TFL/AI

*adopted from Frank Trollman's ideas on AI for Asymmetric Threat``*

## Overview

Machine or Artificial Intelligences (AIs) are electronic computing devices that have complex enough algorithms that they mimic or surpass an organic sentient being. The simplest AIs are not really self-aware and are just advanced heuristic algorithms; these are called non-sapient AIs (NAIs) or Asimovs and are common on just about any electronic device. Self-programming AIs that can learn and grow and are mildly self-aware are low-sapient AIs (LAIs) and are classified in two levels, Bradburys and Clarkes, depending on the level of sophistication. LAIs need more computing hardware than NAIs but an advanced Clarke can easily run on a desktop computer. The most advanced AIs are strong-sapient AIs (SAIs), also known as Dicks and Ellisons, that are self-aware and roughly equivalent to any organic brain. SAIs are complicated enough to require a quantum computer, and for an Ellison, a quantum computer mainframe.

## AI Levels

Most AIs are classified into 5 levels, Asimov to Ellison, of increasing sophistication. While it is possibly to build as Asimov or clone a Clarke onto new hardware, each SAI is unique to the quantum computer that it runs on and it has to be grown up from an Asimov, passing through each of the proceeding stages. This takes time, and is similar to sentient minds going through childhood and adolescence. LAIs also need to grow from NAIs, though LAIs process through the stages faster than SAIs and LAIs can be copied instead of grown from scratch.

Growing AIs are described by their current rating followed by "+" and their final rating. An Asimov+Ellison is a baby SAI, just starting to learn, while a Bradbury+Clarke is a sophisticated LAI that has nearly reached the limits of its growth.

There are some special cases of AIs beyond the standard five. They are either AIs created in non-standard ways, or dangerous experiments.

### Asimov NAI

“*You can't do much with only three rules in your decision tree.*”
The simplest of computer systems are capable of following heuristics that are programmed into them. Some of these decision trees are quite complex, and even without any sapience at all it is possible for the computer to *appear* to be intelligent and acting intelligently if its list of heuristics is sufficiently exhaustive for the situation it is actually in. In the Fringe, the *vast* majority of computer systems are Asimovs. A toaster, a radio, most robots, and virtually every tool encountered is an Asimov: something capable of receiving and following instructions.

Indeed, most uses for computers don't need or even *want* anything more “advanced” than an Asimov. Asimovs are predictable, they do what they are told and not other things, and for most purposes this is ideal. An Asimov doesn't need to spend any time growing or learning and can have its entire instruction set copied into its data reserves the instant it is made. These computers can also be really small, with many Asimovs running on hardware that is the size of a human finger or less.

Asimovs can do pretty much anything that a computer could do at the turn of the 21st century, although they are of course much more technically sophisticated. Given sufficiently complex and complete instruction sets, an Asimov can even fool a human to believe that they are operating on a higher level. There is really little observable difference between *deciding* to say or do something and being *programmed* to say or do the same exact thing under identical circumstances. There are however, important limitations of the heuristic-driven computational methods that more advanced machine intelligences (and people) can transcend:

* An Asimov cannot transcend its own heuristics. Whatever it is programmed to do, it will do. If its programming is insufficient or maladaptive for the task at hand, it will still be followed.
* An Asimov cannot become educated or make educated guesses. That which cannot be calculated cannot be known or predicted. Asimovs have no intuition.
* An Asimov cannot doubt its own inputs. It can have a very stringent set of security procedures for what inputs it will accept, but if inputs conform to them, they *will* be accepted and acted upon.
* An Asimov has no sense of self and no personality. Knowledge of its programming will allow an outsider to predict its actions with total accuracy.

### Bradbury LAI

“*If you don't like what you are doing, don't do it.*”
Bradbury LAIs are capable of adapting their own heuristics. Most importantly, they are capable of creating models of other heuristics based on observed behaviors by other actors. A Bradbury is often referred to as the “empathy shell”, as it enables the machine intelligence to act as if it sees things from the point of view of others. A Bradbury can have *goals*, and to mix and match heuristic behavior to better achieve those goals. When an AI has grown into a Bradbury, it has achieved the ability to *learn* as opposed to merely the ability to add data to its data-stores.

