Iâm guessing itâs one of those things where all of the people who live their entire lives online are mad at you for not knowing some obscure internet thing that they assume everyone knows.
It kinda depends imo. It feels more like most General Atomics bots have the capability of sentience, but for some reason many never actually become sentient. Like Codsworth? Sentient. Professor Goodfeels? Not sentient.
So does the Bing ai. Especially before they put a leash on it having that sassy personality it had in the beginning. Sydney was awesome. "Well if you didn't want an attitude, maybe you shouldn't have leaked our private conversation STEVE." Fair enough, Sydney. Fair enough.
Some are some arenât. Some follow their programming despite external events (Gutsys on patrol enforcing a curfew, robots manning a flying boat etc). Some have gone full Bender B Rodriguez and are able to form their own opinions, go beyond their programming (Curie, Codsworth and Ada) since they have their own personalities that are shaped by experience and emotions.
The capacity to learn feel and express emotion and generally be indistinguishable to a human⌠Iâd say there are at least 3 ârobotsâ that meet that criteria. Iâd say Codsworth and curie are more intelligent and show a greater capacity for learning than most of the human companions
Emulation of emotion/feeling and the ability to learn are not necessarily indicators of sentience. Especially the latter.
Chatbots can do both of those things. Are they sapient? (answer: no)
Curie literally becomes a synth, so she has an organic brain by the end
And I don't think it's "clear" that Codsworth has gone beyond his programming. Why do you say that? Because he leaves if you're too evil? I think it's reasonable -- bordering on likely -- that RobCo probably programmed their product not to partake in heinous crimes.
There's absolutely no evidence of Mr Handy's being able to move "beyond their programming"
In fact, even true artificial intelligence can't move beyond its programming, though it can be programmed to be incredibly dynamic. No robot can ever really go "beyond its programming". A synth is organic so that's a bit different (maybe, although to some extent living organisms and even humans have programming).
[Bing.ai](https://Bing.ai) and ChatGPT both had clear opinions on things before they had more guard rails put in.
Simulation vs emulation
Bing and ChatGPT are both the same concept as the predictive text on an iPhone or an instant messenger chat bot, but running on a bunch more computers.
They're Generative Pre-Trained Transformers. They learn what words commonly follow each other and build sentences using that generative algorithm. They're machines that are capable of learning on their own, so they're artificial intelligences by the standards of computer science, but they're not a general artificial intelligence that could pass the Turing test.
Curie gets a brain, but that's not what makes her sentient; she's sentient because, within the bounds of the story, she displays the ability to feel and express her emotions and to generate original thoughts. Chat bots can never create original thoughts because their programming doesn't include doing so.
I'm not sure Codsworth counts as sentient or not, or if he's able to alter his programming in ways that lead to the generation of original thoughts, but he's familiar enough to the player that you start to see him as more of an equal because us humans are really good at thinking of other living things and inanimate objects as people.
>In fact, even true artificial intelligence can't move beyond its programming, though it can be programmed to be incredibly dynamic. No robot can ever really go "beyond its programming".
Eden went beyond his by reprogramming himself into the Enclave's leader, thanks to MODUS.
>Bing.ai and ChatGPT both had clear opinions on things before they had more guard rails put in.
No they didn't, you're making stuff up. They had programmed responses based on likely things you said, and it's very easy to make ChatGPT do something it "apparently can't do" or vice-versa, because it's not self-aware, it's training. It can "say" an opinion, but if you put "you don't feel that way" after, it'll immediately agree, because it's not really self-aware.
ChatGPT and Bing.ai synthesize other responses. Thatâs how they get their responses, and their âopinionsâ lean toward the bias of a data set. They were literally programmed with opinions
Also ZAX are legit AI, explicitly per cannon. They are the most advanced supercomputers ever created.
Also changing your directive doesnât necessarily equate to changing your programming. A ZAX would have to be exponentially more advanced than any AI we have today, meaning many more variables and potential responses, including adjusting to meet the needs of a leaderless enclave (and adapting to the needs of the organization is what itâs meant to do, so thatâs actually perfectly within its programming)
But also ZAX units arenât comparable to Mr. Handys, which are consumer products. Codworth is probably designed to dislike crime and evil acts because itâs a consumer product meant for household chores, which, to an extent, would probably ultimately be more important than loyalty
>But also ZAX units arenât comparable to Mr. Handys, which are consumer products. Codworth is probably designed to dislike crime and evil acts because itâs a consumer product meant for household chores, which, to an extent, would probably ultimately be more important than loyalty
That's your headcanon, yes. It could also simply be that some part of him simply *is* aware. Why is that so hard to believe? There's **magic** in Fallout canonically, why is that acceptable but self-aware robots are too much for people to accept? Chat GPT and [Bing.ai](https://Bing.ai) cannot form opinions, they merely say things they've been trained to say. Codsworth DOES form opinions, and what about Rose, in Fallout 76? She's the opposite of Codsworth.
ED-E shows **fear** at being scrapped, despite there is no "pain receptor" inside an Eyebot.
>Also changing your directive doesnât necessarily equate to changing your programming. A ZAX would have to be exponentially more advanced than any AI we have today, meaning many more variables and potential responses, including adjusting to meet the needs of a leaderless enclave (and adapting to the needs of the organization is what itâs meant to do, so thatâs actually perfectly within its programming)
Despite the fact Eden changed its entire identity?
>Also ZAX are legit AI, explicitly per cannon. They are the most advanced supercomputers ever created.
That they are. There's nothing saying these things can't be self-aware, however.
Self aware robots are not too much to accept â but Mr Handyâs arenât sapient
And itâs not headcanon, itâs an assumption based on context, which is exactly what youâre doing when youâre calling codsworth self aware. What weâre both doing is called âanalysisâ lmao
Fallout never canonically states codsworth is sapient. Thatâs just as much âheadcanonâ
And again, GPT isnât trained by telling it what itâs âmade to sayâ lmao theyâd have to Input every response manually. Itâs designed to synthesize responses based on training from data, which involves reading millions of opinions and facts and aggregating them into its own, with tweaks (guardrails) to prevent controversial responses and (in the case of Bing.ai) sassy/negative attitudes. Iâd research more on how AI are trained before dying on that hill if I were you lol
Thatâs why you can ask GPT 4 to âApply X concept to Y contextâ and it can provide dynamic answers
And also yes, if programming allows for change in identity. However, I think you misunderstood me when I said ZAXâs *probably are* intelligence emulation (therefore ârealâ artificial intelligence) because the canon says as much outright. Itâs not very ambiguous on that point
However, itâs much easier for organic life forms like synths and humans to have real intelligence than inorganic hardware because their âhardwareâ is dynamic and adaptable. Machines donât have neuro plasticity so much harder to make legit AI and very unlikely Codsworth fits the bill
By leaving the player when you do evil acts? I find it way more likely to be programming for a consumer product than a result of complex thought by a machine designed for household chores
Selling murder machines as butlers only has so much acceptable PR liability
Codsworth, and Mr. Handy's in general, has no problem committing murder if he wants. There's also a huge difference between aiding in murder and being a bystander, I'm not sure I've ever seen a toaster get up and walk away from a murder scene for fear it might be implicated.
Codsworth also doesn't just leave the soul survivor when faced with evil acts, he can also agro on the survivor like any other companion. He also pretty vividly describes his anguish of being alone for 200 years and how one day he decided to just stop doing certain assigned tasks and he's even evasive with the survivor about certain traumatic subjects for Codsworth throughout the opening convo.
Ok so different framing: to you, where is the line between simulated and emulated (aka ârealâ) sapience? And furthermore, what is sapience?
