Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)

<< < (30/64) > >>

BenRG:
I've taken a few minutes to re-read Evie's mini-lecture. Really, all she had to do was slightly reword things. She really did come across as saying she considered Synthetics as a latent threat to humanity much the same way that the proliferation of WMDs demonstrably are and that she considered it remarkable that so few humans are reacting appropriately. So, yes, thinking about her chosen wording in panel 3 of strip 3656 in isolation, she does come across as bigoted. However, taking the strip as a whole, I think that it is more poor communication on her part than anything more malicious.

IMO, Evie could have defused a lot of the problem if she's put it this way:

"Humans just don't typically seem to respond aggressively to non-immediate risks and this strongly indicates that the fear of the unknown and the actual threat response instinct are either decoupled in the human mind or at least that this 'different = bad' equation is a low action priority in the average psyche. The point I'm making is that anti-Synthetic activism is a learned behaviour rather than an instinctual response to the unknown or a threat. These people hate because they want to have something to hate; they found something and taught themselves to respond appropriately."

Akima:

--- Quote from: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 02:29 ---Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.
--- End quote ---
"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, or Unit 631. The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.

Piscador:
I have to admit, the turn of events in #3668 caught me by surprise.

I really expected that Bubbles would be thoroughly pissed off with Faye, not Evie. Faye behaved horribly towards Melon. It wasn't just the condescending tone and words (although the whole 'domesticated robo-dick' dialog *was* pretty funny), it was the way that Faye took advantage of Melon's naiveté and accepted $100 for telling her to get batteries.

Bubbles and Faye's long-term business prospects depend on the good will of the AI community. I imagine that if something like that got out, their business would be damaged beyond repair.

Zebediah:
I’d like to back this conversation up a few steps, because I think we may be criticizing Evie for the wrong thing.

Evie is supposedly studying AI psychology. But looking back over Evie’s lecture to Bubbles, she’s actually not talking about AI psychology at all. She’s talking about human responses to AI. She’s not studying AI psychology, but rather human psychology as it relates to AIs. And everyone missed that. She may not be aware of it herself. (Shoot, it’s possible that Jeph might not be aware of what he did here.)

And that, in my opinion, is the real reason that Bubbles should be offended by Evie’s speech. Evie looks at AIs but doesn’t see them - she sees only the reflection of her own kind. The real AI experience is lost. I imagine her AI colleague who is studying her would have some interesting things to say about what this means.

Case:

--- Quote from: Zebediah on 31 Jan 2018, 04:02 ---I’d like to back this conversation up a few steps, because I think we may be criticizing Evie for the wrong thing.

Evie is supposedly studying AI psychology. But looking back over Evie’s lecture to Bubbles, she’s actually not talking about AI psychology at all. She’s talking about human responses to AI. She’s not studying AI psychology, but rather human psychology as it relates to AIs. And everyone missed that. She may not be aware of it herself. (Shoot, it’s possible that Jeph might not be aware of what he did here.)

And that, in my opinion, is the real reason that Bubbles should be offended by Evie’s speech. Evie looks at AIs but doesn’t see them - she sees only the reflection of her own kind. The real AI experience is lost. I imagine her AI colleague who is studying her would have some interesting things to say about what this means.
--- End quote ---

Actually, Evie's field is "post-singularity psychology" - which I'd assume means human psychology (Could be wrong, of course - but a) Why would humans not default to themselves, we do it all the time even amongst our own, as Sitnspin & Akima have pointed out above b) AI are a very young species).

That changes nothing about her talking right over Bubbles and not seeing her, and that not being OK.

It would, however, provide an answer to IICIH's question from previous WCDT's: Why she, as a researcher, isn't being more sensitive - didn't she get any sort of briefings on how to behave around members of the culture she studies? (*) Nope, she didn't, since AI aren't her research subject, humans are. And she isn't an "AI-anthropologist", either - she's a human psychologist studying the effects of the presence of AI on human psyche.


(*) The 'topic' seems to be well-known amongst anthropologist since at least the late 60's -> Googlebooks "Indians and Anthropologists", the intro page is quite ... instructive.

I think I also recall seeing some 'best practises' recommendations for newbie anthropologists studying native Americans. The list was quite long.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page