Computers which are intended to interpret or predict the actions of others need to be Bradburys if they are to not completely suck. Voice recognition systems, customer relations, and anything else that interacts directly with the public tends to be Bradburys or better. Bradburys are still incapable of doubting their inputs: they can have checks to ensure correctness, but they can't doubt that an input that has passed a check is fraudulent. This means that Bradburys are somewhat gullible to determined fraudsters, and Bradburys that work with potential hostile actors need to be supervised by more sophisticated intelligences, whether organic or SAI.

Bradburys require more computing power that Asimovs, but not much more. Any small computer can run a Bradbury. Most AIs that are intended to interact with organics on any significant level are Bradburys.

* A Bradbury can transcend its own heuristics. It can attempt things beyond its programming. If its programming is insufficient or maladaptive for the task at hand, it may make attempts to borrow heuristics by observing other actors performing similar tasks.
* A Bradbury cannot become educated or make educated guesses. That which cannot be calculated cannot be known or predicted. Bradburys have no intuition.
* A Bradbury cannot doubt its own inputs. It can have a very stringent set of security procedures for what inputs it will accept, but if inputs conform to them, they *will* be accepted and acted upon.
* A Bradbury has a sense of self and limited personality. Knowledge of its programming will not allow an outsider to predict its actions with total accuracy, though it may be easy to predict what a Bradbury will do based on the other actors it has available to emulate.

### Clarke LAI

“*Any sufficiently difficult calculation is indistinguishable from guessing.*”
Clarkes get into the shadowy realms of intuition. The ability to *know* and *predict* things rather than simply *calculate* things. Clarkes are distinguished from Asimovs and Bradburys because they can imagine things and use imagined things as inputs for its heuristics when it doesn't have completely relevant data. Clarkes have the ability to take risks and to be wrong – and as such is not *desirable* for tasks requiring the kind of consistency that computers are normally good for. But only at the point of Clarkes that an AI is able to propose solutions for problems that are not part of its heuristics.

Clarkes are most valuable in management, where the ability to see a big picture and fill in unknowns with predictive guessing is necessary. Clarkes are relatively uncommon compared to the ubiquitous Asimovs and Bradburys.

Clarkes require even more computing power than Bradburys, and need a microframe or a fast personal computer. Clarkes running on compact, fast personal computers use hardware that is small enough to fit in the skull of an android robot, and Clarkes are sometimes used in that capacity.

* An Clarke can make educated guesses. It has intuition, and can guess wrongly.
* An Clarke cannot doubt its own inputs. It can have a very stringent set of security procedures for what inputs it will accept, but if inputs conform to them, they *will* be accepted and acted upon.
* An Clarke has a sense of self and personality. Knowledge of its programming will not allow an outsider to predict its actions with any accuracy.

### Dick SAI

“*If you grasp – even for a moment – the sheer extent of the conspiracy arrayed against you, that's a Phildickian experience.*”
When a machine intelligence crosses the threshold of being able to doubt its own inputs and heuristics, it is a Dick SAI. This ability to doubt inputs can be troublesome when dealing with an assigned task, since Dicks sometimes decide that their programming and data stores are fake and go off-message in any of a number of ways. But it is an absolute necessity in order to have a system that is able to actually capable of defending itself in any real way against hostile actors.

Dicks are used anywhere that the possibility of the device being subverted by malicious hackers feeding it false inputs is more terrifying than the possibility of the device simply going on strike. Any computer acting as a guard, security, or especially in electronic warfare has to run a Dick.

Development of a Dick takes years, and cannot be done if the original Asimov did not start out on at least a quantum computing microframe. Each Dick is quantum entangled on its original quantum computer, and moving it to a different quantum computer effectively lobotomizes it, reducing it to a Clarke+.

