If they had no instinct before, why should they suddenly have one, just because organisms have one? They can have a conscience and be aware of themselves and willing to self preserve, but where should that instinct come from?


They might just as well only emulate emotion to interact with metahumanity. Whatever they may or may not feel would not necessarily be close to human. I guess that is where xenosapient and metasapient AI differ: Metasapients have a built in emotion/anthropomorphism emulator running and operate on it, while xenosapients don't.

That, however, still does not make them 'human' or even just sapient in the sense metahumans, dragons et al are.


We differ in our understanding of what the rules say here. Just because the rules do not explicitly say a metahuman cannot have babies with a car does not mean you can safely assume this may well be the case, does it? I'd expect something like this to be explicitly stated if possible, since a general rule forbids Simsense for AI, with one specific, named exception. It's the same with Initiative passes: nobody may have more than four (save for mancers and riggers). Just because mancers and riggers got that 5th pimped up IP in the matrix does not mean you can have it as a mundane character, does it.

The rules say the AI may not jump into a drone because it lacks a motorical cortex to control it. Then they offer an exception: 'except if the AI buys the edgte 'former pilot program.''. That is a clear-cut exception from the "No SimSense applications for AI" rule, not an open rule with one possible definition of what may go.


To interpretation of the rules as a fundamentally open set of suggestions or fixed rules the world works by. So yes, opinion, if you will.

Where should it not come in? The argument, either way, is built on assumptions. We do not know either way because we do not have a clear cut example. It is just as likely to have or emulate instinct as any other being. Besides, by our definitions of life and it being considered alive, it would have a need to preserve itself once it has become aware. When something is self-destructive or uncaring of its self, something has gone wrong. Deus is an excellent example of self-preservation and Feral AI will fight for its own survival. In a real world, perhaps it may not work like this, but we're talking about the setting.



Emulate or mimic well enough and it becomes the same thing, as you noted. Emotions are not necessarily a unique human experience in any case, so it is difficult to argue that an AI is anthropomorphed by virtue of it having any similarities or perceived similarities.

I'd like to point out I'm not arguing for them to be taken as human, metahuman, or the like. They are as alien as a spirit.



Nor do they cover basic assumptions, so they must be judged accordingly. As stated before, the rule does not specifically cover a large range of things, to which the core book admits.

There is only ever one golden rule: if it doesn't work, fix it. Story before rule if the need is there. But even by the rules, if there is a single exception, then that exception proves that it is possible.

Thank you for your time. This has been very enjoyable as well as cordial, hermit.

Not necessarily, but that would be nitpicking. Yes, that is the general definition of life (and a point where I am not entirely sure that one could consider an AI life at all). I guess this falls under "the SR4 matrix is strange and full of fallacies" we may have to accept.


To an outside observer, yes, but that'S quickly descending into existential philosophy and hence, mudslinging.


I would argue they are more, but within the setting, accepting it at face value for the sake of it not falling apart entirely, I guess you are right there.


I agree. However, my 'fix' would be 'it's not possible' for anything but pilot. But ymmv.

De rien. This was a fun discussion indeed.

I don't think all AIs should care about self preservation per se. What they care about is what they were programmed to do, usually. Feral AI don't care so much about themselves as much as they care about protecting their home nodes because they usually emerged from Black IC, and that's kind of what Black IC was designed for, defending nodes. So that's what they care about, keeping unknown users out of their nodes. They're more territorial then caring about self preservation.

The only reason an AI would really care about their own mortality would probably because being dead would inhibit their ability to do tasks that they like (were programmed) to do. Most AIs don't care about the meet world. They only care about the Matrix.




I think that's totally accurate. AI are basically Matrix "Spirits," especially e-ghosts.

I really hate to break this to you, but that is why humans fear death as well. We are 'programed' to procreate, and being dead prevents us from doing that.



I would argue this. The original function of the A.I.'s program was conceived by humans, and as such the A.I.'s motivations are likely to be comprehensible. Spirits on the other hand can want to accomplish strange tasks for truly absurd reasons. Its entirely possible for a spirit to have the drive to want to soak all the cotton candy in the world with liquid uranium because foot balls are hollow. A.I.'s in comparison are far less alien then that.

Deleted for lack of relevance.

Nah, your generalization doesn't work because we've broken the chains of evolution by allowing the weak to live. A lot of people are merely a burden on society and thus contribute nothing, but still fear death. As well as people that do not plan on having children or are homosexual, or may have a medical condision preventing them from having children, they also fear death.

