Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT strips 3671 to 3675 (5th to 9th February 2018)

<< < (27/45) > >>

TheEvilDog:
It might also be a survival mechanism for Bubbles, making herself as small a target as possible when she’s at her most vulnerable, when charging.

Plus I imagine a reinforced bed is pretty expensive.

fayelovesbubbles:

--- Quote from: Tova on 07 Feb 2018, 21:19 ---Bubbles is nothing if not pragmatic, and a second bed would take up a lot of floor space. It would probably drive them crazy.

--- End quote ---

Bubbles is the type where she could share a bed for a night with someone she's super attracted to and absolutely nothing would happen, because Bubbles is a lady.

Actually in my user picture they're sort of sharing the bed. I'm too lazy to find that comic. Blegh.

I know I sound like a shipper, but it feels nice to see Faye and Bubbles be close to each other, which is why I picked that picture.

Is it cold in here?:

--- Quote ---The problem with consciousness isn't that it's slow.

--- End quote ---

It took my conscious mind days to add up all the danger signs in that parking lot incident, an incident to which my hindbrain reacted in about a second.

******

BenRG nailed it. The Pugnacious Peach is not oblivious. This is active denial.

Tova:
Yes, I agree. For whatever reasons. (edit: I mean she's in denial for whatever reasons, not I agree for whatever reasons  :mrgreen:)

On a topic that is only superficially related to physical space, I am kind of surprised that Faye and Bubbles get on so well without friction (that we've seen - I think) given that they are pretty well living in each others pockets. They share a house, share a bedroom, and work with each other. I've known couples that end up working in the same company, and they went to some trouble to ensure they were in different projects.

Speaking personally, I do not think it would be good for my relationship for my partner if we were to work with each other. And when we're on holiday, we usually have at least one day or half day where we separate and do our own thing. Even though (or maybe because) by the end, we are really wanting to get back together and share with each other what we've experienced.

Close relationships are a wonderful thing, but people need their space.

Aenno:

--- Quote from: SpanielBear on 07 Feb 2018, 20:38 ---Let's go back to your toaster. Which is not a sentence I thought I'd ever write, but never mind. If the toaster reports feeling pain, you are right that it almost certainly is experiencing different qualia to you. But the question then becomes, what is it trying to say? Because assuming it is an intelligent toaster, it has the same knowledge you do- it knows you feel things differently than it does. So when it complains about pain, what reaction does it hope to get? Why say that?


--- End quote ---
As I said I never had a problem with a AI developing love, affection, anger, suffering. If toaster would say he is in pain, I'd assume that he is experiencing suffering, and wouldn't try to feed painkillers to him. Actually having AIs around would turn this kind of semantic to actually major thing. It's entirely possible to feel suffering without pain, and affection without arousal. When AI would try to learn what's love is, I really hope they wouldn't use porn or romantic novels only, but would look into Lee works, for example.


--- Quote from: SpanielBear on 07 Feb 2018, 20:38 ---Bubbles has needs which are functionaly emotional, and is operating in a human society where those needs are only going to be met if she can communicate them. The exact qualia she experiences are ultimately irrelevant, as long as the communication works between her and those she associates with. On a wider level, AI's in their programming can make that communication as subtle or as explicit as they like- so they can use their words, or also program in non-verbal communication cues that work just as well. The human language is there, so while they are with us they have no reason not use it.

--- End quote ---
Once again I should point that I haven't problem with any AI developing love or affection. Station and Winslow developed it to Hannelore. Momo has it for Marigold. Pintsize has it for Marten and Faye. May had it about Dale (and about Momo, by the way). I never tried to make assumption about arousal being basis for affection, for instance.
Problem is, Bubbles shows reactions that linked in our culture to arousal (or, if you want, lust). Why functionaly emotional need (let's use term "storge", I believe it fits) would create specific responses our culture uses to block lust?
That's it - human language is here. We have different words for arousal and love, for agape and storge, for pain and suffering, for hope and expectancy; we're messing around with them, trying to rely on context and some kind of shared experience of being physical persons, reading same books, listening one music, all that things. And if toaster AI would want to minimize human being confused, why not using correct term humans have, not a term linked to physical sensation toaster haven't?
The problem would be that humans would need to learn human languages as well.

Actually a lot of things would be easier. Imagine "Return of the Jedi", scene where Solo asking Leia is she loves Luke.
Leia: I storge him, not eros him.
Solo: *happy*
Miscommunication: Avoided. AI: Happy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page