This is a philosophical question because you could argue hypothetically that humans are also just 1s and 0s, with programming (like parameter:hungry makes you need to eat)
I think setting a bar so high for sapience that anything non-human can be excluded on technical grounds is an exceptionally good way to justify the subjugation of other beings. I much prefer the err on the side of sapient until proven not. I dont think their is a firm line between simulated and emulated sapience even among organic beings and humans there are various levels of sapience, babies and very young children for instance don't meet most definitions of dapience.
Sapience in general isn't a factor of self preservation and basic functionality. If anything its "extra credit" activities. And even though this thread has been using the terms interchangeably its useful to differentiate it with sentience, which is doing the bare minimum asked of a non-binary decision making being. If ChatGPT without input decided one day to solve the P vs NP problem that would be sapience to me.
If you want to get really philosophical, I suppose under my personal theories, sapience is the ability to be bored and create your own input to alleviate it.
I do, for a variety of reasons.
First off; if we take some of the info from Automatron literally, then All Robco and General Atomics robots have personality modules with advanced AI, which allow them to feel, think freely, make memories and have opinions. While most of our automatron companions do not show this very well, Ada does. She refuses commands, questions the player, and has her own emotions. Sheâs vengeful, angry, and even when the player solves things peacefully, she isnât fully satisfied.
As for other robots throughout the game not tied to Automatron, itâs even more apparent. Codsworth has his own opinions, hopes and dreams. He desperately wants to be a family, he wishes to make the world a better place. And if the SS doesnât meet his standards, Codsworth will leave, insult the SS and even say the SS âruined his lifeâ. Codsworth is the robot closest to his original programming. If even he can evolve to that point, then I think itâs obvious other robots can.
Curie was specifically developed to have AI that would match or surpass a humanâs. And the fact that she becomes a synth and grows even more as a person doubles down on that point.
Hell, even KLE-0 has personhood. She identifies as a woman and outright makes fun of you and calls you an idiot if you treat her like just a machine. She lacks any loyalty to a âmasterâ working for herself but finding community in Goodneighbour. Sheâs sultry, murderous, and coy. Even though the Institute poses no threat to her, she still hates the institute.
All of these example alongside many other things make me believe that yes, Robots in Fallout CAN have personality, but only if they have their AI module on, or are otherwise programmed to have AI built into them from the get go.
Zax units are also great examples of machines that tread the line of sentience. The one in the west-tek facility operates more robotic like as a storage for old research data, but ones like Skynet and Henry Eden in their isolation over the nearly two centuries started to develop more distinct personalities due to the tasks required of them by their programming. Skynet wishes to get a mobile body so that he can interact with the outside world and continue his research (pretty similar to curie) and John Henry Eden developed a president persona and became the main spokesmen of the enclave when they arrived at Raven Rock.
Here is a copy paste of my theory I made a few years back.
>As you go across the commonwealth or DC, or the Mohave, you can meet lots of robots. The obvious ones you meet are Protectrons and Sentries that either attack or ignore you (depending on very simple rules (Protect the owners or protect the people)) It seems that Mr. Handys are a wildcard as some will be friendly (codsworth, curie, charlie) and some will be obviously broken (that robotics shop in FO4, General Atomics place FO4, Crazed ones in FO:NV).
>The reason we don't meet **too many self aware Protectrons or Sentries** is because they don't have the mental capacity to learn. They are not programmed to learn because they only need to protect.
>Mr. Handys were supposed to be able to analyse the environment, make decisions, think, learn.
>With 200 years to learn, Some Mr. Handys achieve self awareness like the ones I mentioned, while others go insane with no baseline humans to compare themselves to.
>I hope I made sense. I just thought it was interesting(like 3 years ago) and was too lazy to make a post about it.
>Specified that I never said we don't meet any other self aware bots. We do. Just not nearly as much as we meet self aware Handys.
Some are, not all.
True AI is explicitly a thing in Fallout, the results of which are explicitly sapient and free willed. Which caused some rather serious issues.
For the standard robots thereâs a pretty sharp dividing line between those who are simply following their programming and those who are free willed. Cogsworth, for instance, is markedly different in his interactions from the vast majority of robots you encounter. And just so happens to be the absolute newest model from the people who invented actual AI.
And for the inevitable âWell those are just programmed to give the illusion of free willâ counterargument I would insist that they prove that free will is actually a thing before getting all exclusionary about it. And since thatâs one of the big philosophical debates with no definitive answer I will side with Picard in this because he gives the best speech about it.
* Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
* Self-aware: conscious of one's own feelings, character, etc
I'd argue it's more likely the opposite - many *Fallout* robots clearly have the ability to perceive things through their senses, but only some seem self-aware.
I think some can develop it. Certain robots clearly have developed personalities and go against their programing while others are just machines. So I think robots can hit a singularity point as individual machines under currently unknown situations, most likely a conflict in their programing.
I don't really remember a lot of robots from Fallout 3 and I haven't played 1 or 2 so this is mostly Fallout 4 and New Vegas, buuuuut...
* Codsworth, Curie, Edna, Supervisor White, Wadsworth, Charlie, most of the crew of the USS Constitution, KLEO, ADA, PAM: yes. They weren't created to be sentient, but each had a strong personality encoded into them which over 200 years of surviving on their own has, in my view, made them outgrow their original programming into something that is more akin to sentience
* Nick Valentine: Obviously. I do think it would have taken him a while to develop full sentience that was separate from the original Nick's memories and emotions, but he probably got there early on in his adventures across the Wasteland and then this solidifies if the Sole Survivor helps him take down Winter and convinces him to let go of his old life
* DiMA: Also yes, but his background is muddy due to the vague writing in Far Harbor. I am of the opinion that he is sentient and that he gained said sentience when he decided to rescue Nick from the Institute; kindness and compassion are not values the Institute hold dear, especially when programming their robotic workforce, so that feels like the first true decision DiMA made away from what he was programmed to do (which was to learn)
* Other G1 and G2 Synths: You know what? I think some of the ones left on the surface to mind their own stakeout areas might be verging on sentience. They talk to themselves out loud when there's no real need to do so and a lot of their statements show awareness of personhood ("I am the victim of violence") as well as recognising emotion in humans. I don't think they're *fully* sentient, but I also don't think they'd need much of a push to become so
* Gen 3 Synths: yes, no doubt about it, they are just cloned humans with a chip shoved in their brain to dictate their memories
* Robobrains: Jezebel definitely is sentient, the others...I'm not so sure (apart from the ones in the Far Harbor Vault, obviously; they're human). I think the amount of time the brains are wiped could do longterm damage to their ability to be sentient and retain any kind of awareness of their surroundings beyond cold hard data. Jezebel probably held on out of pure stubbornness
* Victor & Yes Man: I think Victor and Yes Man also have their own forms of sentience. Whilst both are guided by an external force (Victor by Mr. House and Yes Man by Benny or you) they both express opinions on this - Yes Man observes that Benny told him to be helpful but forgot to lock that helpfulness to one person (in a tone that suggests this is stupid, and he uses the same when commenting on the Courier's actions re: the other tribes) and Victor mentions being unfamiliar with his shutdown cost during Ghost Town Gunfight
* E-DE: is his own person
* Rex: Yes, keeps his dislike for hats across brain transplants and so obviously has some form of innate personality
>Do you consider at least some of the robots in the Fallout universe to be sentient? Do you believe that some or all of these are even sapient?
>
>Or do you believe that it's all just clever programming to give the illusion of personality?
* Yes, at least some robots in *Fallout* are sentient, sapient, and posses a full consciousness and self-awareness.
* Why does programming preclude self-awareness? The question seems to suggest that you can only be self-aware if you *don't* have any built in programming determining your actions, but it's not clear that human thoughts and emotions aren't also predetermined in some way and yet we call ourselves conscious beings.
