Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 3746 to 3750 (21st to 25th May 2018)
Onionvolcano:
--- Quote ---Also, are AIs immortal? Do they face the same issue as Elves from Lord of the Rings -- doomed to watch humans they love slowly age and die? Are robot/human romances doomed to inevitable tragedy?
--- End quote ---
It's been mentioned that the singularity is well underway. We've seen very powerful AI characters, and we've seen Emily interact in virtual space with an "induction interface" that seemed to read her thoughts. How far behind is a fully uploaded human mind? Faye could simply catch up to Bubbles as a digital consciousness with her own immortal existence.
Shjade:
--- Quote from: Tai Fanboi on 22 May 2018, 04:25 ---Gotta say that was deeper then I was expecting. I was waiting for a cut to Marten and Claire in the living room, Faye walking by wrapped in a blanket and coming back with a handful of USB cables back into the bedroom. Then Bubs coming out wrapped in a towel and then walking back with a plate of waffles and syrup a'la Marigold and Dale lol.
--- End quote ---
Not meaning to speak ill of Marigold and Dale, but...Bubbles and Faye have not demonstrated the same sort of, uh...how to put this...they haven't given the impression that they have a lifetime of not-having-sex to make up for all at once, nor that they're the types to tunnel vision on an activity just because it feels good, the way that both Dale and Marigold did.
For D&M, it was funny 'cause it made sense, to a degree. For F&B that would've just been...odd (and also undercut a lot of the emotional buildup that Jeph just put a lot of work into creating), so I'd have been pretty surprised by it going that direction, myself. Not that it would be a bad choice, just would've surprised me.
Morituri:
About AI changing chassis: I think control/perception is probably pretty easy. Knock-on effects of having different interactions because people treat the new chassis differently (gender euphoria, etc) are a whole nother story.
I don't know how many people have ever experienced this, but when you become familiar with operating a machine that has articulated joints and grippers or tools at the end of arms and things like that?
The controls don't need to be nearly as "easy" as you'd expect to make the machine operate precisely and fluently. In fact controls that try to mediate the process too much can be a hindrance.
You can take a crane or a forklift or a scoop bucket or a PTO implement on a tractor or any of a bunch of other things, and just hook them up to the panel of levers next to the cab where each lever just operates one cylinder, and start using it. You'll be clumsy when you start, and you'll have to stop and think about how to do each operation and what levers that means to pull or push. But within hours, you'll be using it competently, and within a day or so, fluently. Without thinking any more about pulling or pushing the individual levers.
Most people who drive, have done this with cars so long ago that they don't even remember the process. You're not thinking about the steering wheel and the gas and the clutch and the brake and the gearshift lever when you drive; you're fluently adjusting course and speed and angle without thinking about exactly how to accomplish each operation. The same thing works with much much more complicated machinery such as articulated arms.
So I imagine an AI as having ten or twelve "standard control interfaces" the way we have two hands, and each new chassis is handled by a bunch of 'controls' (could be two for a toaster, or a hundred for a humanoid chassis) which the control interfaces can manipulate or switch between as needed. Once an AI moves in and inhabits the thing, it takes only a little bit of practice to get the hang of running it via those controls, and fluency is just a matter of working it out.
Imagine how natural your car would feel by now if you were driving 24 hours a day and you didn't have distractions like sensory perceptions distinct to your body instead of mediated by the car. IE, if you could drive, without having to be even aware of your own physical instrumentality as a driver.
fayelovesbubbles:
Pretty sure Faye is Bubbles’ first everything.
Anyway...I think Faye feels pretty good cuddling Bubbles, so we can surmise that she doesn’t feel like wet plastic or whatever.
Bad Superman:
--- Quote from: namelips on 22 May 2018, 10:43 ---But that's not necessarily what I think is the interesting thing about robot/human romance... I'm more interested in things like Bubbles' chassis. Bubbles is an AI, a thinking computer program that can inhabit anything from a toaster to a fighter jet to a humanoid chassis. She has a distinct personality and, no matter what chassis she inhabits, she will always be a distinct and unique being -- Bubbles.
I like to think Faye would love Bubbles no matter what -- but this is an issue unique to human/robot romances. How good are humans at transferring our romantic affection to a new physical form? Bubbles might not want to be a combat bot forever, or her chassis might suffer damage or break down, requiring her to find a new one to live in.
--- End quote ---
A question similar to yours is briefly touched upon in the TNG episode The Measure Of A Man.
In short:
A cybernetics expert named Maddox wants to experiment on Data, mostly by disassembling him, which poses the very real threat of Data's destruction. Maddox continuously treats Data like a machine, denying him basic human rights (as displayed, for example, by him entering Data's quarters "unannounced and without permission"). When asked by Picard why he seems to care so little for Data's personhood, Maddox ultimately says this:
"You are imparting Human qualities to it because it looks Human – but I assure you: it is not. If it were a box on wheels I would not be facing this opposition."
- Maddox, to Picard and Louvois
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version