Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 3606-3910 (31st December 2018 to 4th January 2019)
oddtail:
--- Quote from: traroth on 04 Jan 2019, 06:49 ---
--- Quote from: oddtail on 04 Jan 2019, 04:56 ---
--- Quote from: traroth on 04 Jan 2019, 04:46 ---I just realize most AI must have doppelgangers, as chassis are not unique. So we could see others characters looking exactly like, say, Momo. Or Winslow. Or PT410X. Bubbles has probably a very unique chassis, though...
--- End quote ---
I hope there is something about facial features that's customizable to an extent, or at least that factories that produce chassis introduce some minor random variation.
Then again, seeing as AI are individual, and it's not like human identical twins can't give a different impression when you meet them, maybe the way AI move their facial muscles makes them different enough?
That makes me wonder. Just how detailed is an artificial body's face? If it's simplified, that must necessarily limit emotional expression. If it's detailed, it'd be incredibly creepy to humans due to Uncanny Valley. I guess the best solution would be for facial features to be somewhat cartoonish in-universe (less threatening, less Uncanny Valleyish, still extremely expressive). But that might ALSO backfire in that AI would subconsciously be perceived as immature or not serious.
--- End quote ---
Maybe they have crossed the Uncanny Valley. Maybe they are so human-like they are not creepy or disturbing anymore. Or maybe humans have adapted? Does the Uncanny Valley still make sense when speaking about really intelligent and sensitive beings?
--- End quote ---
I've been thinking about this WAY too much, so a super long post incoming. Sorry :-D
I doubt humans have adapted that quickly. Uncanny Valley is a reaction that I think of as something visceral and largely subconscious. Something completely emotional and not based on worldview or values or anything like that.
I mean, we react differently to someone we *know* is human acting or looking a bit off. And it's not just a reaction of generally prejudiced people. Things looking "not quite right" are unnerving. We base our reactions on looks even when we know someone is intelligent and emotional (and the opposite - we humanize and anthropomorphise anything that's cute or visually non-threatening or otherwise good- and human-looking, even inanimate objects). Either it's human nature, or something so deeply ingrained in Western culture as to be effectively the same as human nature. If I put disturbing-looking make-up on that'd make me look extremely doll-like or give me a weird eye shape or skin tone or something like that, even people who know me would be a bit uncomfortable, I imagine. And they would know I'm still me, so it's not about the fact they'd suddenly treat me as a different person.
I mean, YMMV, but I think of Uncanny Valley as being a fairly normal, default human reaction.
As to them being super-realistic - I doubt it to the extent that the art style suggests they look markedly different from humans in the comic. It's not just the color of the skin. Plus, the colourful bodies would also likely be a conscious decision to avoid an Uncanny Valley-ish effect that flesh-coloured skins might provoke. If that choice was made, it stands to reason that the choice of facial structure was affected by the consideration as well.
Also, when trying to create an appealing image of a person, people in e.g. animation have always gone for exaggeration, and it's no accident that super-realistic drawings look kinda off. I think if popular art, comics and animation, including animation with incredible budgets, hasn't disposed of exaggeration and cartoonish features in a century (and counting drawings, in several millenia), then it's just a good practice that works. Plus, if AI bodies are made as products, the producer would certainly go for artistic and aesthetic value, at least in part, and there's a huge market for things looking cute and simplified (when you have a video game avatar in an online space, or a little person appearing on-screen to help you, is it usually a photorealistic rendition? Are mascots for places and events extremely realistic? Are fursuits at furry conventions? Usually not).
Thirdly, we've seen a variety of types of AI chassis and they often are extremely stylised (including chibi-fied) or have some features simplified (often to imply a lower price tag). Even if there are bodies for AI indistinguishable from those of humans, I doubt they are within a reasonable pricing range, based on the AI and the problems with their bodies we've witnessed in the comic - they may have easily removable skin, feet with no individual toes, arms and legs with obvious connectors and so on. So it's not unreasonable to think they also have relatively simple mechanics of muscle structure and so on, because otherwise there'd be a weird disjoint between a body that has features that are robot-like or almost mannequin-like coupled with a perfectly human-like face. And even that might be a little unsettling, so we're coming back to the problem with Uncanny Valley.
Plus, the negative reactions to AI that we've seen in some strips imply that people are used to being able that an AI is an AI at a glance. And we've never seen anyone doubting someone else being human, so it's either uncommon or unknown that such a possibility may occur (I mean, it's also possible that the comic just never went there, but that'd be speculation based on no in-comic evidence).
traroth:
--- Quote from: oddtail on 04 Jan 2019, 07:26 ---
--- Quote from: traroth on 04 Jan 2019, 06:49 ---
--- Quote from: oddtail on 04 Jan 2019, 04:56 ---
--- Quote from: traroth on 04 Jan 2019, 04:46 ---I just realize most AI must have doppelgangers, as chassis are not unique. So we could see others characters looking exactly like, say, Momo. Or Winslow. Or PT410X. Bubbles has probably a very unique chassis, though...
--- End quote ---
I hope there is something about facial features that's customizable to an extent, or at least that factories that produce chassis introduce some minor random variation.
Then again, seeing as AI are individual, and it's not like human identical twins can't give a different impression when you meet them, maybe the way AI move their facial muscles makes them different enough?
That makes me wonder. Just how detailed is an artificial body's face? If it's simplified, that must necessarily limit emotional expression. If it's detailed, it'd be incredibly creepy to humans due to Uncanny Valley. I guess the best solution would be for facial features to be somewhat cartoonish in-universe (less threatening, less Uncanny Valleyish, still extremely expressive). But that might ALSO backfire in that AI would subconsciously be perceived as immature or not serious.