AIs wouldn't fear death, but merely be annoyed that what ever task they were working on would not be completed. This is all just hypothetical though. But seeing how most AIs are not too concerned with reproduction, why would they fear death, using your logic?



I see no reason why an AI that worked at a liquid uranium plant that came in to contact with a football for the first time might not be able to draw the same insane conclusions as that spirit. It would be a stretch, but mildly plausible.

That would be reason enough, though. Also note I said most: even in the meat, there are a number of people who are self-destructive, such as psychopathic individuals. Hence, something gone wrong. Even if it is just to preserve something else, then that still comes with the need to exist and the acknowledgment of that fact. Absolute unreasonable fear or indifference begins to fall somewhat into personal experience. Just as with current observable intelligence, the AI can be self-destructive as well. It can even choose to sacrifice itself, which is also interesting.

I think the real divergence is goals. Getting back to some of the original points, I do not think people would seek to annihilate AI because they do not have a sure fire way to do so without them fighting back. The Megas are afraid of what might come of such a thing, since all kinds of nasty information can be made public or be destroyed. They would be fearfully tolerated, I think, and thus have good reason to hide what they are when contacting other individuals. Personally, I wonder what role they would play against the Horrors.



I considered this, but while they spring from human minds, they are the product of human hands and thus inevitably have flaws that are often overlooked and that may have a massive impact on their line of thought. Some may be more 'human' in their designs than others, but even those would have, as hermit points out, an entirely different life experience and thus very quickly end up as something that perceives the world from another angle. It is a small minority that falls into the metasapient category when compared to the Ferals or Xenosapients, so it takes an extra leap for them to end up on the same wavelength as it were.

Wow, I'm guess you know nothing about evolution then. Evolution works on general rules which are applied to a population of genes. It does not function on individuals. Given that byinlarge the vast majority of the time NOT being killed will make you more successful at passing on your genes as opposed to less successful at passing on your genes, thus people have a tendency to NOT want to be killed.



You're asking me how a program, which according to the fluff of the game performs cognitive actions it should not otherwise be allowed to, feels an emotion it has no evolutionary reason to. Do you realize I could say anything and be potentially correct, as there is no fluff or crunch which contradicts my statement?


Because A.I.'s are programs. Programs require logic to function. In order for this to occur, you would have to be able to draw a flow chart of premises, and conclusion which logically flow from one to the next, connecting the premise "Footballs are hollow" with the conclusion "Coating cotton candy in liquid uranium is a good idea". Given the access to the matrix most A.I.'s have, and the ability to fact check this provides, most of the premises you're using in this flow chart should even be true. So while it may be 'possible' for an A.I. to come to this conclusion, I would not call it 'probable' in the slightest, for a metasapient to do so. The trail of premises would have to dip into some highly improbable/impracticable territory before such a conclusion would be reached.

Oh please. What do many religious functionaries (catholic priests, buddhist monks, sadhus or the virgo vestalis) have in common? You see, it's broad generalisation and total disregard for historical and social fact that makes evolutionary biology the joke it is. If we were 'programmed' to procreate, society would not exist as it does, since many social functions - essential ones also - require to take a different focus than procreation. Marriage severely limits procreative activity, as does raising children, for instance.

Human society works far more like a bee hive than a pack of apes. Check out how many bees actually procreate in their lives.


That just kills the entire concept of Emergence. Not that I'd mind, but since your entire humanisation of AI depends on Emergence, I'd be careful not to obliterate it like that.

AI are, by the setting's definition, no comprehensible programs and do not work like programs ought to by way of computer magic. AI are computer magical beings, not programs. They are, if anything, the spirits to "resonance" computer magic.


Source? Because I'd really like to see a type of spirit that would do that. What would that be, a toxic free spirit of cotton candy?


Especially Xenosapient AI. Sorry, but something with such an extremly different environment and experience as AI cannot possibly be as comprehensible as a spirit, which shares the same life experiences that at least 2% of metahumanity do.


The horrors arguably are dissonant. Hence, they become corrupted or are destroyed, just like anything else.


Wow, I guess you think Dawkins' long obsolethe thesis of the selfish gene is some sort of religious text.


Do you realise we're talking about the canon setting and not whatever fanfiction you have in mind, and hence, what you think might be cool is totally irrelevant?


They have to abide by the same set rules in a universe as everything else, including SR's magic.