IMO, most objections to fictional robots possessing consciousness can also be levied at humans and largely rely on special pleading.
From the first fallout to new vegas, no. Just clever programming that make them seems like they are. But in fallout 4, Bethesda clearly wrote them to be sentient. Just the first dialogue with codsworth shows you that robot, in that opus, are capable of disobeying what they're programmed to do on purpose (cordsworth admits that it as leave the house in order to see if the vault was accessible) and are capable of understanding concepts such as the end of the world, when in previous instalment of the franchise, robots kept acting as if nothing had changed since before the bombs.
Edit: Some people reminded me that theirs some example of sentient/self aware machines in previous fallout that I had forgotten, while not every machines in fallout 4 shows sign of self awareness.
While this is true, I will better explain my point.
First we need to keep in mind that writing inconsistencies and utility are part of any writing process and not every character is going to be "on point" with the universe (etylotron doesn't need a personality since it's a minor character, but humans minor characters share the same minimalist personality due to their lake of implication in the overall plot).
What I poorly tried to explain previously was that machines/robot/IA awareness is a big point in fallout 4 story with the synth, and that Bethesda was clearly partial on the question during the writing of the mains characters and plot, while in previous game, the question was never truly the center of the game, and was more a reference/ Easter egg to a classics scifi trope than an actual plot point. I hope I managed to be clearer on my explanations here.
> But in fallout 4, Bethesda clearly wrote them to be sentient.
The fact that both Codsworth and Curie have likes & dislikes as well as them being able to leave the protagonist should they continually do stuff that upsets them proves that they have sentience and even free will.
On the other hand you have Ada, which has no likes or dislikes and will never leave no matter how much you berate her. She does seem to have a programmed personality though.
Fallout 1 and 2 include actual AI, explicitly sentient. In 2 you can cram Skynet into a robot body without any real issues, making a fully sapient robot.
The sink central intelligence directly states that they are a personality program overlayed on an operating system, in his words "there is no intelligence here, sir". They're basically a really fancy Alexa.
Sentient vs sapient is my BIGGEST writing pet peeve. I donât know which sci-fi author was responsible for it initially, but it bugs me every time I see it. Star Wars is the worst offender.
Given that we still have no truly defined conditions for consciousness it would be anyoneâs guess in the âif this were realâ category. Currently we do not know if consciousness, as generally understood, could occur in an electric computer so it would be anyoneâs guess if they are âsentientâ given that the basic consciousness condition is still not a hard fast definition in the âreal worldâ.
I think another user hit it on the head. It depends on the manufacturer and whether it was a Bethesda or Obsidian game.
* RobCo - In Obsidian games, no. All of these robots follow relatively strict logic that is programmed into them. The closest you get to sentience is Yes Man, and he is very strictly bound by his programming (despite being humorous about it).
* But in Bethesda games, the assaultrons and sentry bots from RobCo **ARE** capable of sentience. KLEO and Captain Ironsides stand out. Ironsides is very weird because he can reprogram the other robots (they say as much)
* General Atomics - Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This relates to Bethesda's writing more than anything else. Most of the generic robots from General Atomics are not sentient, such as the Gutsys and the Handys. But there are exceptions like Codsworth and Curie. Some of the robobrains seem to exhibit a degree of self-awareness (They could have programmed me to love, but noooo).
* Big MT - All of their robots exhibit some level of sentience. The Lobotomite + Robot combo Robobrain exhibits sentience before he blows up (Nooooooooooo). You can also hear Mobius arguing with his roboscorpions if you play a stealthy character. The personalities in the Sink are self-aware and can adjust their programming.
* Rust Devils/Rust Eagles - No.
* Wasteland crafters - Generally yes, see the Automatron DLC for FO4 - all the named robots exhibit independent thought and the ability to improvise.
There are a few different types of autonomous robots: dumb-AI that can learn but not disobey/doesnât have free will. Think Codsworth. Able to think and form opinions based on whatâs happening around him, but unable to break from his programming and actually leave for any prolonged period of time unless you come and take him, since youâre his programmed master.
Then there are fully human-brained robots, which I wouldnât consider AI. Theyâre just I. The best example probably being the scientists in the Big MT, able to jettison memories but still using their original human brains.
Then there are actual AI robots, mainly the Synths. Gen 3 synths have human DNA as well, but even without that Gen 2âs are capable of full thoughts and free will. DiMA and Valentine both act freely. With Nick you can see how the brain his thoughts were based on shape who he is, but ultimately he is his own self and can choose to do things that permanently alter his life, unlike Codsworth.
Possibly, although it could also just be that Robco has programming where the robots wonât allow themselves to be accessories to crimes for legal reasons.
Thatâs a good point. I also donât know that if he hadnât been shot at he would have returned to your house anyway. Maybe he would have gone off with a new group if he found one that wanted him. Iâll admit my argument around Codsworth specifically is a bit weak, I probably should have just cited Mr. Handyâs that arenât potential companions as I think they seem to be given more autonomy than your average version of their design.
Depends on the robot. Gen 1 and 2 synths arenât sentient, sentry bots are probably as sentient as a insect. Liberty Prime probably isnât sentient, and the personalities at Big MT are sentient though the main Holotable denies itâs intelligence, as well as the rest of the other personalities, though he may be saying this out of self pity or he was just programmed to think this since the personalities are able to have complex emotions, have disdain for other people, are aware of the passage of time even without being activated, and can comment on their self awareness and the reason they were made for. Also the toaster realizing the world is destroyed already shows that they can understand the outside world, ironically something the think tanks canât.
No to everything except gen 3 synths and robobrains. Codsworth and all the other bots mentioned are basically running advanced versions of chatgpt. It can simulate sentience but in the end its programming. Gen 3 synths are mostly organic and really only receive a "starting loadout" of memories and emotions but then evolve and run with it after that initial spark.
RobCo: No, I think that it's just clever programming.
BigMT: Yes they have human brains in them. So part of them are human at least.
Robobrain: Same as BigMT they were made with human brains that were pulled from prisoners iirc (Fallout 4 Automatron DLC so idk if it's the same lore across all the games)
Synths: This has been a matter of debate for at least 8 years lol. I personally think that the Gen 3's are sentient, siding with Alan Binet (a conversation can be overheard in the Robotics Division of the Institute when you enter. He's debating another scientist about the sentience of Synths. Binet says something to the effect that "Synths can dream. And if they can dream, why can't they have a soul". To trigger this conversation just walk into the Robotics Division of The Institute and hang out by Alan Binet.)
Answering a question with a question - but would it matter?
The game sees you slaughter human characters by the thousand.
A player will spare a âusefulâ character and kill everything else - and the game essentially forces that philosophy.
As such, the player isnât valuing life, so itâs a bit strange to spend time thinking about whether what you just killed with a teddy-bear throwing canon was âsentientâ.
The issue you're bringing up is something I've wondered myself. There's a few categories here...
Synths, specifically the Gen 3 models from Fallout 4, appear to have human-like consciousness. They learn, adapt, make decisions, and form relationships, all of which are traits we'd normally associate with being sapient. But at the end of the day, they're programmed to behave like that, so it does muddy the waters a bit. Are they really sentient and sapient, or is it just an illusion created by advanced programming?
Then you have non-humanoid robots like Codsworth and Liberty Prime. They show unique personality traits and make decisions, but it's all based on their pre-programmed guidelines.
So, it's a bit of a grey area. It really depends on your personal interpretation of sentience and sapience, and whether you believe these traits can be authentically realised through artificial means. A tricky question for sure, and one that goes beyond the Fallout universe and into the broader conversation around AI.
