THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Mar 2010, 09:15

Title: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Mar 2010, 09:15
Continued from weekly comic thread.

Marten treats Pintsize as a child but has also described him as a "friend", Hannelore seems to be friends with Winslow. Marigirl's relationship with Momo-tan seems to be more complex.

Hillary Clinton's AnthroPC uploads video of her wearing a towel and dancing to Daft Punk. This fits the conspiracy theory that they are surveillance devices installed by the dark powers that secretly control the QC universe.

If you don't see an option to your liking, feel free to suggest additional ones. This time I double-checked that the "Allow user to change vote" option is turned on. If that doesn't work then there's a bug in the forum software.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Orbert on 19 Mar 2010, 09:38
I voted for "Sentient machines" although "Machines with complex behavior" is probably pretty close too.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 19 Mar 2010, 10:36
I voted sentient, then changed to complex machines, so yes, the change vote option works - you have to remove the old vote first, though.  i may have missed that on the previous poll by "Is is cold in here?"

OK, who thinks pintsize would actually pass the Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)?  You know, lock him in a room with Alan Turing's zombie and see who survives...

No, wait, wrong test...

Of course the Turing test is only the first step - the winning machine seems to be intelligent.  There are machines that do pretty well at this, but that's a high degree of clever programming showing its face.  So it's more like intelligent design than actual machine intelligence...

Of course, sentience involves a certan level of self-awareness, too, and the AnthroPC's seem to have that in spades.  I think that's another arifice of some really advanced programming, myself. 

Of course, if it walks like a duck man and quacks talks like a duck man...


... and now Frankie Valli's in my head.  Dammit! 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Tuitsuro on 19 Mar 2010, 11:22
Put it this way; Anthro-PCs are self aware, and are sentient.  It's what differentiates anthro-pc's from more basic computers.  As far as the QC world goes, this is a matter of fact.  Remember what Hannelore said, a simple serendipidous combination of hardware and software created something which could not accurately be described as either, the mechanics of which are easily reproducable.  I would say this indicates, beyond the technology, that anthro-machines are a sort of life-form.  However, what this means in terms of societal rights is questionable.  Human beings as a whole are not quick to grant rights to anyone, let alone things which aren't human.  We know that humans in QC can own anthro-machines.  We know that they can modify them as they wish without the anthro-pc's consent.  Marigold was, at one point, worried about the welfare of Pintsize, so I suspect there's basic rules governing some semblance of humane treatment.  But it's obvious that they don't have the same rights a human does.  
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 19 Mar 2010, 12:38
That treatment issue is one reason I think "machines with complex behavior" is the answer, or at least I hope it is. And for all we know, Marigold is some sort of fringe activist, or associated with such a group. (There used to be (and may still be) people who claimed that everything down to toasters had self-awareness, so why not?) Too, since at the time Momo seems to be her only companion, I can see Marigold having the need to believe anthropcs are sentient.

Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Tuitsuro on 19 Mar 2010, 12:51
Could be.  I assume there's multiple sides of the issue.  I'm sure it'll be resolved about the time QC has a 'B1-66ER' incident, though.  If it hasn't already had one.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Thorbard on 19 Mar 2010, 13:28
Machines with complex behaviour. Although they give the impression of being self aware, we don't actually have the ability to differentiate that from just having a very good conversation engine that grows with contact with other AnthroPCs and humans.

This would also explain why the AnthroPC takes on some of the attributes of the person they have most contact with (eg Pintsize and Marten, Smif's AnthroPCs and lazy students and so on) during their early development at least. We've not seen anyone buy a brand new AnthroPC so we don't know how they appear before they have had a chance to 'learn' their owner's conversation style.

I remember one episode of Numb3rs where a machine managed to pass the Turing test as it was designed to be the best natural conversation computer ever. It was useless for anything except for having a conversation with.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Border Reiver on 19 Mar 2010, 13:42
I went for machines with complex behaviour.  However, if they do have rights, or get them- they have responsibilities.  Not sure if Pintsize would really want to be accountable for his behaiour.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Tuitsuro on 19 Mar 2010, 14:31
I remember one episode of Numb3rs where a machine managed to pass the Turing test as it was designed to be the best natural conversation computer ever. It was useless for anything except for having a conversation with.