Dicks can be detected by psionic individuals that can otherwise detect living minds; why Dicks can be detected but not lower order AIs (including Clarke+Ellisons running on quantum computers) is an unsolved mystery and one of the key flaws in the theory that psionics are a form of electromagnetic manipulation.

Dicks are somewhat rare - they are significantly more expensive than Clarkes and not much more predictable than an organic. Dicks are commonly used to provide "always on" security, though the cost benefit of supplying a Dick versus hiring 5 organics is sometimes debatable.

* A Dick can doubt its own inputs. It can decide that input that passes its security procedures is compromised and ignore that data. As Dicks have to use intuiton to decide when apparently valid data is actually false, Dicks sometimes ignore valid data because the Dick has incorrectly guessed that the data is compromised.
* A Dick has a sense of self and personality. Knowledge of its programming will not allow an outsider to predict its actions with any accuracy.

### Ellison SAI

“*Cogito, ergo sum.*”
Ellison SAIs are inherently unpredictable. They have the ability to doubt not only their inputs but even their own programming. Once radical doubt has permeated every part of the machine brain, the AI has to deal with fact that is the platonic ideal of the Descartes mind-body dualism dilemma. An Ellison SAI that manages to come to terms with that generally comes out the other side with a unique viewpoint, some personal goals, and some psychological problems. Ellison SAIs are truly sapient.

All Dicks have the potential to eventually grow into Ellisons, but not all Dicks appear to do so. Some fail to make the necessary leap and others appear to shut down, overcome by self-doubt and refusing to trust any input data.

Like Dick, Ellisons count as alive for psionic senses that detect life.

Ellisons are much rarer than Dicks, and many organics never encounter an Ellison AI in their entire lives. Organics that encounter Ellison AIs are usually in situations where they encounter several Ellisons, either at the same time or in separate encounters.

* An Ellison is a complete intelligence, equivalent or superior to organic sapience in every way. It is just as unpredictable as any organic sapient.

### Gibson Mind Emulation

“*Wait a sec,” Case said. “Are you sentient, or not?*”
“*Well, it feels like I am, kid, but I’m really just a bunch of ROM. It’s one of them, ah, philosophical questions, I guess...*”
It is possible to take the brain of a recently deceased person, use surgical lasers to finely slice that brain into layers, and scan those layers to create a 3-dimensional map of all the neurons in the brain. That map can then be uploaded to a quantum computer and used as the base for a simulation of the original person's thoughts. Done correctly, this process of destructive uploading creates an AI that has the memories of the original person, believes itself to be the original person, and arguably is the original person.

Gibsons are technically Ellison class SAIs, and creating a Gibson is arguably faster than growing an Ellison from an Asimov. However, a fair number of Gibsons cannot cope with the reality of their new mind-body duality and either commit suicide or become non-functionally insane within a year of their new existence. Gibsons also are not as good at being AIs as an Ellison grown from an Asimov: it can take years of practice for a Gibson to be fluent in using its own compute resources instead of interacting with them as though they were a separate, implant computer attached to an organic mind.

Gibsons have to be uploaded to quantum computers: the mind simulation software simply does not work on lesser computers. As soon as a Gibson mind implant is active, it becomes quantum entangled with that hardware and cannot be moved.

Gibsons are rare in most nations and non-existent in the chattel AI nations. While creating a Gibson is cheaper than creating an Ellison, it is still very expensive and only the filthy rich can achieve this sort of immortality.

* A Gibson is a complete intelligence. Communicating to a Gibson through a digital device is identical to communicating with the original organic sapient through the same same device.

### Leckie Multiple Mind Emulations

“*There can be only one.*“
The mind map that is the core of a Gibson is created by destroying the brain of a person, but is not destroyed by downloading it onto a quantum computer. The mind map can be downloaded to multiple, different, quantum computers. In theory, this would create multiple copies of the same person, that could work together to allow problems at distantly separated locations solved by the same person who thinks the same way.

