Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
notsocool:
--- Quote from: Aenno on 17 Jan 2020, 10:31 ---No, it's different clauses. Well, I believe they're included - first one is subset of second one.
There is 3828, where May explained she can't rent out her processor power: "if you commit massive bank fraud they don't let you plug your processors for cash anymore". That was an answer to the question "can you do it", and was in concrete context about "how Pintsize making money".
But also there is 4031, where, speaking with May parole officer, Roko speaks directly: "she can't do digital work because of the probation rules she's so diligently following".
--- End quote ---
Again no. You are making the assumption they are two separate things. Roko's statement is vague, and can refer to any degree of restriction. The comic explicitly only shows that May cannot do the first, and the government employee's statement in fact clears up the vagueness of Roko's statement by saying that other AI can do the second. Note: you can believe what you like and interpret it in the worst way possible, but I am here to discuss the comic, not your fanfiction.
--- Quote ---"The Commission always considers the individual's situation and may waive this or any other standard requirement if it sees fit to do so. On the other hand, special requirements may be added and must be met before release."
--- End quote ---
None of these apply because May requested her body. They didn't force it on her. The government employee explicitly says this. To accept your version of events, we would have to first interpret Roko's statement in the most restrict manner, instead of the way it is explicitly shown in the comic. Then we would have to assume intent to force May to get a body, which they explicitly say they didn't.
--- Quote ---It's not parole conditions she have a problem with - because, actually, even if she would be allowed to rent her processors or do any kind of digital off-site job, her hardware just isn't stable enough. Anything can break anytime. Including power systems supporting her AI core, by the way.
--- End quote ---
No. One thing is extremely clear: The cost of a small anthroPC is significantly less than that of a human-sized one. What stops May from doing exactly what Pintsize does for a living is her parole conditions, which means she has to use the substandard body that she has to maintain. Without that stipulation, she could get rid of the body and buy a small one that doesn't break down.
--- Quote ---Why the hell should it be the *same* computer?
--- End quote ---
Because that's what it takes to run an AI. Are you telling me that the computer running an AI without a body is going to be MORE sophisticated or expensive than a computer running that AI PLUS having to control all the manipulators, legs, etc? Think about this. The AI body MUST have a computer inside it to run the AI. This computer must do the same job as a computer for a disembodied AI, plus it also requires additional processing power to control the actual body (granted, this actually is not much in comparison). To maintain a disembodied AI, you only need to maintain the computer in question, while in the case of an embodied AI you would need to maintain the computer inside the body plus the body itself.
As a matter of fact, since I am both a mechanical engineer and responsible for computer tech in my company, there is an additional consideration of heat dissipation that would be significantly more expensive for the computer in the AI body, seeing as it also has to potentially function in less-than-clean environments. You would need waterproofing that would impede air circulation, so you'd likely use a liquid cooling system (probably hydraulic, which you could also use to move the limbs. If you know what a counterbalance valve is, you'd understand why this would be useful to save power). You would then need a hydraulic motor to push the oil. This all adds up in terms of expensive components, maintenance, etc. This is why, incidentally, laptops are so much more expensive than desktops with the same specs.
But you know what? Maybe QC uses superscience (which can break the fundamental law of physics regarding the conservation of energy) so heat is not a problem. Either way, that stuff is going to be expensive.
On the other hand, for a disembodied AI, you only have to worry about the computer (remember, whatever you need to run a disembodied AI will ALSO be needed to run an embodied one, plus extra), and it wouldn't have the restriction of having to fit inside a chassis. Whatever maintenance costs she would have as a disembodied AI, they would be less than whatever costs she would have with a body.
--- Quote ---SNAP
--- End quote ---
SNAP is a program for the everyone, not just a parolee. This is EXACTLY what I mean. If a regular person is entitled to something, then yes we must ensure that a parolee is entitled to the same.
But AI who are poor (all of them at creation, because they don't have parents to give them money) do not get bodies for free. They have to find work to get one. There is no program to give AI bodies (and if there was, May should go take advantage of it, rather than try to get the parole board to give her one - you should be asking the correct department in government, they're not monolithic). This is what my point is all about. If a law-abiding AI really really wants a body they have to spend time and work to get one, or ask a friend to buy one for them. May, on the other hand, has been given a crappy body as a gift - it is NOT a condition of her parole, as 4173 explicitly says. Yes, she's burdened with the cost of maintaining it,but if she doesn't want to do that, she should go back to being disembodied until she can save up enough to buy one.
