[RareBreed]

Has there ever been a recorded instance of an awakened AI?  Would it be possible?

If AI are some kind of special Resonance life form (making them akin to Sprites), then I would assume not.  However, if AI are truly "alive", then why wouldn't they be able to have mana channeled through/by them?  And this gets me to thinking, wouldn't AI give off auras if they were truly alive?  If they do not, then AI are not true "living" forms (which opens a can of worms on their rights to just about anything).

I sincerely hope that the definition of "life" required for becoming awakened is not prejudiced towards biological forms only, even if just from a game story point of view.  Wouldn't it be cool to have awakened AI? 

[Critias]

My money's on "not possible."

[CanRay]

I'd suggest asking the E-Ghost Dragon.

Of course, you'd probably have to cut a deal with him, and, well... 

[Lacynth40]

Um, as far as mana slinging, I would have to go with, WHAT??? No, seriously, the game books are pretty specific on mana not flowing through sensors, and magic not working on AR or VR perceptions. So, no, gonna have to go with, NO! AI's are already beefy enough. You do not need one slinging spells and summoning spirits as well. The electronic medium they live in will not support mana exchanges.

That's just my opinion, though.

[RareBreed]

But is it that mana can't flow throw sensors, AR, VR or other circuitry because they aren't "alive"?  Also, are there any rules on awakened using cybereyes?  Or what about magesight systems?  Basically, that's just a fiber optic cable that runs to the mages real eyes.  I don't see a difference between that and having an AI mind look through some kind of interface.

Frankly, I found the whole "mana only flows through living things" to be problematic.  It hampers the Awakened in space, and it also makes one beg the question, what is life?  If a machine had free will, was sentient, sapient, and can reproduce, what more do you need to be called living?  A soul?  I'm a Buddhist...look up anatta or sunyata for our take on souls

[Trenchknife]

My understanding is that any awakened being that tries to use its astral sense in space is about to have a very bad day.  I don't remember the reference, but space is a 'virtual' vacuum, and devoid of life.  Life is a REQUIREMENT for magic.  You must have Essence in order to use magic. 

So...AI's are not living in any biological sense.  Thus they can have no Essence.  Thus they can have no access to magic.  That's my understanding.

[CanRay]

Maybe if the AI is looking through Fiber Optics? 

[bigity]

My understanding is that any awakened being that tries to use its astral sense in space is about to have a very bad day.  I don't remember the reference, but space is a 'virtual' vacuum, and devoid of life.  Life is a REQUIREMENT for magic.  You must have Essence in order to use magic. 

So...AI's are not living in any biological sense.  Thus they can have no Essence.  Thus they can have no access to magic.  That's my understanding.

Yet cyberzombies, which have no essence (in fact, negative essence) can be sustained by magic, even making them dual-natured.

[RareBreed]

But that goes back and begs the question...what is life?  Is it only biological?  In that case yes, AI can not be "alive", and can not have Essence.  But what about Spirits?

From Street Magic:
"Complicating the ongoing debate over the independent sapience of spirits is the fact that they have yet to be conclusively demonstrated to be alive in the classic sense."

Spirits aren't necessarily alive, and yet they obviously have Essence and can use magic.  So it seems to me that AI are still a kind of "life force".

[Critias]

You're mixing a philosophical debate into a rules question.  Or perhaps vice-versa.  That's really interesting and all, but if you choose to change the canon to suit your debate, just be aware you're flying into house rule territory.

Allowing AIs to have a Magic attribute goes against the (firm) ruling in Runner's Companion, page 89.  "Metasapients may never have a Magic or Resonance attribute, and so may not learn skills that require these attributes," as well as the list of Qualities that are allowed to them (note that Magician, Adept, Mystic Adept, and even Technomancer are not options).

[RareBreed]

Thanks Critias

this is what I was looking for, some canonical ruling that would forbid AI's from being Awakened.  My interest was in perhaps weaving a storyline with Awakened AI if the potential was there, but if this is flat out denied, then that idea goes out the window.

Pity though...

[Critias]

If you want a magical one in your home campaign, make a magical one.  It wasn't that long ago there were no AIs, after all, or that a dragon first got a datajack installed and leapt into the Matrix, or that weres or ghouls or free spirits weren't PC material.  If you think it's a cool idea (and can think of a way or reason for an AI to cast a spell in the first place), knock yourself out.  Make it a plot point in a campaign you run, and have fun with it.

I question, personally, the blurring of the "magic versus machine" line like that, and I wonder when or how an AI would do anything with magic (since AIs don't really exist in the real world, would they cast spells in the Matrix?  How would that interact with other people operating through technological rather than "real" statistics?  Would they summon spirits in the Matrix, while everyone else had Sprites?  Could an AI cast spells through monofilament lenses into the real world?  How would a GM or PCs challenge such an uber-security-rigger type character?  Besides offering one interpretation of the "What it means to be alive" philosophical debate, what would a magical AI actually do?)...but, hey.  If you think it's a badass idea and can make it work in your campaign, make it work. 