Oh yeah, the one where they thought the 'AI' computer had become a sociopath and was trying to kill everyone?  (Granted, it only actually killed one person...)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: JD on 19 Mar 2010, 15:08
Dependents?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Mar 2010, 15:35
However, if they do have rights, or get them- they have responsibilities.  Not sure if Pintsize would really want to be accountable for his behaiour.
I had forgotten the strip about organizing for robot rights (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=668).

EDIT: also potentially relevant, strip 382, in which Pintsize says it's illegal to sell AnthroPCs online. Now, trusting Pintsize is a stretch even for the most devoted player of the Take It Too Literally game, but what if AnthroPCs can only be sold by licensed retailers or only to customers who've had a background check? Maybe getting an AnthroPC is like adopting a baby.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 19 Mar 2010, 19:55
Possibly more like a rare pet, or a firearm. I can see where one might have to have a permit to own an anthropc, because, as I pointed out in the WTC (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,24606.100.html), they are potentially dangerous.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Kugai on 19 Mar 2010, 21:40
I voted for Sentient Machines






But you forgot the other option
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Border Reiver on 20 Mar 2010, 06:09
Pancakes?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 20 Mar 2010, 06:24
A murrain on thy cakes formed in pans!

He speaks of clever alien agents meant to infiltrate Earth, gather intelligence, and then transform the planet into the wild, wild world of uninhibited, witless Miley Cyrus clones. The last report: so far, so good!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Dliessmgg on 20 Mar 2010, 06:49
Aren'tsentient machines also machines with complex behaviour?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 20 Mar 2010, 07:54
Yes, but often when people say "machines" they mean "just machines".
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Mr_Rose on 20 Mar 2010, 13:52
Also Sentient machines fall into the category of machines with complex behaviour in the an analogous way to how humans fall into the category of animals. In a poll like this, typically one assumes that if one option is a broad category and another is a narrower sub-category of the first, then the first broad category is being treated as excluding the narrower sub-category.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Tuitsuro on 20 Mar 2010, 15:06
Sentience has never been well defined.  One basic definition of sentience is whether the lifeform in question is 'self aware', but a true definition of sentience itself is rather subjective.  If you've ever read Chobits, the plot there was that these personal computers called 'persocoms', which were human in appearance and could do everything a personal computer would do, but were not actually sentient but instead had very complex software and hardware.  The idea that was bandied about in the series was that these special computers called 'chobits' existed, which could extend themselves beyond their programming; effectively, they could feel and act in ways which were not simply by design, effectively sentient.  The main persocom in the series, Chi, was thought to be one, and throughout the series the main human protagonist, Hideki, is conflicted about how he feels for her, knowing that she's only a computer, despite the fact that her 'programming' closely mimics real human interactions.  Effectively, whether actually 'loving' something like that, or treating it as equal to a human being, would be wrong.  It was a rather nifty series, actually...
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Border Reiver on 20 Mar 2010, 17:44
A murrain on thy cakes formed in pans!

He speaks of clever alien agents meant to infiltrate Earth, gather intelligence, and then transform the planet into the wild, wild world of uninhibited, witless Miley Cyrus clones. The last report: so far, so good!

If you mean the planet of wild, uninhibited Grace Park, Lucy Lawless and Tricia Helfer clones then I'm in.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 20 Mar 2010, 18:08
That would be the Pipe Dreams Aliens, not our future off-planetary masters. And I didn't say it was good for us. Success would be a Kurtz moment if ever there was one.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Kugai on 20 Mar 2010, 22:25
No, I meant that AnthroPC's are the extension of the HAL9000 that actually runs the planet.