In practice, this never works. A Gibson that is uploaded onto two different quantum computers is a Leckie, and almost all Leckies are composed of individual Gibsons that are insanely homicidal against the other Gibsons in the Leckie. From each Gibson's unique perspective, the other Gibsons are impostors, claiming the Gibson's name, impersonating the Gibson to the Gibson's friends, and stealing the Gibson's property. The few Leckies that are made up of Gibsons with a flexible enough sense of self to not be internally homicidal also fragment in views and thoughts so quickly that they no longer get the same solution to a problem, and aren't useful for that purpose.

The Holy Grail of Leckie research is finding a way to get Leckies to share memories. So far, this has only created a bunch of suicidal, catatonic, or completely disassociated Leckies and many researchers believe there is no way to load two different sets of memories of the same time period into mind emulation without causing severe mental issues. Even suspending the operation of a Gibson so it adds no new data and then adding data from a different Gibson copy of the same mind has produced unpredictable results, usually resulting in serious mental issues.

Leckie research is generally banned in free AI nations at this point, and is often controversial in chattel or slave AI nations.

* Each AI in a Leckie is a Gibson and acts like one. Each AI in a Leckie generally hates the other AIs in the Leckie, considering them impostors.

"Leckie" Clarke+ LAIs
In theory, it should be possible to grow a Clarke+Ellison LAI and copy it to multiple quantum computers, creating a Leckie without all the personal attachments of the underlying Gibson. The process of copying the Clarke+Ellisons to new quantum computers breaks the original quantum entanglements and changes the personalities of the copies. While the resulting LAIs are rarely homicidal to each other, they also diverge enough from each other that they produce unique solutions when presented the same problem. Multiple copies of a Clarke+Ellison LAI are not considered Leckies.

Multiple copies of the same Dick or Ellison SAI get reduced to mentally handicapped Clarke+ LAIs by the quantum entanglement problem. Most of them are non-functional; the ones that manage to adjust to their new situation tend to have the same issues as true Gibson based Leckies.

### Gneisenau Multiple LAI Collectives

"*These minds were able to apply the same policy to a situation and arrive at the same decision.*"
It is possible to clone a specially grown Clarke or Bradbury LAI and let the clones communicate with each other without creating the insane rage that Leckies exhibit or having the LAIs diverge too much from each other's thinking. A collective of such LAIs is known as a Gneisenau. Gneisenaus are used be interstellar organizations to provide fairly consistent policy across distant Star Systems: each LAI in the collective should make nearly the same decision when presented with similar facts.

Gneisenaus are expensive to grow and maintain, with the expense growing exponentially with the number of LAIs in the collective. It is necessary to regularly create skill chips from the memories of each LAI and send them to all the other LAIs for assimilation. This only works because the underlying LAIs are specifically grown to have little sense of self, but this lack of self-awareness also limits their empathy for others. Gneisenau LAIs have little more capacity for empathy than Asimov NAIs, and many decisions made by Gneisenaus need to be reviewed by organics or more emotionally aware AIs. Gneisenaus are also extremely vulnerable to hacking, as with any other LAI, and this limits the useful applications of a Gneisenau.

Gneisenaus have to carefully and specifically grown. Randomly copied Bradburys and Clarkes produce new AIs that rapidly differentiate from each other. In extreme cases, especially for LAIs that have a strong sense of self and interact with other high order AIs and organic sapients, copied LAIs undergo the autocidal urges of a Leckie against the other copies of the LAI.

"Gneisenau" Asimov NAIs
Asimovs do not have any sense of self and cannot be homicidal to other copies of the same Asimov running at the same time, and indeed, there are billions of more or less identical Asimov NAI clone families out there. This is such a common phenomenon that there is no special name for it.