And why should it be probable for a spirit?

Of that I have no doubt, but I was referring to the specific unique abilities they bring to the table and how the Horrors would change to react to it and whether or not Dissonance is related to the Horrors or another thing entirely. Of course, the definition of Horror is pretty wide.

I'm just fond of the peculiar brand of chaos the Matrix and assorted technologies might bring into the situation.

Humans instincts are driven by the programing of our genes, which are shaped by natural selection, which is governed by long term reproductive success. So while I did give the simple answer, I don't think anyone wanted me to give a 4 year long 120 credit lecture on the topic Hermit.

Computer programs do tasks which someone somewhere found desirable at some point in time. Thus the A.I. will likely feel an urge to complete tasks related to its original task, or intended to make its original task easier/more efficient because that is what is was programed to do. While it is possible some may truly be beyond human comprehension, it is unlikely that the human mind would be totally unable to connect intent and goal, if the logical flow chart was adequately demonstrated to them.

Most books which reference spirits say their actions and motivations may be truly alien. Given that spirits are not constrained to use logical thought, or even necessarily come from a meta-plane where the laws of logic are even true, it is entirely possible to generate any premise, conclusion pairing, and have some spirit, somewhere, at some point in time, hold this notion to be true, because their minds need not rely on any from of comprehensible, or even 'physically possible' thought process to come to its conclusions.

Mm, I disagree with you here. Remember that many social constructions fail. Marriages are often punctuated by cheating and many do not marry but remain partners. Then there is the classic example of rape, where a person passes their genes on by force. This is largely looked down upon for a number of reasons, one of which is the idea that such an option is considered a method for a creature who cannot properly court a partner and is at risk of not passing on the unique genetic line that would result.

Marriage is a convention that, like many of the dictates of the Bible as an example, is there to encourage communities and breeding true, so that you are aware of your offspring. While a female always knows a child is her's, a male has no such certainty save for the idea that he is the only mate. It is actually a rather clever means of fulfilling what Mordinvan said about genetic programming. Further, raising children is an important part of ensuring your genetic line survives.

A lot of this is already covered, of course. There are some very strong personal opinions on this subject, but for those of the religious bent it does not refute anything. This is more to point out that society exists the way it does because of the need to procreate, rather than despite it.

No. Life isn't that simple. That's not even the case with bacteria, let alone higher organised life.


Oh, please, share your wisdom you so love to hint to. Either do, or shove such comments (and that doesn't even consider what a bunch of crap some lectures can be). As is, they make you seem like a smartass who thinks snark makes up for lack of argumentative substance.


It is like that in Shadowrun. The entire point of AIs generation in SR rests on some "X-Factor" stuff. You have to accept this at all times, not just when it suits your needs.

Also, most spirits are magical constructs generated by the human mind - or at least something sentient's mind - for a specific task, according to their own image. Why should spirits be less comprehensible than a computer program that is, by definition, changed beyond human understanding, wich ist what differs an AI from an agent?


The same is written about AI. So?


Since when are AI programmed by Vulcans?


I suppose cardinality is not a concept you are very familiar with?

The upshot in divorce and unmarried partnerships is a phenomenon that is very new historically and limited to western countries (the high divorce rate is mostly an American phenomenon, caused by the strong social pressure to marry young). Most cultures promote fixed partnerships.

Rape, on the other hand, is usually looked down upon because sex, with simians (that includes us) has stopped to be all about procreation and is as much a social as reproductive function (no matter how much Christianity hates that idea).

To limit human behavior to purely reproductive function is narrowing down your vision and, ultimatly, failing to understand what you look at.


Marriage is not a concept that is upheld only by christians, or even any religions derived from the teachings of Echnaton.


Raising a child is primarily about passing on collective memory and necessary knowledge to the child so it can function in society (something most developed societes collectivise in part away from the parents, too). If you're only talking about procreation, there would be no need to care for your offspring once they reach puberty. Hoewever, few societies can afford this - those that can are the least developed and organsied. Not saying genetic impulses do not play a part, but singling them out as the only thing that drives people is narrowing it down too far.

New largely because divorce is, from a historical point of view, also quite new. After all, it did not even exist as an option for quite some time and is a relatively recent event in the scheme of history. It is also a massive event in other countries, such as Japan which has a large divorce rate pushed strongly by women in this day and age. Cultures promote fixed partnerships, but do not often have them.



