Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Carl-E:
I think it would if it had a fully autonomous mode. I think it has some robotic programming but without the benefit of a full AI (Really, would you want a hand with a mind of its own? I remind you (again) of Dr. Strangelove!).
Clearly, it has the libido part down, though.
Method of Madness:
I'm pretty sure Dr. Strangelove's hand isn't a robot. It's just a Nazi.
Thiefree:
I'm willing to bet that AnthroPCs take their personality from their usage and the information stored on them.
Winslow is undoubtedly filth-free and used to help Hanners keep things categorised and neat, hence his sunny and innocent disposition.
Momo probably stores copious amounts of anime, hence her appearance.
And Pintsize... well... I'm pretty sure I know what he was originally used for.
Carl-E:
--- Quote from: Method of Madness on 25 Apr 2011, 09:56 ---I'm pretty sure Dr. Strangelove's hand isn't a robot. It's just a Nazi.
--- End quote ---
You're absolutely right, but my point was that it had a mind of its own. Which is why you don't really want a fully sentient body part!
Is it cold in here?:
As a general thing, people are responsible for what their property does.
If AnthroPCs are property, then it could be a real problem to own a device that likes to administer unwanted touches to parts of the body normally covered by underwear.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version