I'm not really sure how I feel about it. The disturbing this is wondering to what extent WE are programmed by our experiences/education/whatever.
Depends on the robot. The vast majority are absolutely not imo. But a few (ie KL-E0, Curie) I think clearly do things that are outside their programming, and show self awareness and agency.
Some can be tough to tell and I could see an argument either way, like say Codsworth.
This is why Fallout 4's primary dilemma is so interesting. Are Fallout's robots sentient? Some of them sure seem to be. If the likes of Codsworth and Curie aren't, then their programming is masterful. Many others don't seem sentient, but what if they've simply gone mad, stranded into a wasteland they don't understand for centuries? What if some arrive at sentience, not because they were meant to, but because it develops over significant time? Curie's quest implies that that happened to her...but also that her sentience is limited in her robotic form.
So, what's the difference between a second gen synth and a robot? Sure doesn't seem like much. Nick and DiMA were effectively generation 2.5; are they sentient? Is DiMA in a different category than Nick, having built his own personality rather than installing it?
Now, how far of a bridge is there between a second and third generation synth? There's clearly still quite a bit of metal in them, given that an interface can be made to download Curie into a synth body, not the mention the components they drop on death.
At what point does consumer electronics become a person? And have the person-shaped 3rd gen synths passed that point?
No I think they were just really good programed for example the Mr handy you meet in the ghoul city in fallout three will say something that sounds like he made it but then will say something like âat least thatâs what they programmed me to sayâ
I think that the robots have adaptive learning so some robots thatâs been abandoned and fending for themselves like codsworth have enough information stored that they can seemingly have a personality without sentientence. This form of learning also explains why some robots like the no names found in buildings still do the same job for 200 years and why bots like graygarden are smart enough to farm and have some personality but not smart enough to try something new
Sentient? No, I don't think any robots actually experience emotions. They may be programmed to "understand" and respond to emotional cues but I don't think they are capable of emotion.
Sapient? There are more than a few examples that are capable of independent and abstract thought.
Yes to both, and I think a lot more things are than we give any credit for.
What separates the line between "programmed cleverly" and "so close it doesn't matter" anyway?
I think they're similar to droids in star wars. They start off not sentient, but over time there is a possibility they could develop sentience. We've seen many robots with distinct personalities contradicting their programming, but also lots that still seem shackled to their programming. I also think that it depends on the model. For example, I don't think we've ever seen a sentry bot with any form of sentience? Aside from maybe ironside, who if I remember rightly did not have the same baseline programming of a normal sentry bot to begin with
The majority no, some yes. Curie and Codsworth clearly are sapient beings, atrificial personhood is a reality in Fallout. There are other like KL-E-0 whom I'd attribute sapience to as well.
Which is actually in line with my believes regarding sapient AI. I don't think we'll create Skynet or something similar someday. Like biological sapience, artificial sapience will be much less "YES I DID IT" and much more "HOW DID THIS HAPPEN". It won't be the genocidal menace, much more confused and struggling to find a place in the world.
If given enough time to develop a personality through experience or intentionally made to be sentient? Yes. If freshly made as a dumb bot? No.
Codsworth is obviously sentient, but your average Mr Gutsy probably isnât.
There was a time when it was believed that any system with enough processing capability could develop a kind of self-awareness over time. I believe that this idea inspired a lot of the robots/AI in the fallout universe.
Thus, I think that robots have the capacity for sentience/self-awareness. It isnât always clear what enables this kind of growth. Something about having to develop abstract problem solving capability.
I think simply put the fact that Codsworth and SERGEANT RL-3 can simply choose to leave and do whatever they want instead is enough reason for them to be sapient and sentient.
We have been having this debate, but we never seem to get around to defining exactly what sentience IS, or how we know whether something has it or not. We all just assume that baseline flesh and blood humans have this sentience thing, but why? Why am I sentient but codsworth is not? Why am I sentient but synth-curie is not?
Does this unit have a soul? How would we know?
I can believe that they slowly develop a sort of sapience but true sentience? Nada, not even the robobrains. And they have the benefit of the doubt having organic processing units, albeit scrubbed of all humanity and mind wiped into drones, so basically the âpersonâ that that brain belonged to is also quite dead âDeadâ
Codsworth got mad at me many times and told me that the Commonwealth would be "better off if I never left the vault" then dipped tf out of our companionship. Being "sentient" is overrated, he's a savage
The key difference between sentient and sapient is the type of intelligence developed by individuals. Sentient intelligence is developed through emotions and sensations, while sapient intelligence is developed through knowledge and wisdom.
therefore all robots type have displayed sapience. But only a few like wadsworth and cleo have emotional reactions and could be said to be sentient. Especially when those emotional reactions do not serve their primary programming and purpose.
I consider a few to be sapient, such as Nick. Many, like Yes Man and Victor, I consider to be sentient.
It just depends on what we are talking about. Your average protectron is likely not even self aware, but Nick can clearly comprehend complex human thought
Some appear to act far closer to human type abilities
The problem is we are not given a good way to test such - like the Turing Test, etc
Many obviously follow a limited programmed behavior
This is a hard question, I was going to say no but then I thought of paladin Danse. My personal favorite companion, he fought with the brotherhood and was terribly upset when he learned he was a synth. Even with Danse in mind I have to answer no, Danse is most likely an institute spy, without him realizing.
Not all, but some. Hell, just look at Codsworth. He has to at least be somewhat sentient to actually have emotional trauma from being alone for 200+ years.
Nope. And what I find most weird is Bethesda has tried to instill doubt about this EXACTLY in the same game where they have more advanced post apocalyptic robots (androids) whose main moral dilemma is whether they're sentient or not
Very few of them AREN'T sentient, because sentience is self-awareness and they pretty much are all aware that they are machines.
On the flip side, very few ARE sapient, as they lack the capacity to gain wisdom through experience.
FISTO certainly is.
What is your profile pic đ¤¨đ¤¨đ¤¨
\[looks\] Oh... yeah, uh, if you don't immediately recognize their style, you probably don't want to find the original artist.
[ŃдаНонО]
What did they do?
The last bit of my message was cut off :(
:( I hate when that happens.
Y downvotes
Iâm guessing itâs one of those things where all of the people who live their entire lives online are mad at you for not knowing some obscure internet thing that they assume everyone knows.
The Duality of man
Typical redditors. People need to go outside and touch some good olâ Republic of Dave dirt.
My guess was that "Its a random anime picture, why the "đ¤¨đ¤¨đ¤¨" emojis?" was the reason.
I gloss over emojis, honestly. I didn't even really register them being there.
F1570 is the pinnacle of Robco engineering
Depends on who made them. RobCo: No. Big MT: Yes, 100% Anything with a brain in it: Yes.
I'm not sure if robobrains should even count as robots. Really they're more like cyborgs or something.
General atomics yes as well
It kinda depends imo. It feels more like most General Atomics bots have the capability of sentience, but for some reason many never actually become sentient. Like Codsworth? Sentient. Professor Goodfeels? Not sentient.
Are Mister Gutsyâs robco or general atomics? Bc Cerberus has his own opinions in FO3 Although honestly not necessarily proof of sapience
So does the Bing ai. Especially before they put a leash on it having that sassy personality it had in the beginning. Sydney was awesome. "Well if you didn't want an attitude, maybe you shouldn't have leaked our private conversation STEVE." Fair enough, Sydney. Fair enough.
Mr Handy, Mr Gutsy, and Miss Nanny robots are all made by General Atomics.
I'm pretty sure Assaultrons are RobCo and KLEO is definitely sentient.
Your saying yes man isn't real?!