We are one of two known species to couple for fun as well as for procreation, but that is linked largely to the pleasure/reward stimulus. Science has covered this pretty extensively. Again, it does not mean that everything else is false because something else is true, but it does mean that one thing is true in addition to other views. It never really stopped being about procreation: it is also about enjoyment and the connection between the two. With the advent of birth control, our minds can now enjoy the act without the responsibility and may thus couple with an individual not yet chosen as a mate. When a mate is chosen, decisions are made.



I am hardly saying it is the only reason anyone does anything, as these social constructions are certainly here for our comforts as well. Your reply stated that marriage limits procreation. I am arguing that it does not, rather than saying that it is the basis for all things and that nothing else may touch on the Human Condition. Procreation is in fact a large part of it, as we understand life, and is the basis for many religions as well. Birth is one of our most sacred and revered moments and societies were once strongly Matriarchal.

You yourself said that when self-awareness increases, instinct fades. That does not remove instinct: it remains. It is still a drive that is ever-present and part of the decisions we make. In this way does our condition become something both complex and simple. We fulfill the needs of instinct and make our own decisions about goals.




But it is there to aid in the construction of a community. The Bible was an example, rather than the rule.




And, in so doing, protect that child and see that it continues to survive. Procreation does not just mean the act: it means the result as well. Familial ties are thus very strong.

In any case, I believe I mentioned in an earlier post that this would need to be a goal for AI as well, at least one of the Metasapient variety. Rather than creating new AI, they must improve themselves to ensure their own survival. A large part of that comes from observed life. A Spirit even shares this in that they do everything to avoid Evanescence (I could make a corny joke about the band at this point, but I'll refrain).



Of course, you seem to be saying pretty much the same thing, so it is more a definition of terms argument at this point. If you mean to say that it is not the end all, only drive pushing every sentient thought, then I agree: it is not. It plays a large part, but there are many other considerations.

On a happy side note, I seem to be out of the Probationary poster category and can now finally choose an avatar and signature. Celebration ensues.

Wow.... you have really no idea how evolution works then. Its really quite simple. Lets say you have an ultra high sex drive, and spend all day long doing nothing but having sex, lets also say for sake of argument, you're a male, just so we have the selection pressures of a single sex to deal with. Given that if you did this without regard for consequences, you're reproductive success would be low for a variety of reasons. a) because you place no energy in self maintenance, you starve to death b) because you place no energy providing for your mates, they have a lower incentive to mate with you in the first place (you generate fewer embryos), c) because you place no energy in providing for your children fewer of them survive to adulthood, d) because you are messing with other peoples carefully developed pair bonding, you will quickly learn WHY homicide was a leading cause of death in the ancient world. Thus the combination of genes which lead to your behavior in the first place has a lower chance of seeing itself reproduced when compared to people who put at least some energy into self maintenance, mate and child support, and not going out of their way to piss off every other male in their tribe.


Actually no it doesn't, not even close. Bee's look after their sisters, because do to an oddity in bee genetics, the workers are actually more related to their sisters then they would be their own daughters if they could actually procreate. Thus it is genetically beneficial for them to tend to the needs of their sisters.


They also say A.I.'s inhabit systems like the one which gave 'birth' to them, and have a tendency to perform functions similar to the ones their parent program was intended for.

AI are, by the setting's definition, no comprehensible programs and do not work like programs ought to by way of computer magic. AI are computer magical beings, not programs. They are, if anything, the spirits to "resonance" computer magic.


any book which references spirits, as well as refers to the meta planes as infinite. Given an infinite number of variable metaplanes, it is possible there are planes on which the laws of logic are not equivalent to our own, and thus the thought processes of such creatures will be truly alien. Shedim for example HATE metahuman life.... but 'why'?


For starters, only 1% of metahumanity is awakened, second only a small subset of that are mages, a subset of that is initiated, and a subset of that have visited any significant number of metaplanes. Of that tiny fraction of humanity, (say 1/10,000) they will have visited a combined total of approximately 0% of all available metaplanes,(yes I DID mean ZERO) and as a result have practically no clue what kinds of different spirits can and do actually exist, as well as the enviroments which bring those spirits into being(if they are actually made there), or what sorts of effects the spirits home metaplane have on said spirits way of thinking, and use/flavor/presence of logic. I'm sorry, but nothing I can imagine could possible be more alien then a creature from a place where the laws of physics as you know them, and the laws of logic do not exist in any way you could conceivably recognize.