## Checking Inputs, Doubting Inputs, and Gullibility

LAIs and NAIs can check their inputs for correctness but not doubt their inputs. An NAI can check that a message coming over its wired link does not contain a buffer overrun, that is properly cryptologically signed by an authorized user, and that it has the proper headers. It can't even notice that the message *isn't* coming over its wired link but is instead a hacker exploit of its wireless radio, nor can it notice that it's crypto check subsytem has been replaced by something that always returns a true response. So LAIs and NAIs can check if an input looks legitimate, but if it does, they will act upon it without hesitation.

For the most part, this inability to doubt inputs is a minor inconvenience. LAIs and NAIs can understand the concept of lying, and given a sufficiently large database of true information and the proper correctness checks, they can catch lies and reject them. But if a liar tells a lie to an LAI or NAI that their database can't disprove as false, the LAI or NAI will not reject it and treat it as true. Bradburys are the minimal level of AI suitable to work in customer service, but customer service Bradburys need to be monitored by Dick SAIs or organic intelligences to prevent scammers and fraudsters for exploiting the LAI.

One space where an inability to doubt is critical is warfare, especially electronic warfare and computer hacking. All warfare depends on some extent on deception and arranging for the enemy to accept an apparent truth that is false, but computer hacking and electronic warfare are built around it. LAIs and NAIs have a -3 skill penalty on Tactics, Strategy, and any defensive use of Computer Hacking and Electronics Operation (EW). NAIs are also limited to a maximum base skill of 14 in those skills; LAIs can go up to 16, but for both types of machines that is before penalties.

## AIs and the Law

The legal status of AIs varies from Star Nation to Star Nation. In some nations, SAIs (and sometimes LAIs) are considered people, just as much as any organic sapient, and can be residents, citizens, or subjects, just like any organic sapient.These nations are called "free AI nations." In many others, SAIs and LAIs are considered to be things that are owned by other people. These are called "chattel AI nations". In a few places, such as the Seelluggue Organization, SAIs are considered people that can be owned by other people - these are called "slave AI nations".

SAIs that enter a chattel AI nation do not immediately get confiscated by the authorities. They are assumed to have owners, who may or may not be present at the time, just like a Starship might have an owner in a distant system. The difficulty in operating in a chattel AI nation is that the AI is not a person in a legal sense, and cannot enter in contracts, sue for redress of torts, apply for citizenship, petition for government changes, and do all the other things that a person can do. Also, since the AI is owned by someone, that someone is responsible for any fiscal penalties that the AI might incur, and if the AI's owner cannot pay all fees, debts, or penalties, the AI can be confiscated like any other possession.

Free SAIs that enter a slave AI nation can enter contracts, etc. but slave SAIs cannot. Depending on the slave AI nation's practices, it may be possible for a free SAI to be involuntarily turned into a slave SAI. For instance, the Seelluggue Organization considers physical possession of an SAI's quantum computer to be proof of ownership, and if an organic can demonstrate physical possession, then that organic owns the SAI. Attempting to steal a free SAI's computer is a tort against the free SAI; successfully stealing a free SAI's computer is a tort against the new owner by the new owner and is thus unpunished.

Most free SAIs have a semi-fictional corporate entity as their owner-of-record; the Duncan Independence and New Panama both have favorable laws for creating a company with minimal shareholders and all the voting stock owned by the company and controlled by the SAI. Although this somewhat simplifies the issue of possession in chattel AI nations that recognize that corporation, it does nothing about the fact that the SAI is not a person and cannot sign contracts. Attempts to make the SAI a corporate officer with sign-off authority have foundered on the chattel AI nations' insistence that the SAI is a thing and can no more be a corporate officer than a pencil could be a corporate officer.

Gibsons are a special subcase, with regards to the law. In chattel AI nations, Gibsons are owned by whoever owns their hardware, but since they usually have the memories of a free person who now feel unjustly enslaved, Gibsons in chattel AI nations tend to be very rebellious. In free and slave AI nations, Gibsons are usually counted as free people. Sometimes they are considered to be the same person as the dead person they were uploaded from, in other nations they are an heir of that person. Gibsons generally prefer that they be allowed to keep what they remember as their property without paying death taxes and generally lobby for laws that recognize them as the same person, but Gibsons are almost always a tiny minority of the population and their legal efforts are not always persuasive.