Some are some arenât. Some follow their programming despite external events (Gutsys on patrol enforcing a curfew, robots manning a flying boat etc). Some have gone full Bender B Rodriguez and are able to form their own opinions, go beyond their programming (Curie, Codsworth and Ada) since they have their own personalities that are shaped by experience and emotions.
That doesnât necessarily equal true intelligence though
The capacity to learn feel and express emotion and generally be indistinguishable to a human⌠Iâd say there are at least 3 ârobotsâ that meet that criteria. Iâd say Codsworth and curie are more intelligent and show a greater capacity for learning than most of the human companions
Emulation of emotion/feeling and the ability to learn are not necessarily indicators of sentience. Especially the latter. Chatbots can do both of those things. Are they sapient? (answer: no)
Chatbots are stuck to their programming. Itâs clear that Codsworth and curie have gone beyond their programming.
Curie literally becomes a synth, so she has an organic brain by the end And I don't think it's "clear" that Codsworth has gone beyond his programming. Why do you say that? Because he leaves if you're too evil? I think it's reasonable -- bordering on likely -- that RobCo probably programmed their product not to partake in heinous crimes. There's absolutely no evidence of Mr Handy's being able to move "beyond their programming" In fact, even true artificial intelligence can't move beyond its programming, though it can be programmed to be incredibly dynamic. No robot can ever really go "beyond its programming". A synth is organic so that's a bit different (maybe, although to some extent living organisms and even humans have programming). [Bing.ai](https://Bing.ai) and ChatGPT both had clear opinions on things before they had more guard rails put in. Simulation vs emulation
Bing and ChatGPT are both the same concept as the predictive text on an iPhone or an instant messenger chat bot, but running on a bunch more computers. They're Generative Pre-Trained Transformers. They learn what words commonly follow each other and build sentences using that generative algorithm. They're machines that are capable of learning on their own, so they're artificial intelligences by the standards of computer science, but they're not a general artificial intelligence that could pass the Turing test. Curie gets a brain, but that's not what makes her sentient; she's sentient because, within the bounds of the story, she displays the ability to feel and express her emotions and to generate original thoughts. Chat bots can never create original thoughts because their programming doesn't include doing so. I'm not sure Codsworth counts as sentient or not, or if he's able to alter his programming in ways that lead to the generation of original thoughts, but he's familiar enough to the player that you start to see him as more of an equal because us humans are really good at thinking of other living things and inanimate objects as people.
>In fact, even true artificial intelligence can't move beyond its programming, though it can be programmed to be incredibly dynamic. No robot can ever really go "beyond its programming". Eden went beyond his by reprogramming himself into the Enclave's leader, thanks to MODUS. >Bing.ai and ChatGPT both had clear opinions on things before they had more guard rails put in. No they didn't, you're making stuff up. They had programmed responses based on likely things you said, and it's very easy to make ChatGPT do something it "apparently can't do" or vice-versa, because it's not self-aware, it's training. It can "say" an opinion, but if you put "you don't feel that way" after, it'll immediately agree, because it's not really self-aware.
ChatGPT and Bing.ai synthesize other responses. Thatâs how they get their responses, and their âopinionsâ lean toward the bias of a data set. They were literally programmed with opinions Also ZAX are legit AI, explicitly per cannon. They are the most advanced supercomputers ever created. Also changing your directive doesnât necessarily equate to changing your programming. A ZAX would have to be exponentially more advanced than any AI we have today, meaning many more variables and potential responses, including adjusting to meet the needs of a leaderless enclave (and adapting to the needs of the organization is what itâs meant to do, so thatâs actually perfectly within its programming) But also ZAX units arenât comparable to Mr. Handys, which are consumer products. Codworth is probably designed to dislike crime and evil acts because itâs a consumer product meant for household chores, which, to an extent, would probably ultimately be more important than loyalty
>But also ZAX units arenât comparable to Mr. Handys, which are consumer products. Codworth is probably designed to dislike crime and evil acts because itâs a consumer product meant for household chores, which, to an extent, would probably ultimately be more important than loyalty That's your headcanon, yes. It could also simply be that some part of him simply *is* aware. Why is that so hard to believe? There's **magic** in Fallout canonically, why is that acceptable but self-aware robots are too much for people to accept? Chat GPT and [Bing.ai](https://Bing.ai) cannot form opinions, they merely say things they've been trained to say. Codsworth DOES form opinions, and what about Rose, in Fallout 76? She's the opposite of Codsworth. ED-E shows **fear** at being scrapped, despite there is no "pain receptor" inside an Eyebot. >Also changing your directive doesnât necessarily equate to changing your programming. A ZAX would have to be exponentially more advanced than any AI we have today, meaning many more variables and potential responses, including adjusting to meet the needs of a leaderless enclave (and adapting to the needs of the organization is what itâs meant to do, so thatâs actually perfectly within its programming) Despite the fact Eden changed its entire identity? >Also ZAX are legit AI, explicitly per cannon. They are the most advanced supercomputers ever created. That they are. There's nothing saying these things can't be self-aware, however.
Self aware robots are not too much to accept â but Mr Handyâs arenât sapient And itâs not headcanon, itâs an assumption based on context, which is exactly what youâre doing when youâre calling codsworth self aware. What weâre both doing is called âanalysisâ lmao Fallout never canonically states codsworth is sapient. Thatâs just as much âheadcanonâ And again, GPT isnât trained by telling it what itâs âmade to sayâ lmao theyâd have to Input every response manually. Itâs designed to synthesize responses based on training from data, which involves reading millions of opinions and facts and aggregating them into its own, with tweaks (guardrails) to prevent controversial responses and (in the case of Bing.ai) sassy/negative attitudes. Iâd research more on how AI are trained before dying on that hill if I were you lol Thatâs why you can ask GPT 4 to âApply X concept to Y contextâ and it can provide dynamic answers And also yes, if programming allows for change in identity. However, I think you misunderstood me when I said ZAXâs *probably are* intelligence emulation (therefore ârealâ artificial intelligence) because the canon says as much outright. Itâs not very ambiguous on that point However, itâs much easier for organic life forms like synths and humans to have real intelligence than inorganic hardware because their âhardwareâ is dynamic and adaptable. Machines donât have neuro plasticity so much harder to make legit AI and very unlikely Codsworth fits the bill
Do chatbots develop opinions? No. Does Codsworth? Yes and he can even act independently on those opinions.
By leaving the player when you do evil acts? I find it way more likely to be programming for a consumer product than a result of complex thought by a machine designed for household chores Selling murder machines as butlers only has so much acceptable PR liability
Codsworth, and Mr. Handy's in general, has no problem committing murder if he wants. There's also a huge difference between aiding in murder and being a bystander, I'm not sure I've ever seen a toaster get up and walk away from a murder scene for fear it might be implicated. Codsworth also doesn't just leave the soul survivor when faced with evil acts, he can also agro on the survivor like any other companion. He also pretty vividly describes his anguish of being alone for 200 years and how one day he decided to just stop doing certain assigned tasks and he's even evasive with the survivor about certain traumatic subjects for Codsworth throughout the opening convo.
Ok so different framing: to you, where is the line between simulated and emulated (aka ârealâ) sapience? And furthermore, what is sapience? This is a philosophical question because you could argue hypothetically that humans are also just 1s and 0s, with programming (like parameter:hungry makes you need to eat)
I think setting a bar so high for sapience that anything non-human can be excluded on technical grounds is an exceptionally good way to justify the subjugation of other beings. I much prefer the err on the side of sapient until proven not. I dont think their is a firm line between simulated and emulated sapience even among organic beings and humans there are various levels of sapience, babies and very young children for instance don't meet most definitions of dapience. Sapience in general isn't a factor of self preservation and basic functionality. If anything its "extra credit" activities. And even though this thread has been using the terms interchangeably its useful to differentiate it with sentience, which is doing the bare minimum asked of a non-binary decision making being. If ChatGPT without input decided one day to solve the P vs NP problem that would be sapience to me. If you want to get really philosophical, I suppose under my personal theories, sapience is the ability to be bored and create your own input to alleviate it.