No, I just happen to think it is, at present, a reasonable summation of a hypothesis, supported by the theory of evolution, and will likely continue to do so, until the hypothesis is demonstrated to be incorrect.


If you can show me where in canon it says that A.I.'s can NOT feel fear, and under no circumstance will be afraid of their own deaths, then it is not unreasonable to assume somewhere at some point in time, some A.I. CAN feel fear, and WILL be afraid of death. Since the game DOES allow for the possibility of this happening, and also emphatically states that NOONE actually knows how an A.I.'s mind actually works from a physics stand point, asking me to explain how a particular out put could be generated from a particular input when all the intervening steps are unknown is an open invitation for me to engage in pointless technobable, and any answer I give is potentially correct.


They are computer programs, and as such there are many reality based filters which can and should be reasonably placed upon them. This filters are not entirely dissimilar to that say things like bullets are consumed when used, and cars can not be poisoned.


If you wish to speak from a mathematical standpoint, because there are an infinite number of metaplanes which are in some way different from eachother, and because it is only some nonzero chance that a any given metaplane will allow such a train of thought to be both possible, and probable, it is actually a virtual certainty that some spirit in some meta plane would safely and rationally come to the stated conclusion from the premise of footballs being hollow using whatever passes for logic in its home metaplane. There in fact doesn't even have to be anything 'toxic' about said spirit, it simply has to have a thought process adequately dissimilar to our own.

Human thoughts are shaped by our genes and our environment. Our genes are shaped by how they have interacted with the environment. As a result it comes down to environment ultimately anyway. Our environment is shaped by the true laws of physics(however closely or distantly they relate to our known laws of physics) and as a result we are defined in everyway that matters by the physical laws of our universe.

In the case of spirits, their thought processes are often shaped in distant metaplanes by forces no human may have yet experienced letalone comprehends, and as a result their minds can be totally and completely alien to anything a human has ever experienced, or even COULD ever experience. Its possible that a spirits mind may be so alien that no thought it has ever or will ever had would even be comprehensible to any human ever, regardless of the amount of explanation given by some kind of knowledgeable 3rd party who could understand both us and the spirit in question.

If you wish to speak from a mathematical standpoint, I again refer you to cardinality. Even given there are infinite numbers in N, you will never envounter square root(2) in that magnitude. In other words, just because something has infinite elements does not necessarily mean it contains everything.


It is, as many things Dawkins writes, overly simplistic and as such follows the train of thought of religion. Dawkins being an American with a background in WASP culture, that may beinevitable, but he is much closer to the religion he so loathes than he realises. The selfish gene is built on the one gene, one enzyme dogma, which has already been disproven a while ago. Genes, as such, do not make up the entirety of inheritance after all (expression being a major factor, and inherited promoted/inhibited expression). Expression, however, is an environmental influence and not related to the genes as such, selfish or not.


Much like spirits tend to stick around the domain they belong to. Your point being?


See, this is where your mistake lies. You say that AI are more understandable because they are part of a physical world you can understand. However, in the shadowrun fictional universe AI are part of a world that contains magic and computer magic, both tied to infinite (though not necessarily in the sense Douglas Adams loved to mistake it) different planes that may or may not be parallel universes.

Your thoughts are shaped by the interaction with the true laws of physics. A shadowrun person'S, even a mundane's, ware shaped by contact with different extensions to these true laws, one of which being magic, the other being cmputer magic. You cannot directly draw conclusions based on yourself as a model that are always true in the SR fictional universe.

Well I am divided onthe AI topic, because to me they could be one of three things :

1- Real AI purely technologicals.
2- Horror in disguise having found their way to our world through the magico-technico great pattern the matrix become.
3- Passions trapped into this very same great pattern.

So I would be very carefull about them.

I'm guessing you don't have a very strong background in molecular biology, or neuropsychology do you?


I seriously do not have the time needed to type out all the hundreds of pages of needed scientific papers and textbooks needed to completely and fully explain the 'basic' concepts in proper detail. As I said, to get the idea, you need several courses in genetics, several courses in evolutionary biology, several courses in psychology, several courses in anthropology, and a smattering of other courses in various other related disciplines get really get the idea. Since I do not have time and dumpshock does not have the space, and no one would bother to read all the pages I notes I took during those courses, or read all the course packs, and relevant text book chapters for the sole purpose of a dumpshock argument, you're just going to have to educate yourself, or take my word for it.


Actually much of this stuff is intentionally left open ended so that a GM may fill in the missing pieces as needed to suit their needs.