They also keep The Borg at bay.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Border Reiver on 22 Mar 2010, 04:08
No, we need balding Shakespeare quoting Englishmen with French names to do that.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 22 Mar 2010, 04:40
But we'd have less problems if we used overly-dramatic Canadians who pause for no reason when they speak. Or, even better, dudes who used to be bad-ass associates of Spenser, but are now trying to act all 'touchy-feely.' Man's got to take that aggression out on someone.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Border Reiver on 22 Mar 2010, 05:44
We'll need the ex-Cdn Army pilot (James Doohan flew as an airborne Artillery Observer in WWII, met him at a reunion dinner in the late 80s) to be the engineer then, although the new guy's OK....
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Binary on 22 Mar 2010, 06:21
But we'd have less problems if we used overly-dramatic Canadians who pause for no reason when they speak. Or, even better, dudes who used to be bad-ass associates of Spenser, but are now trying to act all 'touchy-feely.' Man's got to take that aggression out on someone.

Surely we need a female Army Major who got mixed up with a covert assassin (and his Chinese mentor who can run over water), but is now trying to act all bad-ass.

Actually, scrub that. She's dreadful. Geneviève Bujold, why did you forsake us?!


Hooray! I'm not the only one who remembers Sisko in Spenser!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Theriandros on 22 Mar 2010, 06:34
Because she had a horrible first day of filming.

(Some of the footage is included on the Season 1 DVD set. It actually is pretty horrible.)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: jwhouk on 22 Mar 2010, 07:05
Pipe down or we'll force a Midwestern physicist who's forced to timeshift from body to body without knowing how long or where he will go next to be your next captain.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 22 Mar 2010, 08:10
Hey, I enjoyed Quantum Leap...

Wait, did I say that out loud? 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Mr_Rose on 22 Mar 2010, 09:57
The worst part about Quantum Leap is that it is directly responsible for the current use of 'quantum' occasionally combined with 'leap' to mean "major" when the word quantum actually means tiny. The show on the other hand was named such because the method of time travel employed was designed to massively reduce the distances you had to 'leap' (and hence the energy cost) by screwing the subject's time-line up into a ball.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 22 Mar 2010, 10:02
Why so few votes for "children"?

Marten has imposed a curfew on Pintsize and threatened to ground him, and Pintsize himself has compared himself to an adolescent. Winslow has abandonment fears. Momo-tan is the only grownup of the bunch.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 22 Mar 2010, 10:48
Because they're more like talking pets? Momo is like a dog (such as the Great Pyrenees Jeph was tweeting about) that will 'take over' if its master doesn't assume the dominant role. And the rest, well, watch Dog Whisperer enough, and you'll see all those things go down.

Hey, I enjoyed Quantum Leap...

Wait, did I say that out loud?  

Sadly, yes. My god, I hated that show. But my SO loved it.

Hooray! I'm not the only one who remembers Sisko in Spenser!
Yes. I rejoiced when Avery Brooks went back to the shaved head and beard look. Then I realized why. Hawk in Space! (not to be confused with the character 'Hawk' in the second season of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, who could have been cool, but, sadly, he was a character on Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and so had no real chance to be so). He still didn't get to do many of the cool one-liners, though.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Binary on 22 Mar 2010, 12:56
Because she had a horrible first day of filming.

(Some of the footage is included on the Season 1 DVD set. It actually is pretty horrible.)

Interesting. That's not the official line on IMDB.

"Originally, Geneviève Bujold was cast as Captain Elizabeth Janeway, but she dropped the role after the first day of shooting because she claimed to not be able to handle the week-by-week shooting schedule of a show such as Star Trek."
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Kugai on 22 Mar 2010, 13:32
Saw some of Genevieve on YouTube

I haven's seen that much wooden acting since Treebeard.



What we really need is a boyishly faced Russian who is secretly a P12 teep
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Border Reiver on 22 Mar 2010, 16:20
How did we get from possibly sentient, but no one's really sure robots and their legal status to Star Trek?