--- Quote ---At least, that's my truest conviction.
--- End quote ---
Your truest conviction is not relevant to the discussion. I am discussing the comic, not your headcanon or wish fulfilment.
--- Quote ---You see, I can't rid from a thought that when you're saying "I want parolees to be treated as well as people with no criminal record. But what you are suggesting is that we treat them better than people with no criminal record!", you're actually saying "I want parolees to be treated as well as people with no criminal record, but only AFTER people with no criminal record".
--- End quote ---
Please do not put words in my mouth. Once again, your fantasies are not relevant to the discussion.
Mr Intrepid:
May's informational cartoon (3035) states that her chassis is a "reform chassis, female". So. She has the equivalent of a not well cared for circa early 00's flipphone. Roko, on the other hand, has a fresh out of the box, high end Samsung or Apple device. It would also imply that her chassis is not intended as a permanent place, perhaps until the end of her parole. But if it was issued, then the beaurocrat was either being untruthful to Roko, or that particular chassis is no longer being made, and would be considered obsolete. If there are a number in storage, perhaps serviceable parts could be stripped out and bring her up to standard.
notsocool:
--- Quote from: Mr Intrepid on 17 Jan 2020, 20:24 ---May's informational cartoon (3035) states that her chassis is a "reform chassis, female". So. She has the equivalent of a not well cared for circa early 00's flipphone. Roko, on the other hand, has a fresh out of the box, high end Samsung or Apple device. It would also imply that her chassis is not intended as a permanent place, perhaps until the end of her parole. But if it was issued, then the beaurocrat was either being untruthful to Roko, or that particular chassis is no longer being made, and would be considered obsolete. If there are a number in storage, perhaps serviceable parts could be stripped out and bring her up to standard.
--- End quote ---
Uh what? How does the name of her model imply any of that? The only thing it implies is that it is a model manufactured specifically for ex-offenders (or maybe offenders in general) - one possibility is a lack of defensive systems that could harm people. None of the other stuff you said is implied by the model name.
Is it cold in here?:
--- Quote from: notsocool ---Without that stipulation, she could get rid of the body and buy a small one that doesn't break down.
--- End quote ---
Which gets back to the point you made that parole conditions can be revised. I'd see it as a fair option if she were allowed to do what you suggest. In a Pintsize-style body, she could socialize with humans in physical space, which seems to be part of her rehabilitation plan.
Wingy:
--- Quote from: Cornelius on 17 Jan 2020, 05:32 ---An interesting question that, if I'm not mistaken, hasn't been dealt with in universe: is there such a thing as a natural death for AI?
--- End quote ---
And related to that, how does an AI decide if they are male or female or neither for embodiment purposes?
Given societies general diminishment of females and their abilities in general, why would any rational AI choose to have a female body when male bodies or non-specific humanoid bodies or even non-human bodies are all possible, generally available, and it is still somehow more easy to manipulate ones social environment without the "stigma" of femaleness?
To the context here: May was willing to be a military drone and take on what we traditionally think of as a male role (warrior), yet even after complaining loudly about her costume and assumed role during her first interactions with Dale, showed up as a diminutive female, apparently by choice, then eschews "feminine" attire and prefers to read "literature" aimed at the human male population.
Or out of the current context, Bubbles and her joining the military. What particular impulse caused her to select a female form for her military duties - I'm assuming she was reembodied into the military-grade hardware she now inhabits as her back story indicates some period of conscious thought prior to volunteering for military service.
PLEASE, Big Note: I'm exaggerating a bit to make my question clear here; although most, if not all, of current human societies still stupidly discriminate against women. My current manager is a well respected, ex-military, woman and one of the best managers I've ever worked with/for. Let's not get into a discussion of societal misogyny - that's not the point of this post or the thrust of my real question, OK?
My real question is: has this already been addressed somewhere in universe and I missed it? Or is this still a head-canon thing for everyone?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version