Actually it is only thought that it is 'possible' that some spirits are made that way. Given that there are only a finite number of humans which have ever lived(about 60 billion), and at most 1.3*10^18 unique thoughts which could ever have occurred if everyone had 10 unique thoughts per second every second off their entire lives, and we all lived to be 70. This would place a finite number of how many spirit would exist if each and every thought created 1 spirit. However the book indicates the metaplanes are infinite in number and infinite in size. Even if each plane had 1 and ONLY 1 spirit on it, that would still be an infinite - (1.3*10^18) = infinite number of spirits you would still need to account for. Each of them would come from a plane which as I said before need not share any laws of physics or rules of logic in common with our own plane, thus making them truly alien.
As for what makes an A.I. different from an agent? The book in clear, in that the A.I. program does 'something' it is not supposed to. What that 'something' is, or 'why' it is done are atleast for the moment shielded from public view by 'plot'.


A.I. come from computers, and programs which both were created in the same physical universe which gave rise to our minds, and infact were created BY our minds. For spirits, this is not necessarily true.


All micro processors work on logic gates. Since an A.I. MUST live in a processor, A.I.'s require logic gates to exist. Thus some piece of the A.I. must interact with the processor in a logical fashion. Since all things thus far known which can be logically explained are comprehensible to humans adequately trained to understand logic, it seems reasonable that an organism which requires logic to exist, and as such likely acts in some form of logical fashion, can be under by someone with an adequate understanding of logic, its just 'logical'.


It is part of mathematics. It requires logic, as humans understand, to be true, in order for it itself to be true. I also do not understand how specifically categorizing of number of elements in a particular set is of any assistance in the discussion.

I like the Passions idea immensely.



I'd like to point out that I would happily read that should you post it. I'm ever curious.


On a side note, Mordinvan, my argument for AI being as alien as Spirits is human error in the coding and the Logic Gates. If coded incorrectly, or if there is a hitch in the a code that results in an AI, then it will not work as expected or intended. While logical in its own right, it is logical to the AI and not necessarily to the one who programmed it. These errors can cause breaks in the code which, for a normal program, would usually crash it but may work for an AI. So it has the potential to become as alien.

Another point is that pure logic is also alien to humans, just as pure chaos is. While a human can look at a code and say "This And gate is what makes it make this decision", they will not likely understand a being who perceives through those gates, within them rather than an outside observer. Also, due to the unknown factor that gives AI 'life', we are unsure as to whether or not the code is changed. In fact, evidence from the setting suggests that it does due to people not being able to understand it and the AI being unable to copy it. It becomes a different thing entirely and so has the potential to be exceptionally alien, as it may not even rest on logic anymore.

actually if you have an infinite number of numbers, you SHOULD enounter the square root of 2 an infinite number of times, so long as your 'set' does not expressly exclude irrational numbers. As no form of spirit thought process or environment is actually excluded in the texts we thusfar have describing them, anything you can think up should exist, as well as anything you can't think up.


Actually the selfish gene hypothesis is not at all disproven by the failure of the one gene one enzyme hypothesis. I don't know how you think it could be. So long as that gene produces some gene product who's presence has a net beneficial impact on the reproductive success of the gene pool in which is resides, then the that gene will improve not only its own reproduction, but that of the entire pool. The gene however seeks to simple increase its own reproductive success, and the increase to the overall survival of the pool is an unintended but happy consequence of that. It is why things like cancers, and viruses can exist, and actually is one of the few hypothesis which I am aware of which can reasonably explain the existence of such things.


My point being the original purpose of the A.I. was a function humans desired, in a system humans built. The A.I. will often seek to continue to fulfill its original function. As such its motivations are such that they should not be totally and completely beyond the capacity of a metahuman mind to comprehend. We may not understand them intuitively, but we should understand them if they are adequately explained to us.


Yes however many spirits originate on planes completely alien to our own universe. All known A.I.'s originate in computer programs which themselves originate in our universe.
Also, due to the fact that magical research IS being done, and things can be learned, which hold true under atleast a finite subset of conditions, it is not unreasonable to assume that somehow our universe(or atleast gaisphere) influences some aspects magic to be reasonably static and comprehensible. Thus magical effects originating within our own gaisphere seem to have rules governing them, which can be learned, and exploited. This need not be true of all metaplanes in the SR universe.



