No, that's almost double the chances with that extra 33% of dice.
The expected increase of 33% dice is not +33% final chance of success, but 133% of the old chance of success. That would result in a projected total chance of ~49%, which is less than 66%.
(Percents of percents can throw off the expectations a little.)
The expected increase of 33% dice is not +33% final chance of success, but 133% of the old chance of success. That would result in a projected total chance of ~49%, which is less than 66%.
(Percents of percents can throw off the expectations a little.)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.