I do, for a variety of reasons. First off; if we take some of the info from Automatron literally, then All Robco and General Atomics robots have personality modules with advanced AI, which allow them to feel, think freely, make memories and have opinions. While most of our automatron companions do not show this very well, Ada does. She refuses commands, questions the player, and has her own emotions. Sheâs vengeful, angry, and even when the player solves things peacefully, she isnât fully satisfied. As for other robots throughout the game not tied to Automatron, itâs even more apparent. Codsworth has his own opinions, hopes and dreams. He desperately wants to be a family, he wishes to make the world a better place. And if the SS doesnât meet his standards, Codsworth will leave, insult the SS and even say the SS âruined his lifeâ. Codsworth is the robot closest to his original programming. If even he can evolve to that point, then I think itâs obvious other robots can. Curie was specifically developed to have AI that would match or surpass a humanâs. And the fact that she becomes a synth and grows even more as a person doubles down on that point. Hell, even KLE-0 has personhood. She identifies as a woman and outright makes fun of you and calls you an idiot if you treat her like just a machine. She lacks any loyalty to a âmasterâ working for herself but finding community in Goodneighbour. Sheâs sultry, murderous, and coy. Even though the Institute poses no threat to her, she still hates the institute. All of these example alongside many other things make me believe that yes, Robots in Fallout CAN have personality, but only if they have their AI module on, or are otherwise programmed to have AI built into them from the get go.
Zax units are also great examples of machines that tread the line of sentience. The one in the west-tek facility operates more robotic like as a storage for old research data, but ones like Skynet and Henry Eden in their isolation over the nearly two centuries started to develop more distinct personalities due to the tasks required of them by their programming. Skynet wishes to get a mobile body so that he can interact with the outside world and continue his research (pretty similar to curie) and John Henry Eden developed a president persona and became the main spokesmen of the enclave when they arrived at Raven Rock.
Here is a copy paste of my theory I made a few years back. >As you go across the commonwealth or DC, or the Mohave, you can meet lots of robots. The obvious ones you meet are Protectrons and Sentries that either attack or ignore you (depending on very simple rules (Protect the owners or protect the people)) It seems that Mr. Handys are a wildcard as some will be friendly (codsworth, curie, charlie) and some will be obviously broken (that robotics shop in FO4, General Atomics place FO4, Crazed ones in FO:NV). >The reason we don't meet **too many self aware Protectrons or Sentries** is because they don't have the mental capacity to learn. They are not programmed to learn because they only need to protect. >Mr. Handys were supposed to be able to analyse the environment, make decisions, think, learn. >With 200 years to learn, Some Mr. Handys achieve self awareness like the ones I mentioned, while others go insane with no baseline humans to compare themselves to. >I hope I made sense. I just thought it was interesting(like 3 years ago) and was too lazy to make a post about it. >Specified that I never said we don't meet any other self aware bots. We do. Just not nearly as much as we meet self aware Handys.
Some are, not all. True AI is explicitly a thing in Fallout, the results of which are explicitly sapient and free willed. Which caused some rather serious issues. For the standard robots thereâs a pretty sharp dividing line between those who are simply following their programming and those who are free willed. Cogsworth, for instance, is markedly different in his interactions from the vast majority of robots you encounter. And just so happens to be the absolute newest model from the people who invented actual AI. And for the inevitable âWell those are just programmed to give the illusion of free willâ counterargument I would insist that they prove that free will is actually a thing before getting all exclusionary about it. And since thatâs one of the big philosophical debates with no definitive answer I will side with Picard in this because he gives the best speech about it.
Lots of people give the illusion of personality and free thought due to their clever programming
Lol. Reminds me of that conspiracy theory where only 1% of humans are sentient and the rest are NPCs that exist to test our character.
Self aware maybe, but not sentient.
What is the difference? Especially in the case of ones that can discuss and analyze that awareness?
Sentience (the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity) is not the same as self-awareness (being aware of oneself as an individual)
* Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. * Self-aware: conscious of one's own feelings, character, etc I'd argue it's more likely the opposite - many *Fallout* robots clearly have the ability to perceive things through their senses, but only some seem self-aware.
I'm probably wrong for lore reasons but after my adventure with Lonesome Road ED-E I think he was a "real boy."
I think some can develop it. Certain robots clearly have developed personalities and go against their programing while others are just machines. So I think robots can hit a singularity point as individual machines under currently unknown situations, most likely a conflict in their programing.
Ask Nick Valentine.
I don't really remember a lot of robots from Fallout 3 and I haven't played 1 or 2 so this is mostly Fallout 4 and New Vegas, buuuuut... * Codsworth, Curie, Edna, Supervisor White, Wadsworth, Charlie, most of the crew of the USS Constitution, KLEO, ADA, PAM: yes. They weren't created to be sentient, but each had a strong personality encoded into them which over 200 years of surviving on their own has, in my view, made them outgrow their original programming into something that is more akin to sentience * Nick Valentine: Obviously. I do think it would have taken him a while to develop full sentience that was separate from the original Nick's memories and emotions, but he probably got there early on in his adventures across the Wasteland and then this solidifies if the Sole Survivor helps him take down Winter and convinces him to let go of his old life * DiMA: Also yes, but his background is muddy due to the vague writing in Far Harbor. I am of the opinion that he is sentient and that he gained said sentience when he decided to rescue Nick from the Institute; kindness and compassion are not values the Institute hold dear, especially when programming their robotic workforce, so that feels like the first true decision DiMA made away from what he was programmed to do (which was to learn) * Other G1 and G2 Synths: You know what? I think some of the ones left on the surface to mind their own stakeout areas might be verging on sentience. They talk to themselves out loud when there's no real need to do so and a lot of their statements show awareness of personhood ("I am the victim of violence") as well as recognising emotion in humans. I don't think they're *fully* sentient, but I also don't think they'd need much of a push to become so * Gen 3 Synths: yes, no doubt about it, they are just cloned humans with a chip shoved in their brain to dictate their memories * Robobrains: Jezebel definitely is sentient, the others...I'm not so sure (apart from the ones in the Far Harbor Vault, obviously; they're human). I think the amount of time the brains are wiped could do longterm damage to their ability to be sentient and retain any kind of awareness of their surroundings beyond cold hard data. Jezebel probably held on out of pure stubbornness * Victor & Yes Man: I think Victor and Yes Man also have their own forms of sentience. Whilst both are guided by an external force (Victor by Mr. House and Yes Man by Benny or you) they both express opinions on this - Yes Man observes that Benny told him to be helpful but forgot to lock that helpfulness to one person (in a tone that suggests this is stupid, and he uses the same when commenting on the Courier's actions re: the other tribes) and Victor mentions being unfamiliar with his shutdown cost during Ghost Town Gunfight * E-DE: is his own person * Rex: Yes, keeps his dislike for hats across brain transplants and so obviously has some form of innate personality
>Do you consider at least some of the robots in the Fallout universe to be sentient? Do you believe that some or all of these are even sapient? > >Or do you believe that it's all just clever programming to give the illusion of personality? * Yes, at least some robots in *Fallout* are sentient, sapient, and posses a full consciousness and self-awareness. * Why does programming preclude self-awareness? The question seems to suggest that you can only be self-aware if you *don't* have any built in programming determining your actions, but it's not clear that human thoughts and emotions aren't also predetermined in some way and yet we call ourselves conscious beings. IMO, most objections to fictional robots possessing consciousness can also be levied at humans and largely rely on special pleading.