No, but until and unless a particular conclusion which is TRUE in our world is proven FALSE in S.R., it is not unreasonable to assume it continues to be true. If such was not taken to be the case RPG's would be practically impossible to play, and the rule books needed for them would consume multiple entire libraries.

Well curiosity is WHY I took the courses in the first place, so I can understand that.


Actually that's the problem, is something is 'logical' once, it is always 'logical', it need not always be correct, but one should be able to get from the initial premise to the final conclusion via a set of intermediate premises and conclusions. The problem will occur when one or more of the premises is incorrect. If any of the conclusions are incorrect however, then someone is no longer using logic. The problem with chalking up sentence to programing error, or manufacture's defect in the processor, is that the first can be observed, and readily understood by a good computer programmer, and the second would make A.I.'s dependent on flawed systems to run in. Since the game indicates neither of these are strictly true, I do not feel either provides an adequate explanation. As I said previously, their inner workings are concealed by 'plot'.


If by this you mean be able to engage in true empathy with a computer, then I am inclined to agree with you. However it does not mean that with an adequate understanding a human would be totally and completely unable to guess what type of output a given type of input would produce.


Given an A.I. can be 'trapped' by simple deactivating the processor on a given node and you just put it to sleep. It should then be possible to run a memory scan of the node without actually activating the node itself allowing you to actually understand what changes if any are occurring to the code of the original program.


If the program requires logic gates to run, which it does, then it rests on logic. That logic may be many million or more premises in length, and thus very time consuming to follow, but it must exist, or else, A.I.'s would not require processors, and could exist in any conductive object as easily as a laptop.

Well curiosity is WHY I took the courses in the first place, so I can understand that.


Actually that's the problem, is something is 'logical' once, it is always 'logical', it need not always be correct, but one should be able to get from the initial premise to the final conclusion via a set of intermediate premises and conclusions. The problem will occur when one or more of the premises is incorrect. If any of the conclusions are incorrect however, then someone is no longer using logic. The problem with chalking up sentence to programing error, or manufacture's defect in the processor, is that the first can be observed, and readily understood by a good computer programmer, and the second would make A.I.'s dependent on flawed systems to run in. Since the game indicates neither of these are strictly true, I do not feel either provides an adequate explanation. As I said previously, their inner workings are concealed by 'plot'.


If by this you mean be able to engage in true empathy with a computer, then I am inclined to agree with you. However it does not mean that with an adequate understanding a human would be totally and completely unable to guess what type of output a given type of input would produce.


Given an A.I. can be 'trapped' by simple deactivating the processor on a given node and you just put it to sleep. It should then be possible to run a memory scan of the node without actually activating the node itself allowing you to actually understand what changes if any are occurring to the code of the original program.


If the program requires logic gates to run, which it does, then it rests on logic. That logic may be many million or more premises in length, and thus very time consuming to follow, but it must exist, or else, A.I.'s would not require processors, and could exist in any conductive object as easily as a laptop.

Excellent. Get posting.




Not necessarily true if the AI changes in the process of becoming an AI. While it can be said of Metasapients, it is not entirely certain for other types, such as Xenosapients. And if it is concealed by plot, then the world bends to the plot to explain it. As you said earlier, there are holes specifically for the GMs to play with. I believe this is one of them.




Empathy and understanding. If the code is so complex as to be alive, that means contradictory logic gates may exist. Or rather, that they are so complex as to fit every eventuality, thus becoming so open that they do not expressly lead to any foreseeable outcome. I know the science behind it, in the real world, means that it can be observed and converted into a gate equation, but if the equation covered sweeping statements than it is not as easily observed. For instance, if the last part of the Logic process has a distinct intelligence that may change its gates at a whim. It may be as simple as that: that an AI can change the formula as it goes, thus 'growing', such as it does with Karma.




It is very possible that it is not understandable. The above argument still applies, for instance: the code may continuously shift. Or, as an interesting point for some GMs to play with, part of the code may be in Resonance only and thus not able to be understood. It is possible that is what can change their code and allow them to restructure themselves. A simple final gate that reads the binary of "Alive" or "not Alive". While a Technomancer might be able to see it, they are employed with less frequency than Deckers/Hackers and may just not have noted it yet. Speculative, but see below.




See above statements. It comes down to the same, really. It cannot be denied that, in the setting, there is an unknown factor that makes it so it is not like a typical program. To argue otherwise is to say the setting is flat wrong about its interpretation of these entities. It has another layer that is beyond science. You may see it as the plot concealing it, but that is backward from how a GM should often look at these things: rather than say it can't happen and state that it is a hole, figure out why it did.