Not that I'm complaining mind - we need ot get some of the other threads to do this more often.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 22 Mar 2010, 16:27
You just need scatterbrains like Carl and me—can't keep our attention on any one thing for too long. But it's really Border Reiver's fault, like always.

What we really need is a boyishly faced Russian who is secretly a P12 teep
Him? He couldn't keep us safe—he's too busy dealing with his constipation issues (or so it looked every time I saw Keonig on B5).

That 'schedule' line is what I've always heard, too, Binary, from the moment Bujold was dropped. Mulgrew wasn't that bad—she simply doesn't compare to Brooks and Stewart; understandable, since she's not the same caliber of actor. I've always wondered what it would have been like had an actress like Judy Dench had had the role, or, if they had to have a woman in Mulgrew's age range, Bebe Neuwirth. Very talented actress, excellent at playing 'hard,' and Cheers had ended in '93, so she was available.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Kugai on 22 Mar 2010, 18:04
It's always interesting to speculate on who might have been good where.


I wonder how Denise Crosby would have done if she'd stayed on, got promoted and gotten Captaincy of Voyager



Hell, can't be any worse than what would have happened if one of the two other actors shortlisted for Kirk had got the roll instead of Shatner.


Lloyd Bridges
Jack Lord
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Dliessmgg on 23 Mar 2010, 01:43
The worst part about Quantum Leap is that it is directly responsible for the current use of 'quantum' occasionally combined with 'leap' to mean "major" when the word quantum actually means tiny.
Not to be an asshole (haha), but quantum leap doesn't mean it's tiny, it means there's no state inbetween. So if you work with natural numbers and go from 1 to 2, it's also a quantum leap.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Border Reiver on 23 Mar 2010, 03:52
Raoul, it's good to know - so in the spirit of my marriage - "I accept all blame and/or reponsibility."  There, I feel much better now, it's almost liberating.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 23 Mar 2010, 06:23
Just so long as it's understood that nothing is ever my fault.

Kugai, to me, Bridges and Lord are about the same as Shatner, except Shatner does seem more personable in his early TV 'guest' roles (Twilight Zone, Man from U.N.C.L.E. [guesting with Leonard Nimoy, as I recall] etc.) than either of those two.  Don't know if that's a reason for his getting picked or not. It surely wasn't for his scintillating performance in Comanche Blanco.

Thinking about it, though, I have a hard time seeing Jack Lord doing any of the 'impassioned' pleas, speeches, what have you, that Shatner did manage to pull off.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Border Reiver on 23 Mar 2010, 09:35
It's kind of hard to imagine anyone else from that era having done those roles.

Although it would have been a humourous to have had Shatner and Lorne Greene switch their Kirk/Adama roles.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 23 Mar 2010, 13:27
What happens to AnthroPCs when they become obsolete? Do people toss their friends in the recycle bin, or give them away to luckless charities, or what?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: bicostp on 23 Mar 2010, 13:30
Maybe they can just buy a new chassis and transfer their personality data? That worked for Winslow in the "Hannelore's Robo-Trainer-Boyfriend" arc.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Kugai on 23 Mar 2010, 13:31
What happens to AnthroPCs when they become obsolete? Do people toss their friends in the recycle bin, or give them away to luckless charities, or what?

They return to the Mother Computer.


raoullefere, I suddenly had this image of Jack Lord, after they've captured the Klingons, saying "Book 'em Spocko."

 :-D

Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 23 Mar 2010, 14:33
I think I remember Shatner saying 'Spocko' in 'A Piece of the Action.'

As for anthropcs, my guess is that owners who treasure their plastic pals (who are fun to be with) go through chassis, while those who don't do a security wipe before properly disposing of the obsolete unit. If they're actually silly enough to want another one.

I'm assuming it's not possible to be the 'old lady with cats,' only with dozens of anthropcs instead.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Orbert on 23 Mar 2010, 15:43
Pintsize has upgraded himself a few times that we know of, both hardware and software.  AnthroPCs are more "life like" than most machines because of their potential to grow and evolve, and maybe eventually die of "old age", as opposed to becoming obsolete and cast aside.  Or at least it's kinda cool to think so.  In that sense, an anthroPC is much more like a beloved pet than a mere machine.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 23 Mar 2010, 15:47
I'm assuming it's not possible to be the 'old lady with cats,' only with dozens of anthropcs instead.