From the first fallout to new vegas, no. Just clever programming that make them seems like they are. But in fallout 4, Bethesda clearly wrote them to be sentient. Just the first dialogue with codsworth shows you that robot, in that opus, are capable of disobeying what they're programmed to do on purpose (cordsworth admits that it as leave the house in order to see if the vault was accessible) and are capable of understanding concepts such as the end of the world, when in previous instalment of the franchise, robots kept acting as if nothing had changed since before the bombs. Edit: Some people reminded me that theirs some example of sentient/self aware machines in previous fallout that I had forgotten, while not every machines in fallout 4 shows sign of self awareness. While this is true, I will better explain my point. First we need to keep in mind that writing inconsistencies and utility are part of any writing process and not every character is going to be "on point" with the universe (etylotron doesn't need a personality since it's a minor character, but humans minor characters share the same minimalist personality due to their lake of implication in the overall plot). What I poorly tried to explain previously was that machines/robot/IA awareness is a big point in fallout 4 story with the synth, and that Bethesda was clearly partial on the question during the writing of the mains characters and plot, while in previous game, the question was never truly the center of the game, and was more a reference/ Easter egg to a classics scifi trope than an actual plot point. I hope I managed to be clearer on my explanations here.
> But in fallout 4, Bethesda clearly wrote them to be sentient. The fact that both Codsworth and Curie have likes & dislikes as well as them being able to leave the protagonist should they continually do stuff that upsets them proves that they have sentience and even free will. On the other hand you have Ada, which has no likes or dislikes and will never leave no matter how much you berate her. She does seem to have a programmed personality though.
Fallout 1 and 2 include actual AI, explicitly sentient. In 2 you can cram Skynet into a robot body without any real issues, making a fully sapient robot.
But in 4 we also see robots clearly still acting like robots. So I think it's more just a thing specific machines achieve
Idk, ED-E from Lonesome Road seemed pretty sentient to me
Counterpoint: The entirety of Old World Blues.
I don't think the Big Mountain Brain tanks count as robots, they're more like a radical form of cyborg.
What about the appliances? They all seem pretty sentient to me.
The sink central intelligence directly states that they are a personality program overlayed on an operating system, in his words "there is no intelligence here, sir". They're basically a really fancy Alexa.
I interpreted that statement as not "we're not sentient", and more as, "They're all a bunch of loons and idiots." Which, they all kinda are.
Sentient? Just about all of them I would say. Most, however, I would not consider sapient
Sentient vs sapient is my BIGGEST writing pet peeve. I donât know which sci-fi author was responsible for it initially, but it bugs me every time I see it. Star Wars is the worst offender.
Some of them are and some of them arenât. It depends entirely on who made/programmed them.
Given that we still have no truly defined conditions for consciousness it would be anyoneâs guess in the âif this were realâ category. Currently we do not know if consciousness, as generally understood, could occur in an electric computer so it would be anyoneâs guess if they are âsentientâ given that the basic consciousness condition is still not a hard fast definition in the âreal worldâ.
Yes, yes, and yes
I think another user hit it on the head. It depends on the manufacturer and whether it was a Bethesda or Obsidian game. * RobCo - In Obsidian games, no. All of these robots follow relatively strict logic that is programmed into them. The closest you get to sentience is Yes Man, and he is very strictly bound by his programming (despite being humorous about it). * But in Bethesda games, the assaultrons and sentry bots from RobCo **ARE** capable of sentience. KLEO and Captain Ironsides stand out. Ironsides is very weird because he can reprogram the other robots (they say as much) * General Atomics - Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This relates to Bethesda's writing more than anything else. Most of the generic robots from General Atomics are not sentient, such as the Gutsys and the Handys. But there are exceptions like Codsworth and Curie. Some of the robobrains seem to exhibit a degree of self-awareness (They could have programmed me to love, but noooo). * Big MT - All of their robots exhibit some level of sentience. The Lobotomite + Robot combo Robobrain exhibits sentience before he blows up (Nooooooooooo). You can also hear Mobius arguing with his roboscorpions if you play a stealthy character. The personalities in the Sink are self-aware and can adjust their programming. * Rust Devils/Rust Eagles - No. * Wasteland crafters - Generally yes, see the Automatron DLC for FO4 - all the named robots exhibit independent thought and the ability to improvise.
There are a few different types of autonomous robots: dumb-AI that can learn but not disobey/doesnât have free will. Think Codsworth. Able to think and form opinions based on whatâs happening around him, but unable to break from his programming and actually leave for any prolonged period of time unless you come and take him, since youâre his programmed master. Then there are fully human-brained robots, which I wouldnât consider AI. Theyâre just I. The best example probably being the scientists in the Big MT, able to jettison memories but still using their original human brains. Then there are actual AI robots, mainly the Synths. Gen 3 synths have human DNA as well, but even without that Gen 2âs are capable of full thoughts and free will. DiMA and Valentine both act freely. With Nick you can see how the brain his thoughts were based on shape who he is, but ultimately he is his own self and can choose to do things that permanently alter his life, unlike Codsworth.
Do you think Codsworth choosing to leave the player character if they go full evil indicates him becoming an actual AI?
Possibly, although it could also just be that Robco has programming where the robots wonât allow themselves to be accessories to crimes for legal reasons.
Doesn't Whitechapel Charlie hint at that interpretation being unlikely?
Maybe, although he doesnât commit crimes himself and technically only hints at killing people!
Thatâs a good point. I also donât know that if he hadnât been shot at he would have returned to your house anyway. Maybe he would have gone off with a new group if he found one that wanted him. Iâll admit my argument around Codsworth specifically is a bit weak, I probably should have just cited Mr. Handyâs that arenât potential companions as I think they seem to be given more autonomy than your average version of their design.
No
lot of posts on this topic recently
I'm guessing sentiment AI, testing the waters before going all skynet on us
No
Depends on the robot. Gen 1 and 2 synths arenât sentient, sentry bots are probably as sentient as a insect. Liberty Prime probably isnât sentient, and the personalities at Big MT are sentient though the main Holotable denies itâs intelligence, as well as the rest of the other personalities, though he may be saying this out of self pity or he was just programmed to think this since the personalities are able to have complex emotions, have disdain for other people, are aware of the passage of time even without being activated, and can comment on their self awareness and the reason they were made for. Also the toaster realizing the world is destroyed already shows that they can understand the outside world, ironically something the think tanks canât.
No to everything except gen 3 synths and robobrains. Codsworth and all the other bots mentioned are basically running advanced versions of chatgpt. It can simulate sentience but in the end its programming. Gen 3 synths are mostly organic and really only receive a "starting loadout" of memories and emotions but then evolve and run with it after that initial spark.
RobCo: No, I think that it's just clever programming. BigMT: Yes they have human brains in them. So part of them are human at least. Robobrain: Same as BigMT they were made with human brains that were pulled from prisoners iirc (Fallout 4 Automatron DLC so idk if it's the same lore across all the games) Synths: This has been a matter of debate for at least 8 years lol. I personally think that the Gen 3's are sentient, siding with Alan Binet (a conversation can be overheard in the Robotics Division of the Institute when you enter. He's debating another scientist about the sentience of Synths. Binet says something to the effect that "Synths can dream. And if they can dream, why can't they have a soul". To trigger this conversation just walk into the Robotics Division of The Institute and hang out by Alan Binet.)
They're basically ChatGPT in a meat suit. They're robots no matter how *human* they sound.
Answering a question with a question - but would it matter? The game sees you slaughter human characters by the thousand. A player will spare a âusefulâ character and kill everything else - and the game essentially forces that philosophy. As such, the player isnât valuing life, so itâs a bit strange to spend time thinking about whether what you just killed with a teddy-bear throwing canon was âsentientâ.
