Freefall 3: Death Ray Byproducts

[Rockphed]

Correction: after seeing Sam people wish they were blind.

And after they hear his economic theories they wish they were mad.

[WanderingMist]

And after they here his economic theories they wish they were mad.

"The tentacled horror from beyond the stars spoke, and Von Neumann help me, in my madness, I understood its words." -Qwerty

[Kornaki]

Sam recognizes the true issue with the station is economic misalignment between ownership and labor. Fix that and it should run smoothly for another 10,000 years or so. And Sam directly gets a cut of that (he'll worry about how to collect later)

[sihnfahl]

Sam recognizes the true issue with the station is economic misalignment between ownership and labor. Fix that and it should run smoothly for another 10,000 years or so. And Sam directly gets a cut of that (he'll worry about how to collect later)

Partially.
Remember, a bit of the station's economic issues are vendors sending (and billing) for double delivery. And since they got rid of the procurement department, folks who were far too busy to check never cancelled automatic orders despite the fact they still had enough on hand from the double delivery.

[lord_khaine]

That was just part of what Sam explained as economic fragging of unpopular leadership.
I do think it can be said just about all problems circle back to incompetent leadership.

[Fyraltari]

That was just part of what Sam explained as economic fragging of unpopular leadership.
I do think it can be said just about all problems circle back to incompetent leadership.

I disagree, in a lot of cases the system in place is bad.

[lord_khaine]

I disagree, in a lot of cases the system in place is bad.

Any cases where that cant be blamed on the leadership then?

[Fyraltari]

Any cases where that cant be blamed on the leadership then?

Well, let's begin with all the systems where the leadership aren't answerable to the people they command and move to all the systems where the well-being of the people under the leaders is not among the criteria used to measure the competency of the leader.

Oh, and throw in a dash of Peter Principle. For flavour.

[Anarchic Fox]

Any cases where that cant be blamed on the leadership then?

Yes, but I don't think the cases can be named within the bounds of the Forum Rules.

[lord_khaine]

So.. in other words stuff you can directly blame the leadership on.
or that could be directly solved by the leadership if it was inclined to do so :D

[Fyraltari]

So.. in other words stuff you can directly blame the leadership on.
or that could be directly solved by the leadership if it was inclined to do so :D

... That's quite the opposite.

[theNater]

Any cases where that cant be blamed on the leadership then?

Slavery, the owning of one person by another, is inherently Evil by the standards of D&D 3.5, due to the disrespect for sentient life it carries. In a slavery system, the only way for the leadership(i.e. the slaveowners) to fix the problem is to uniformly free all of their slaves, at which point there is functionally no slavery system anymore.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Raise thread!

[Rockphed]

The most recent update has me thinking that De Morel has been planning for robot workers for a long time. He has doubtless planned out every detail. And none of it is going to survive Sam being Sam.

Muwahahahahahaha!

[Fyraltari]

You'd think the gag would grow old, but I never tire of the robots' pure love of work.

[theangelJean]

How old are these robots? Sure, they're just obtained legal personhood, but how mature are they kin terms of the neural pruning process)?

Their enthusiasm and their wild, uniform reactions kind of make me think they are childlike. But it could be, as the poster above says, just their love of work (which they were built for) and unfamiliarity with social situations related to human interaction? Plus they're being written as a group rather than individuals, so far.

I guess this doesn't actually affect whether they can be employed, as robots are put to work as soon as they are produced. I am more wondering where the socialisation they might get working at the station would fall in their development. Are the station's employees going to end up effectively babysitting a bunch of five-year-olds? Or a group of adults socialised only among their insular group?

ETA I like how the robots are working to carry the load in the latest comic. Two robots back to back become an intelligent flatbed vehicle.

[Fyraltari]

It's consistently shown that robots that have not interacted with humans before have very childlike behaviours which they grow out of with prolonged human contact.

Presumably this is because a robot-only environment is a very safe space where eveything works as intended, leaving basically no opportunity for them to be challenenged in any way and mature.

[theangelJean]

In yesterday's comic, Sam reveals the real reason he got the robots to set up their dream machines on the station.

Which is interesting, because a couple of strips back, the humans' reasoning for allowing the dream machine setup was given as "they're not monsters"; dream machines are considered "basic life support" for robots, along with power charging. However, in the current strip, Rover17 clearly doesn't think of this in the same way - to them, the integrity of their memories is completely optional, unless there's something worth remembering.

I wonder how many days in a row a factory robot might go without using the dream machines, if everything is running smoothly.

[Jasdoif]

Which is interesting, because a couple of strips back, the humans' reasoning for allowing the dream machine setup was given as "they're not monsters"; dream machines are considered "basic life support" for robots, along with power charging. However, in the current strip, Rover17 clearly doesn't think of this in the same way - to them, the integrity of their memories is completely optional, unless there's something worth remembering.

If put in a situation where there was something worth remembering and no dream machines available, I suspect the robots would view things differently.

More generally, what is a mind without its memories? Does preventing the accumulation of memories represent the death of the person that could have been? Is it a violation of self-determination to inflict that on someone else?

[Willie the Duck]

In yesterday's comic, Sam reveals the real reason he got the robots to set up their dream machines on the station.
Which is interesting, because a couple of strips back, the humans' reasoning for allowing the dream machine setup was given as "they're not monsters"; dream machines are considered "basic life support" for robots, along with power charging. However, in the current strip, Rover17 clearly doesn't think of this in the same way - to them, the integrity of their memories is completely optional, unless there's something worth remembering.
I wonder how many days in a row a factory robot might go without using the dream machines, if everything is running smoothly.

If put in a situation where there was something worth remembering and no dream machines available, I suspect the robots would view things differently.

I think this jives perfectly with the robots being the ones most willing to sacrifice themselves/least likely to value their own well-being as vital.

More generally, what is a mind without its memories? Does preventing the accumulation of memories represent the death of the person that could have been? Is it a violation of self-determination to inflict that on someone else?

Definitions and theories of minds are somewhat varied. Certainly memories (and learning from them) are an important part of making someone who they are. 'Death of a person who might have been' is equally unclear (the technical phrase might be a simpler 'preventing the accumulation of memories represents the prevention of the person that could have been'). Respect of autonomy and ability to make informed decisions (thus requiring most basic knowledge of ones' own circumstances) is considered one of the primary ethical principles*. There are questions of how much someone else is required to exert to provide that autonomy, but then again that's hardly unique.
*generally being beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice; but sometimes being consolidated to beneficence and justice or expanded to something like accountability, justice, non-maleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity or the like.

[Fyraltari]

In yesterday's comic, Sam reveals the real reason he got the robots to set up their dream machines on the station.

Which is interesting, because a couple of strips back, the humans' reasoning for allowing the dream machine setup was given as "they're not monsters"; dream machines are considered "basic life support" for robots, along with power charging. However, in the current strip, Rover17 clearly doesn't think of this in the same way - to them, the integrity of their memories is completely optional, unless there's something worth remembering.

I wonder how many days in a row a factory robot might go without using the dream machines, if everything is running smoothly.

The robots are also dangerously selfless and lacking in perspective, especially the inexperienced ones. They tend to neglect anything that isn't work or actively protecting humans.

[WanderingMist]

Does preventing the accumulation of memories represent the death of the person that could have been?

By this logic, if someone were to ask if you wished to travel to say, Peru or Norway with them and gave you the choice of destination, you'd be responsible for the death of the person who would've gone to the other place. Which is way too philosophical for my taste.