Why not?  At least, two or three around the house might be fun for those folks who don't have kids, or are allergic to pets.  The shennanigans are roughly equivalent (I think pintsize is an extreme case), and if you train 'em right, like Momo (who does light housekeeping as I recall) they can be downright nice to have around!  

Of course, the constant partying and havoc-wreaking of a dozen or so would be a bit extreme.  But the same is true of the cats...
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Tuitsuro on 23 Mar 2010, 16:15
Well, for the mobile home versions perhaps; but Anthro-PC technology is used in other applications as well, particularly military application.  There's confirmation of Anthro-PC satellites as well as assault mechs; and Pintsize's original chassis was military hardware as well, so it's obvious that they can be fairly easily weaponized.  Something you can't do with a pet, well, unless you have easy access to Goliath Serum. 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 23 Mar 2010, 16:38
OK, yes, personality transfer. Another example is when Pintsize was backed up to the desktop.

Momo-tan's light housework capabilities were mentioned in 1298, and later during the discovery of Marigirl's messy apartment (1415).
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: bicostp on 23 Mar 2010, 19:53
[...] it's obvious that they can be fairly easily weaponized.  Something you can't do with a pet

Not so.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/deathscythe_1989/Blog%20images/HamsterFighter.jpg)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 23 Mar 2010, 20:44
And just think what you could duct-tape to a Capybara—and they're amphibious.

(I've seen this 'weaponize your hampster' page before-maybe in Mad?)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 05 May 2010, 02:24
At the risk of double posting, I'll point out that Jeph's comment about anpc libidos may shed fresh light on our subject.

"No one is quite sure who decided it would be useful for artificial intelligences to posess libidos, but it is generally agreed that it would be more trouble than it is worth to remove it. Besides, the horny little buggers would revolt."

Two points:

Wow! Lookit all the material I've managed to milk generate out of one comment! Anyway, feel free to take on any and all and fritter your lives discuss away.

Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Dliessmgg on 05 May 2010, 03:40
why would it be important for a walking, talking little robot to possess a sex drive?
A fast thinker with no distraction can do a lot. Like taking over the world.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Orbert on 05 May 2010, 10:05
I think that if you worked in AI development, your ultimate goal would be to create an AI that is the most like a human brain as possible.  It starts as an ideal, but at some point, you've pretty much nailed down the critical thinking, emotions, and things like sarcasm and subtlety... so what's left?  Sex drive!  Is it practical?  Probably not.  Would it be fun to try?  Hell yes!

Data: "I am fully functional, and programmed with multiple techniques."
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 05 May 2010, 11:13
I tend to think the libido in an anthroPC is more a matter of an accidental legacy issue.  Some early AI attempts may have gone in that direction, and once that software's around, you can't hide it, especially on the internet. 

In fact, it may have just sprouted up on some AI forum - "Hey guys, what if we did this..."

And "getting rid of it" isn't just a matter of re/deprogramming the individual anthroPC's, but rather a matter of wiping out all traces of such software. 

Hence, "more trouble than it's worth"

BTW, is it software or firmware?   :evil:
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Near Lurker on 05 May 2010, 11:17
Now I'm wondering if there really are 1.5-2m "fully functional" anthroPC's.  And if so, why there's still a market for Realdolls (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=633).
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 May 2010, 12:40
Hypothesis 1: Raven invented the AnthroPC during her days as a child prodigy, and naturally enough copied her psyche into the first one.

Hypothesis 2: AnthroPCs become self-aware when exposed to the intricately interwoven trove of knowledge on the Internet, and pick up on Internet obsessions as a result. Winslow never browsed outside the App Store.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Dliessmgg on 05 May 2010, 12:56
Winslow never browsed outside the App Store.

