Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 3671 to 3675 (5th to 9th February 2018)
ckridge:
Is it off-topic? Talking about Bubbles's feelings seems to me to be relevant to a strip about Bubbles's feelings. It would irritate the hell out of her if she knew we were discussing her in this academic, abstract fashion, but we aren't in the same universe as her. It doesn't seem likely that any other AIs are listening in. That being the case, I don't see why we shouldn't.
Moderators?
TheEvilDog:
--- Quote from: Aenno on 07 Feb 2018, 11:24 ---
--- Quote from: Neko_Ali on 07 Feb 2018, 11:07 ---Because antropc bodies have specifically been designed to simulate human reactions. Or at least passing similarities. The in universe reasoning probably has something to do with allowing them to closely interact with humans in a way that humans are used to, to better foster human-android relations. The real reason is because Jeph wants them to react in ways similar to humans to better telegraph their emotions to us. Someone like Pintsize or Jeremy, either his old assembly arm or current more humanoid form lack these sorts of reactions so it's harder at a glance for use to identify their emotional state, meaning it has to be spelled out.
--- End quote ---
And the question I'm trying to ask is - is it conscious effort from AI side, and what happens if we move Bubbles' mind into toaster?
--- End quote ---
Bear in mind as well that one of the prominent theories regarding potential Human-AI relations is that of the Uncanny Valley and would possibly be a guiding one in the creation of humanoid AnthroPCs.
The closer to human that something becomes, the more receptive people are in dealing with them. But there comes a point where something gets so humanlike that it starts to scare people and so they react negatively towards it.
To put it this way with the following representing the keypoints of the theory's line.
- Wall-E is considered cute even if its not even vaguely humanoid, but it is expressive through its use of its eyes.
- Robbie the Robot from the film Forbidden Planet is a perennial favourite because it might be humanoid, but it is distinctly non-human.
- The main characters' baby from the Twilight series is seen as an inhuman monster that must be destroyed not because its the child of a vampire, but because it just looks freakin' disturbing!
- Zombies are seen as the most frightening type of monster not because they eat people or are hard to kill, but because they are us, dead and one of the most terrifying moments in our lives is when we see our first corpse.
- Andrew in Bicentennial Man goes through all the points but in his final iteration, he's given flaws and imperfections, a crooked nose, all designed to make him appear human and thus the sharp rise in the valley of the theory.
Its clear in the QC-verse, the need for AI and more specifically their chassis to interact with humans is driven by the Uncanny Valley. You look at every AI in the comic and none of them looks 100% human. There's always something that marks them out as "not human" but still approachable, it could be the colour of their hair, or having an unnatural skin tone, or like Punchbot, just looking like a robot.
Why? Because Humans are keyed to responding to non verbal communication. We arch our eyebrows, the corner of our mouth twitches, we drum our fingers, all of which are clear ways of expressing ourselves. To be a part of that, AI needs to be able to communicate in a way that mirrors its creators. So yeah, its a subconscious part.
TL: Would Faye respond to a toaster, as you asked? Probably not.
Aenno:
I asked not if Faye would be respond to a toaster with Bubble's AI inside, but if toaster with Bubble's AI would respond to Faye. At least the same way Bubble did in current situation. :)
Is it cold in here?:
--- Quote from: ckridge on 07 Feb 2018, 12:42 ---Is it off-topic? Talking about Bubbles's feelings seems to me to be relevant to a strip about Bubbles's feelings. It would irritate the hell out of her if she knew we were discussing her in this academic, abstract fashion, but we aren't in the same universe as her. It doesn't seem likely that any other AIs are listening in. That being the case, I don't see why we shouldn't.
Moderators?
--- End quote ---
Global Moderator Comment I see it as on topic to discuss Ai responses to human beauty. Anyway if I tried to split the thread it would not split cleanly.
SpanielBear:
--- Quote from: Aenno on 07 Feb 2018, 14:00 ---I asked not if Faye would be respond to a toaster with Bubble's AI inside, but if toaster with Bubble's AI would respond to Faye. At least the same way Bubble did in current situation. :)
--- End quote ---
Well we know Station had/has a thing for Hannelore, so a humanoid form is not necessary for an AI to develop feelings of attraction. May's interest in... orrifices... would probably remain, even if she transitioned to a fighter jet (which given what Bubbles has said about romance and close air support is TERRIFYING). So it seems for AI's attraction and libido is based on more than just mimicked behaviour due to sharing the appearance of humanity. It has deeper roots than that.
What's also important to note is that these feelings seem to develop based on the AI's experience. Station and May spend a lot of time around and bonding with humans, and their personalities aren't so alien that connection and empathy is impossible. Contrast that with Spookybot, who had little contact with humanity and is the most alien in terms of distance from our frames of reference. She can communicate, but what she thinks and the meaning behind that communication is fundamentally inaccessible to us meat-bags.
The extent to which AI's can form bonds with humans seems to depend on how much time they've spent with us. If Bubbles were a toaster, she may not have had the same bonding experiences and so may not develop the same feelings, depending on the degree to which she had human companionship. But I think it's clear that if her current personality were transferred into a different chassis, her feelings wouldn't immediately change. At the end of the day, AI psychology seems to developmental, not ontological- their personality forms through experience rather than being defined by their body.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version