--- End quote ---
Maybe they have crossed the Uncanny Valley. Maybe they are so human-like they are not creepy or disturbing anymore. Or maybe humans have adapted? Does the Uncanny Valley still make sense when speaking about really intelligent and sensitive beings?
--- End quote ---
I've been thinking about this WAY too much, so a super long post incoming. Sorry :-D
I doubt humans have adapted that quickly. Uncanny Valley is a reaction that I think of as something visceral and largely subconscious. Something completely emotional and not based on worldview or values or anything like that.
I mean, we react differently to someone we *know* is human acting or looking a bit off. And it's not just a reaction of generally prejudiced people. Things looking "not quite right" are unnerving. We base our reactions on looks even when we know someone is intelligent and emotional (and the opposite - we humanize and anthropomorphise anything that's cute or visually non-threatening or otherwise good- and human-looking, even inanimate objects). Either it's human nature, or something so deeply ingrained in Western culture as to be effectively the same as human nature. If I put disturbing-looking make-up on that'd make me look extremely doll-like or give me a weird eye shape or skin tone or something like that, even people who know me would be a bit uncomfortable, I imagine. And they would know I'm still me, so it's not about the fact they'd suddenly treat me as a different person.
I mean, YMMV, but I think of Uncanny Valley as being a fairly normal, default human reaction.
As to them being super-realistic - I doubt it to the extent that the art style suggests they look markedly different from humans in the comic. It's not just the color of the skin. Plus, the colourful bodies would also likely be a conscious decision to avoid an Uncanny Valley-ish effect that flesh-coloured skins might provoke. If that choice was made, it stands to reason that the choice of facial structure was affected by the consideration as well.
Also, when trying to create an appealing image of a person, people in e.g. animation have always gone for exaggeration, and it's no accident that super-realistic drawings look kinda off. I think if popular art, comics and animation, including animation with incredible budgets, hasn't disposed of exaggeration and cartoonish features in a century (and counting drawings, in several millenia), then it's just a good practice that works. Plus, if AI bodies are made as products, the producer would certainly go for artistic and aesthetic value, at least in part, and there's a huge market for things looking cute and simplified (when you have a video game avatar in an online space, or a little person appearing on-screen to help you, is it usually a photorealistic rendition? Are mascots for places and events extremely realistic? Are fursuits at furry conventions? Usually not).
Thirdly, we've seen a variety of types of AI chassis and they often are extremely stylised (including chibi-fied) or have some features simplified (often to imply a lower price tag). Even if there are bodies for AI indistinguishable from those of humans, I doubt they are within a reasonable pricing range, based on the AI and the problems with their bodies we've witnessed in the comic - they may have easily removable skin, feet with no individual toes, arms and legs with obvious connectors and so on. So it's not unreasonable to think they also have relatively simple mechanics of muscle structure and so on, because otherwise there'd be a weird disjoint between a body that has features that are robot-like or almost mannequin-like coupled with a perfectly human-like face. And even that might be a little unsettling, so we're coming back to the problem with Uncanny Valley.
Plus, the negative reactions to AI that we've seen in some strips imply that people are used to being able that an AI is an AI at a glance. And we've never seen anyone doubting someone else being human, so it's either uncommon or unknown that such a possibility may occur (I mean, it's also possible that the comic just never went there, but that'd be speculation based on no in-comic evidence).
--- End quote ---
In my opinion, Uncanny Valley is not caused by something "being of", but by the realistic appearance of life, intelligence and conscience in something that has none of those. But obviously, AI in QC have them, so I'm not sure their appearance would still cause that creepy effect.
Just watch Twillight Zone, the episode "The dummy" (s03e33), the puppet is creepy as hell!
oddtail:
I mean... Uncanny Valley, the way I've seen it defined, is about something looking or appearing as almost human, but not quite.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uncanny_valley
By this definition, it's all about appearance and its effect, regardless of intelligence or lack thereof. I've seen store mannequins described as creepy because of the "Uncanny Valley" effect, as well as humanoid dolls or even visual art that's almost-realistic.
Also, I've never seen it discussed in the context of a good facsimile of a living, thinking being. Neither the P-zombie thought experiment, for instance, nor Hal 9000 from "2001: A Space Odyssey" are something I've ever seen discussed in the context of UV.
So I guess we have different definitions here? I'm not sure there's a consensus, but again - I'm going by the definition I've almost universally seen.
EDIT: Wikipedia seems to make similar assumptions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
--- Quote ---In aesthetics, the uncanny valley is a hypothesized relationship between the degree of an object's resemblance to a human being and the emotional response to such an object. The concept of the uncanny valley suggests humanoid objects which appear almost, but not exactly, like real human beings elicit uncanny, or strangely familiar, feelings of eeriness and revulsion in observers.[2] Valley denotes a dip in the human observer's affinity for the replica, a relation that otherwise increases with the replica's human likeness.[3]
--- End quote ---
syclick:
I can see Roko being tempted to purchase her old chassis model off the black market.
Tyr:
--- Quote from: syclick on 04 Jan 2019, 08:29 ---I can see Roko being tempted to purchase her old chassis model off the black market.
--- End quote ---
Doesn't even have to be 'black' market. She could just buy one secondhand. they're discontinued, not outlawed.
of course, a secondhand chassis in general may skeeve her out... that's someone else's body. It'd be like wearing someone else's underwear x256, or using another dwarf's tools.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version