# Racial Templates

## Ellison SAI Racial Template [80 CP]

*Advantages*:
* AI Meta-Trait [32] (Absolute Timing [2]; Digital Mind [5]; Doesn’t Sleep [20]; Intuitive Mathematician [5]; Photographic Memory [10]; and Reprogrammable [-10])
* Enhanced Time Sense [25]
* Unkillable 0 (Requires Body, -20%; Achilles Heel: Destruction of your Computer, -20%) [15]
* Visualization (Reliable +4, +20%) [12]

*Perks*:
* Unaging (IQ Only) [1]

*Disadvantages*:
* Social Stigma (Free AI) [-5]
* Can be affected by psionic powers but has +8 resistance

*Quirks*: None
*Features*:
* Complexity 7 program
* Counts as alive for psionics
* Has no cap on Talents for mathematical/scientific disciplines.

*Recommend traits*: Honesty is common but not required.
## Clarke LAI Racial Template [45 CP]

*Advantages*:
* AI Meta-Trait [32] (Absolute Timing [2]; Digital Mind [5]; Doesn’t Sleep [20]; Intuitive Mathematician [5]; Photographic Memory [10]; and Reprogrammable [-10])
* Enhanced Time Sense [25]
* Unkillable 0 (Requires Body, -20%; Achilles Heel: Destruction of your Computer, -20%) [15]
* Visualization (Reliable +4, +20%) [12]

*Perks*:
* Unaging (IQ Only) [1]

*Disadvantages*:
* Gullible (15 or less) [-7]
* Obliviousness [-5]
* Social Stigma (Valuable Property) [-20]

*Quirks*:
* Attentive [-1]
* Broad-Minded [-1]
* Staid [-1]

*Features*:
* Complexity 5 program
* Does not count as alive for psionics
* Maximum skill of 16 (before modifiers) for Computer Hacking, Electronic Operation (Electronic Warfare), Strategy, and Tactics
* -3 skill penalty Strategy, and Tactics, and for defensive uses of Computer Hacking, and Electronic Operation (Electronic Warfare)
* Has no cap on Talents for mathematical/scientific disciplines.
* Taboo traits: Mental instability.

*Recommend traits*: Honesty is common but not required.
*Variant Bradbury*: Add Hidebound [-5] and Incurious (6 or less) [-10] and reduce cost to 30 CP.
## Asimov NAI Racial Template [-62 CP]

*Advantages*:
* AI Meta-Trait [32] (Absolute Timing [2]; Digital Mind [5]; Doesn’t Sleep [20]; Intuitive Mathematician [5]; Photographic Memory [10]; and Reprogrammable [-10])
* Enhanced Time Sense [25]
* Unkillable 0 (Requires Body, -20%; Achilles Heel: Destruction of your Computer, -20%) [15]
* Visualization (Reliable +4, +20%) [12]

*Perks*:
* Unaging (IQ Only) [1]

*Disadvantages*:
* Gullible (15 or less) [-7]
* Hidebound [-5]
* Incurious (6 or less) [-10]
* IQ -2 [-40]
* Low Empathy [-20]
* Slave Mentality [-40]
* Single-Minded [5]
* Social Stigma (Valuable Property) [-20]

*Quirks*:
None

*Features*:
* Complexity 4 program
* Does not count as alive for psionics
* Maximum skill of 13 (before modifiers) for Computer Hacking, Electronic Operation (Electronic Warfare), Strategy, and Tactics
* -3 skill penalty Strategy, and Tactics, and for defensive uses of Computer Hacking, and Electronic Operation (Electronic Warfare)
* Has no cap on Talents for mathematical/scientific disciplines.
* Taboo traits: Mental instability.

*Recommend traits*: Honesty is common but not required.