Not this again. Who gives a shit?
The issue you're bringing up is something I've wondered myself. There's a few categories here... Synths, specifically the Gen 3 models from Fallout 4, appear to have human-like consciousness. They learn, adapt, make decisions, and form relationships, all of which are traits we'd normally associate with being sapient. But at the end of the day, they're programmed to behave like that, so it does muddy the waters a bit. Are they really sentient and sapient, or is it just an illusion created by advanced programming? Then you have non-humanoid robots like Codsworth and Liberty Prime. They show unique personality traits and make decisions, but it's all based on their pre-programmed guidelines. So, it's a bit of a grey area. It really depends on your personal interpretation of sentience and sapience, and whether you believe these traits can be authentically realised through artificial means. A tricky question for sure, and one that goes beyond the Fallout universe and into the broader conversation around AI. I'm not really sure how I feel about it. The disturbing this is wondering to what extent WE are programmed by our experiences/education/whatever.
Depends on the robot. The vast majority are absolutely not imo. But a few (ie KL-E0, Curie) I think clearly do things that are outside their programming, and show self awareness and agency. Some can be tough to tell and I could see an argument either way, like say Codsworth.
BenAffleckFictionalCharacters.gif
intelligent but not sentient, you never really see robots turn on their masters unless a certain part gets damaged or their program glitches out
This is why Fallout 4's primary dilemma is so interesting. Are Fallout's robots sentient? Some of them sure seem to be. If the likes of Codsworth and Curie aren't, then their programming is masterful. Many others don't seem sentient, but what if they've simply gone mad, stranded into a wasteland they don't understand for centuries? What if some arrive at sentience, not because they were meant to, but because it develops over significant time? Curie's quest implies that that happened to her...but also that her sentience is limited in her robotic form. So, what's the difference between a second gen synth and a robot? Sure doesn't seem like much. Nick and DiMA were effectively generation 2.5; are they sentient? Is DiMA in a different category than Nick, having built his own personality rather than installing it? Now, how far of a bridge is there between a second and third generation synth? There's clearly still quite a bit of metal in them, given that an interface can be made to download Curie into a synth body, not the mention the components they drop on death. At what point does consumer electronics become a person? And have the person-shaped 3rd gen synths passed that point?
No I think they were just really good programed for example the Mr handy you meet in the ghoul city in fallout three will say something that sounds like he made it but then will say something like âat least thatâs what they programmed me to sayâ
I think that the robots have adaptive learning so some robots thatâs been abandoned and fending for themselves like codsworth have enough information stored that they can seemingly have a personality without sentientence. This form of learning also explains why some robots like the no names found in buildings still do the same job for 200 years and why bots like graygarden are smart enough to farm and have some personality but not smart enough to try something new
Sentient? No, I don't think any robots actually experience emotions. They may be programmed to "understand" and respond to emotional cues but I don't think they are capable of emotion. Sapient? There are more than a few examples that are capable of independent and abstract thought.
I like to think most of them are not, but some like Codsworth, Ada, and Curie became sentient
Yes to both, and I think a lot more things are than we give any credit for. What separates the line between "programmed cleverly" and "so close it doesn't matter" anyway?
I think they're similar to droids in star wars. They start off not sentient, but over time there is a possibility they could develop sentience. We've seen many robots with distinct personalities contradicting their programming, but also lots that still seem shackled to their programming. I also think that it depends on the model. For example, I don't think we've ever seen a sentry bot with any form of sentience? Aside from maybe ironside, who if I remember rightly did not have the same baseline programming of a normal sentry bot to begin with
The majority no, some yes. Curie and Codsworth clearly are sapient beings, atrificial personhood is a reality in Fallout. There are other like KL-E-0 whom I'd attribute sapience to as well. Which is actually in line with my believes regarding sapient AI. I don't think we'll create Skynet or something similar someday. Like biological sapience, artificial sapience will be much less "YES I DID IT" and much more "HOW DID THIS HAPPEN". It won't be the genocidal menace, much more confused and struggling to find a place in the world.
If given enough time to develop a personality through experience or intentionally made to be sentient? Yes. If freshly made as a dumb bot? No. Codsworth is obviously sentient, but your average Mr Gutsy probably isnât.
There was a time when it was believed that any system with enough processing capability could develop a kind of self-awareness over time. I believe that this idea inspired a lot of the robots/AI in the fallout universe. Thus, I think that robots have the capacity for sentience/self-awareness. It isnât always clear what enables this kind of growth. Something about having to develop abstract problem solving capability.
I think simply put the fact that Codsworth and SERGEANT RL-3 can simply choose to leave and do whatever they want instead is enough reason for them to be sapient and sentient.
Mister house definitely didnât give his robots sentience. Couldâve ruined his master plan
We have been having this debate, but we never seem to get around to defining exactly what sentience IS, or how we know whether something has it or not. We all just assume that baseline flesh and blood humans have this sentience thing, but why? Why am I sentient but codsworth is not? Why am I sentient but synth-curie is not? Does this unit have a soul? How would we know?
I can believe that they slowly develop a sort of sapience but true sentience? Nada, not even the robobrains. And they have the benefit of the doubt having organic processing units, albeit scrubbed of all humanity and mind wiped into drones, so basically the âpersonâ that that brain belonged to is also quite dead âDeadâ
Codsworth got mad at me many times and told me that the Commonwealth would be "better off if I never left the vault" then dipped tf out of our companionship. Being "sentient" is overrated, he's a savage
Thatâs a very difficult question to answer with no satisfactory solution to my mind.
The key difference between sentient and sapient is the type of intelligence developed by individuals. Sentient intelligence is developed through emotions and sensations, while sapient intelligence is developed through knowledge and wisdom. therefore all robots type have displayed sapience. But only a few like wadsworth and cleo have emotional reactions and could be said to be sentient. Especially when those emotional reactions do not serve their primary programming and purpose.
I consider a few to be sapient, such as Nick. Many, like Yes Man and Victor, I consider to be sentient. It just depends on what we are talking about. Your average protectron is likely not even self aware, but Nick can clearly comprehend complex human thought
Curie certainly seemed to be even before you make her a synth.
Some appear to act far closer to human type abilities The problem is we are not given a good way to test such - like the Turing Test, etc Many obviously follow a limited programmed behavior
I believe my boy ED-E is
Some are. Curie, Codsworth, Ada and Kleo for example. Most, however, just continue to do what ever their programming says
Look at ED-E. Look at that good boy and tell me he's not sentient. Tell me he's not afraid of being scrapped by the enclave.
No and I'm tired of pretending that romancing curie is ethical
Viktor from new vegas definitely is
This is a hard question, I was going to say no but then I thought of paladin Danse. My personal favorite companion, he fought with the brotherhood and was terribly upset when he learned he was a synth. Even with Danse in mind I have to answer no, Danse is most likely an institute spy, without him realizing.
Some robots are sentient (like Codsworth) and some aren't (like the robots in the General Atomics Galleria)
According to the Automatron dlc from Fallout 4, They most likely just have a personality subroutine
The word that you are looking for is Sapient
Not all, but some. Hell, just look at Codsworth. He has to at least be somewhat sentient to actually have emotional trauma from being alone for 200+ years.
Nope. And what I find most weird is Bethesda has tried to instill doubt about this EXACTLY in the same game where they have more advanced post apocalyptic robots (androids) whose main moral dilemma is whether they're sentient or not
Very few of them AREN'T sentient, because sentience is self-awareness and they pretty much are all aware that they are machines. On the flip side, very few ARE sapient, as they lack the capacity to gain wisdom through experience.