From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 19:19:56 MST
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 06:47:00PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>>>>We can only pump so many memes into a single simple game. Perhaps
>>>>another one can speak to the realities of tech deployment.
>>>>
>>>A good idea. Maybe I could try out writing my own version, if you don't
>>>mind? My version would likely deal less with the race towards
>>>singularity and more with the politics and economics of technology.
>>>
>>Please, be my guest. (Not that I have any standing to grant permission
>>on this anyway, but if you want my permission here, you've got it.)
>
> Well, if you have come up with a creative idea I would consider it rude to
> use it without asking. I don't know what to think about intellectual
> property, but I firmly believe in intellectual propriety.
I suspect our difference is the level at which a work becomes
derivative, and the permissibility of derivative works. I suspect my
level can be approximated by the fact that I write fan fiction of
certain published works for noncommercial recreation. ^_-
> Overall, your "purist" version of the game seems to be developing quite
> nicely. It is starting to make some sense :-)
Finally. ^_^;
>>I'm also thinking of perhaps more Event cards like High Tech Terrorist,
>>embodying other ways that the world could destroy itself...unless
>>society has deployed solutions to stop that way first. True, few people
>>would want to play such a card deliberately...but the deck itself cares
>>not for which cards come from it when it is the world's turn.
>
> Also, the event cards may *have* to be played if no other valid card is in
> the hand. Which means that once you have such a card you cannot just put the
> hand back into the deck. Somebody got an anthrax bomb, and no matter what
> you do sooner or later it will crop up somewhere...
...but you can play a card that will prevent its worst effects from
taking place. (I've updated the rules, so now passing is always an
option.) So, *you* don't have to play a bad card if you don't want to,
but it will come up eventually. (Though you can squat on a card by
playing other legit cards in your hand, so long as you have other legit
cards. I wonder if this can be justified as "keeping those with access
to X busy"?)
>>What you describe is not so different from the robo Catastrophe: a
>>mindless machine wiping out free humanity; the machine just happens to
>>be composed of organic robots instead of metallic/plastic/ceramic ones.
>>Given as AI would be required to effectively implement such a scheme
>>worldwide, I'd say the robo Catastrophe more or less covers it...though
>>perhaps I should note that explicitly.
>
> Well, look at the original 1984. That is the low tech version, and in the
> appendix Orwell quite clearly describes how the Party is circumscribing
> further research in order to not get any surprises. Oceania is nowhere near
> any advanced technology, but still is aiming for an ultra-stable,
> humanity-crushing state.
Which is why, even though there are sentient minds still around, the
robo Catastrophe stops play (and development of new tech and events)
just like the other two types (which physically wipe out all sentient
minds).
>>The base target is mere introduction to the concept of Singularity, and
>>a mild blessing of it as a good target.
>
> This is a good idea. However, the game as it is does not include the perhaps
> most important aspect of the singularity: its autofeedback. As far as I can
> see, the rate of tech development will not increase over time as the game is
> played.
Good point. Hmm...what if the rate of the world's playing depending on
total accumulated (bio/nano/robo) points? That is, at start (say, 15
total b/n/r points), it plays 1 when it's the world's turn; when there
are at least 25 total b/n/r points, it plays 2, then 3 at 35, on up to
Singularity or Catastrophe. Likewise, the players' hands shrink at
certain levels (specifically, they skip drawing a card if their hand
size is too large).
If this is used, then maybe Singularity happens when all (or almost all)
the cards have been played?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:52 MST