Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 22-26 August 2011 (1996-2000)
Heliphyneau:
Just wanted to chime in and say I love that Momo's consoling the sad toaster in the final panel -- in fact, the whole thing with the toaster is hilarious, from "I make bread fun!" (yes, I would like that on a t-shirt please) to Charlotte tossing it and Leda resignedly getting ready to catch it, right to the ending commiseration. Very silly and cute. Charlotte's singing and joie de vivre was funny too, though she seems more the 'I enjoy life at the expense of others' type so far. Wonder how many more chassis they have, and if Momo will do a try before you buy thing. Guess we'll see soon.
And is that really a bomb-defuser bot in the background? There's something about the, er, business end of that thing in the final panel that says "laser" (complete with air quotes).
gangler:
--- Quote from: stoutfiles on 25 Aug 2011, 11:00 ---
--- Quote from: gangler on 25 Aug 2011, 10:02 ---
--- Quote from: stoutfiles on 25 Aug 2011, 05:16 ---I also don’t understand the business model of freeing a slave, as the store currently operates on. I could pay $30,000 to “buy” a robot, only to have it turn around the next day and say “Well, I’m outta here, bye!”. Why am I buying a robot if I have no control over it?
--- End quote ---
And yet people continue to have children.
--- End quote ---
People have children because it's a part of them, among many other things. However, from what you cited it isn't relevant since a child can not legally choose to head out into the world. If found, it will be returned. You do own your child until they are of age.
--- End quote ---
And yet they're hard to control and they will eventually head out on their own. The point was that people don't need a sound investment or good odds or control in order to "buy" something. Just needs to be an appealing option to them somehow.
If people are willing to cripple their finances and their quality of life for a kid they probably won't get along with, who may or may not take after them, who might not even come out healthy or possessed of a fully functional mind, and who will inevitably leave them even in the best case scenario then I'm sure they could be convinced to invest in a robot to keep them company which at the very least isn't terribly high on the upkeep.
Comparisons aren't perfect. If it matched in every way I'd just be reiterating the situation. The similarities are there. I suppose as you mention a mandatory trial period could work well. Neither party being allowed to break it off until they'd at least spend 10 years together or something like that, but I really don't get the impression the robots are meant to be that big a commitment, and it might even reduce some of the appeal if they were made to be so.
Throg:
This forum is the best. Y'all are actually having a discussion on the ethics of human / AI interaction!
As for the whole 'children' argument -- kids get older; their minds and personalities develop. With these last couple of strips, it makes it seem like AI's actually grow and develop, too -- which really does make it seem the QCverse has 'strong' AI.
Personally, I can't quite buy into the whole 'strong AI' concept, no matter what. All I can conceive of is a 'chinese wall' type AI -- good enough to fool us, but the computer has no 'soul' / 'spark' / 'ghost' / what-have-you. Just enough of programmed responses to social stimuli to fool humans and even other AI's.
gangler:
I would argue that we don't have what you describe there either.
And yeah, loving this week's discussion.
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: stoutfiles on 25 Aug 2011, 11:00 ---You do own your child until they are of age.
--- End quote ---
No, that's not how it is (unless you are somewhere that there is a trade in children, I suppose).
--- Quote ---If I lived in the QC world I would...
--- End quote ---
...be a fish out of water.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version