[TML] State of the Art?

[Jerry W Barrington]

On 10/22/07 8:12 AM, Tom Naro wrote:

> They are perfectly good rules given the context for which they are designed.
> They keep the device as a assisting aid for the disabled - rather than
> allowing players to corrupt/abuse the device into various other purposes.
> 
> They prevent the technology from becoming a "run-away" element in a game.  The
> rules (which are only guidelines anyway) protect game balance.

I guess the thing that makes me call them "not good rules" is that they are
fiat.

*Why* will it's synthetic voice always sound synthetic?  We can already
synthesize voices that are hard to tell from real, and that will only get
better.  Thus saying it will always sound synthetic is GM fiat, because you
want it that way, not because it makes any sense in the world (real or
game).

You even say as much: they do what they're designed for and protect game
balance.  As far as I can see, game balance rules don't accomplish anything.
Most players have a very limited type or set of types of characters they
want to play.  Changing the rules for balance really doesn't affect them
much.  And I don't care to play with power-gamers.

> A "synthetic" and "a weird" voice are EXACTLY the same thing - people are
> going to react differently to the character.  The person is going to have some
> difficulty "blending-in" with the natives (of any tech level.)  The native is
> going to know that there is something different about the voice - even if he
> does not understand the cause.  A user of this technology is going to stand
> out from the crowd.  That is the point of the rule 3.

I see a lot of difference between the two, but that's kind of irrelevant for
the scenario you just sketched.  The natives will know something's up even
if the voice is perfect, ***because your lips don't match up and the voice
isn't coming from your mouth***.  If you could do that, you could certainly
synthesize a voice good enough to fool a live ear.

> Yes, voice synthesis is pretty good right now - quite adequate for canned
> phrases and instructional announcements. But in conversation a synthetic voice
> lacks inflection and emotion.  It also lacks most of the other non-verbal
> elements that happens when a person speaks.  The pauses, studders,
> intonations, and the "hums, ums, and ahs" are missing.

Actually, they already have synthesizers with inflection, and lots of people
don't fill space with "umms".  In fact, people are more impressed by people
without all that baggage in their speech.  And since those structures are
there in our thoughts, why couldn't the synthesizer produce them?

> (TV and Movie "Voice Synthesis"...

I enjoy fiction a lot, but I *do* know the difference between it and reality
thanks.

> If the device picks up every random thought that a person has, it might be
> really fun at a party - but it would not be very useful as a communications
> device.  It has to have some level of control by the operator.  If you leave
> it up to the device to choose which thoughts should be spoken and which should
> not - your device is going to get more complicated, expensive, large, heavy,
> etc.  The psion uses his own brain to filter out all the nonsense.

Now you're talking about 2 different devices.  One is a vocalizer.  It would
take impulses normally directed at the vocal system and make noise from
them.  The other is a TP device.  It would read all thoughts, no matter the
intent to vocalize.  Obviously they will be built differently, but they
would still be under the same game rules.

> The psionic device is effectively a "mind-reading-machine."  Players are going
> to try to come up with all sorts of interesting ways to abuse the technology.
> Suppose my player need to question a suspect who he thinks is likely to lie.
> He puts the device on the suspects head and starts with the questions.  The
> suspect says "I didn't do it." but the device shouts "I did it, and I liked
> It."  The player has absolutely no moral problem using the technology this
> way.  They think it is great - right up until they become the suspect - then
> the technology becomes decidedly unfair to them.

Who ever said life was fair?  It certainly wasn't on *my* birth certificate.
Given what they go thru, I can't see PC's expecting it either.

> Once the machine becomes as good as (or better) than a person - the person is
> diminished.

This isn't a rule about tech, this is philosophy.  Obviously, tech is
*intended* to do things better than human, or we wouldn't have invented it.
I club is better at killing than a fist.  Motorcycles travel faster &
farther than people (or even people on horses).  A computer is better at
storing info and calculating stuff than a brain.  Of course, knowing *what*
to calculate may remain another matter, but even there look at Anti-Hijack
programs in OTU.

> The rules you mentioned [1,4,5] are specifically to prevent...
> we have laws against that sort of thing

But that's already possible with living psions.  Such a device merely
extends the capability to the non-psionically gifted.  Just like a block and
tackle lets a weakling lift as much as a muscleman.

The reason we have *human laws* about how we use tech is because there are
no *physical Laws* about it.  Cameras can do things and see places the human
eye can't or isn't allowed.  Only laws, not Laws, prevent me from sticking a
camera in the women's locker room.  :)

> I tend to think of psionics as a natural - and not quite understood phenomeon.

That's what machines do.  Take natural phenomena and use and shape them to
human will.  And in thousands of years, why *wouldn't* we develop a better
understanding of the phenomenon, since in OTU, we *know* it works?  (And
don't tell me it's Suppressed.  There are still underground Institutes, what
have they been doing all that time?)

It goes back to my thing about fiat.  Any sensible, "natural" explanation of
psi allows for machines to take advantage of the same stuff as brains.
Otherwise, it *is* just magic.

> Well, we have long history of telepathy in SF - we are more or less stuck with
> it.

Only if the author/GM says we are.  :D  Thus the whole question can be
avoided.

As for the "script", I thought most of this was discussing game rules.  I
really don't know much about the supposed script.