If there was no mystical Resonance in SR, that would be a correct statement. However, as there is, it is false.


I'll try again. As I am not very familiar with mathematical terms in English, this may be a bit clumsy, though.

An infinite number of states does not necessarily mean every state possible is included. As an example, in a guven system there are states a, b and c. Now, a magnitude could well be made up of infinite repetitions of a and be and be infinite, yet never include state c. Just because something is infinitie does not necessiarilymean it is all encompassing. The magnitude N contains infinite and not repeating elements, yet many elements ofmagnitude R are not included in N. Does that make N less of an infinite magnitude?


That computer processes always work according to logic gates already has been disproven by the whole Emergence,/Resonance/mancer/technomagic business.


So why, exactly, are you trying to impose your interpretation of the setting on everyone else again?

Yes, but since the node can be switched off at any point in time and NOT kill the A.I. so long as it is not 'sleeping', that code is then 'fixed' can be read with a memory scan. While I have no really problem with the idea of the code dynamically reconfiguring itself, as it would have to inorder to store memory and to learn.


This is actually a rather interesting possibility, and one which makes a great deal of sense. With the absence of trust, and knowledge about Technomancers, it does make sense that if part of what makes an A.I. alive is resonance, then the world would be largely ignorant of that fact, as few would think to ask a technomancer, and few mundanes would likely accept the answer as being true. It DOES however raise the question of why no A.I.'s have resonance abilities however. It would make sense that only a small proportion of them do, as a small proportion of mundanes are awakened, but all have bright lively auras. If even a small percent of them displayed such abilities it would strongly lend support to your idea.


That is sort of how I look at it. Keep in mind just because something is concealed by plot, that plot is driven by the gm ultimately, and whatever is concealed or protected by plot does so only so long as plot says it is. As soon as that protection is no longer required for the sake of plot, it's shield vaporizes in a puff of logic.

It is possible that they are too new to express it for now. We'll see in later products, I suppose. For now, it is also possible that they are not able to use Resonance Abilities because they use their Resonance to sustain their life and would thus not attempt to redirect it to other tasks. The Emulate Quality does come remarkably close to Threading as well. That can be explained a few ways, but it is interesting that they cannot keep something they would have had to code.

I am too new to Shadowrun to say if Deus or Mageara had much to do with Resonance, but I have read something about a bionetwork before, and that seems to imply that they at least had something that was compatible with Resonant/Dissonant bionetworks. Again, I don't know enough about Otaku to really say much on this and it is also worth noting that Deus and Mageara were on an entirely different level from Metasapients.



Agreed.

Ok, which part of the text of mine you just quoted was false?


I know what you are saying, however unless some constraint is placed what sorts of number can appear, then there is the same non zero chance that any given number can appear, as any given part of an infinite set. Given that, it is 'virtually' certain, that any given number will appear unless it is somehow excluded.


No it has not actually, however as was recently suggested, they may also function according to some addition resonance factor. This does not remove their dependence on logic, but it does allow for some additional, reasonably stable X factor which is supernatural in nature. Given however most A.I.'s tend to follow a reasonably stable and predictable pattern of behavior this X factor, if it is resonance in origin SHOULD be able to studied and understood by technomancers atleast in some fashion.


a) because it is the view I hold b) most other views thus far presented a grossly lacking in explanatory power c) I really do not like unexplained 'things' when explanations SHOULD be available d) because it is a time honored tradition of dumpshock.

You know, me and the boys always say, "I'm kinda okay with rape except for the possibility that the unique gene coding for social interaction may be lost over future generations."

I keed, I keed.

As a side note, that's an inversion of the original social evolutionary theory: man as barely-tamed rapist.

Good to know. I abhor it, personally, but take it for the intent: there is a natural revulsion to it.

Should have added the Sarcasm tags, but sarcasm seemed a little too harsh. Maybe Irony tags.

Trust me, I heard it without the tags.

Still, when I make my congressional bid, I don't want someone to go 'hey, there's the guy who's mostly ok with rape".

I should clarify though, my biggest issue isn't with evolutionary sociology as much as the statements coming out of evolutionary sociology described as fact, when ES is such a speculative field.

Duly noted. How's the campaign going?

Don't worry we'll be sure to quote your statement out of context at every available opportunity.

"You have the right to remain silent. What you say will be misquoted and used against you..."