There's no need to let my misgivings, or some silly rulebook, stop you.  It's your game, not ours.

[RareBreed]

Hi Critias-

It's funny, because I personally question the divide between man and machine   I'm interested in Transhuman concepts, or what exactly defines "humanity" (or metahumanity as the case may be).  As a corollary, I question what it means to be "alive".  After reading some more of the rules, I have come to the conclusion that AI in the Shadowrun world are not truly alive (just special programs, indeed, it flat out says so in the Runners Companion), and thus would have no moral quandries about "enslaving" or "killing" them (I put them in quotes, because if you are not truly alive but a construct, how can you be enslaved or killed?....regardless of whether you think you have freewill, emotions, and the will to live).   To me, this distinction between man and machine, or more appropriately, life and unlife, feels artificial, and I get a feeling something like I did when in Star Wars it was explained that the Force was generated by living midichlorians.  However, from a purely game balance situation, I can kind of understand the need for this distinction.

But more tangent to your point is regarding "officiality" of rules.  When you go against canon, it technically isn't "Shadowrun" anymore, it's my own hacked version.  It's one thing to have house rules which alter how initiative or combat is done for example, because these are rules intended to help simulate reality.  There is a basis for them.  But storyline is something different.  The shadowrun world, it's origins, ideas, and atmosphere are entirely fictional....BUT based on a certain internal worldview.  And this fictional setting doesn't have to borrow anything from the real world.

More importantly the setting is a shared, communal experience.  Take a look at these forums for example.  There are many reasons people go to them, but one of them is to share in this world setting.  If you go against how things are according to the setting, when you describe your campaign to others, they are going to be surprised.  To put it another way, there's no (plausible) way you could transplant gamers from a canonical game world campaign into a non-canonical one.  It would be no more different than allowing Technomancer/Awakened, or say for example ruling that augmentation has no essence cost (because perhaps the GM feels that essence is akin to a soul, and they don't believe in souls).  As an analogy, it would be akin to saying in Battletech for example, that the Clans never invaded the Inner Sphere, or that the Clans didn't take a martial philosophy.  To do this means you aren't really playing Battletech anymore, and you can't share your experience with others. 

So, I am playing in Shadowrun's sandbox, and many players want to feel they are playing in "that" world.  Sure, a GM comes up with ideas, but those ideas are both fed and constrained by the canonical setting.  Some aspects are just too core, and having Awakened AI would be like a -6 Essence upgrade

[Critias]

Without getting into a philosophical debate concerning the very nature of role playing games (or, rather, trying to get into that debate but be concise about it), I disagree.  Published materials are inspiration, not Word of God.  All this stuff is just pixels in a pdf file or splashes of ink on paper; if you get some mileage out of it and it helps you run an awesome game, great, but never, ever, let it get in the way of that awesome game.

Now, if you and your players have decided, as a group, to stick with the canonical setting, that's fine, don't get me wrong.  But I don't think people need to feel obligated to, or should feel like they're playing Shadowrun "wrong" if they make a conscious decision to make big changes, or to fill in some of the "what if...?" conspiracy gaps with their own answers, or to set a game in 2045 or 2085 instead of anywhere in the published sourcebook timeline, or anything else they want to do.  If it's awesome for you and your gaming group, it's awesome.  Period.  Adherence to canon is strictly optional, in my opinion.

"Let slinging dice, telling cool stories, and having fun be the whole of the law." 

[RareBreed]

Oh I definitely agree it's my game    I would never deny anyone to play how they feel it should be played.

But me personally, I feel an obligation to play in the same sandbox everyone else is, and provide a world that is compatible with that setting.  Like I said, gaming is a shared experience.  Some people feel that the only "community" that matters is their own little gaming group.  There's definitely nothing wrong with that.

But there's also the point to be made that there's a larger community than just your local gaming group.  And when you are in that larger community, you play by those rules or in that setting.

So really, it depends on your gaming group.  If everyone in the group is ok with cutting off a core essence setting of a game (magic slinging androids, technomancer/shamans, or zero-essence loss street samurai for example), then more power to that group.  But if there are those who feel that they aren't truly playing Shadownrun anymore because of those core changes, that way of thinking should also be respected.  With the emergence of non-local gaming using computer software to play with many people from across the world, I think that these ways of thinking needs to be addressed more carefully.  House rules are one thing.....House setting is another.

In general though, I think people want or at least like consensus.  They want either an official say-so, or at least a broad acceptance that some rules, history or aspect of the setting fits in with the rest of the world if there is no definitive answer.  If this were not true, forums wouldn't be popular   People would just come up with their own rules and settings without regard for how the larger community does things.

Neither approach is right or wrong, but it's definitely something to be discussed with the group you game with.