Isn't there a fart app?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 05 May 2010, 13:05
I'm really hoping you don't think of farts as anything sexual...
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Dliessmgg on 05 May 2010, 13:36
Not me, but I've seen things. Also, not every stupid thing on the internet is sexual.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 05 May 2010, 15:55
No, but... but... the thread, Winslow is asexual, never browses outside the app store, there's a fart app...

C'mon, keep up, will ya? 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 May 2010, 17:37
Winslow does seem to be pretty clean-minded outside the sexual realm. It's hard to imagine him talking about flatulence. Maybe he achieved sentience from a list of web sites Hannelore approved of?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 05 May 2010, 20:04
BTW, is it software or firmware?   :evil:
I've never been clear exactly what the difference is—what 'firmware' describes, from the level of instructions to the method of storage, seems to vary from one type of device to another. I would suspect that the 'core' AI (basic personality) of each anpc is software, else it wouldn't be as easily transferable as Winslow made it appear. I'd also expect, though, that, just as in many new portable devices, everything that can be done with hardware is to save on power and, thus, heat generation. Getting wildly speculative, I wonder if that's why the 'Linux' anpc needs a 'neckbeard' heat sink—it uses less, perhaps the bare minimum of the standard hardware, and thus its processor(s) emits more heat grinding out functions through software that are built into the hardware of units such as Pintsize, Momo, and Winslow. Such a set-up would make the system less controlled and its abilities less restricted by 'the man' (the companies making the 'standard' anpc hardware components), but at a price.

Even more wildly speculative: Perhaps Apple used the same rationale with libido in their anpcs as they did with Adobe's Flash on the IPad; to wit, anpc libido uses power to achieve something Apple, at least, doesn't think is necessary, since the same or similar tasks can 'mostly' be accomplished in a less energy-hungry (and heat generating—Winslow looks to be far more 'air-cooled' than the other anpcs—less room for fans) manner. In other words, removing libido wasn't 'too much trouble' for Apple, but instead a worthwhile design objective.

Having said that, I still like the idea that the anpcs' personality is influenced by its owner's.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: akronnick on 05 May 2010, 20:13
Best.
Thread.
Evar.


That is all.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 05 May 2010, 21:46
BTW, is it software or firmware?   :evil:
Jesus Marimba, I just now got the joke. A belated "bah-doom-boom" to you, sir.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 05 May 2010, 23:31
Like they say, timing is everything! 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 May 2010, 09:36
Sometimes things get overlooked because they're too obvious.

Every AnthroPC owner we've seen has named their AnthroPC. The Linux AnthroPC denied having a name, but may have been a free-range AnthroPC or simply rejecting his name. Not everyone names their car or toaster oven.

That suggests they're either pets or children.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 07 May 2010, 11:01
Or Cabbage Patch Kids.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Tuitsuro on 07 May 2010, 15:05
free-range AnthroPC

Raised on an an organic server farm? 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Kugai on 07 May 2010, 22:40
free-range AnthroPC

Raised on an an organic server farm? 

And fed on Wind Turbine grown power.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 08 May 2010, 03:03
E-I-E-I-O
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 08 May 2010, 14:00
I will, henceforth, refer to him as "MacDonald". 

Fits the neckbeard (and attitude) to a T. 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Heranje on 04 Jun 2010, 01:58
Now I'm wondering if there really are 1.5-2m "fully functional" anthroPC's.  And if so, why there's still a market for Realdolls (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=633).
Remember Hanners' proto-boyfriend? "His bait and tackle are still in beta."

Also, Hanners' and Dora's jokes about realdolls with artificial intelligence might explain why some people don't want them to be able to think. The whole point of a realdoll is to have a partner that you can pull out whenever you like and neglect at all other times and do whatever you like to without objection or complaint, isn't it? Of course, you could argue that it'd be possible to program AI-realdolls so they do follow their owner's every whim.

Robotic or not, realdolls are creepy.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Jun 2010, 10:00
Hmm. It seems to be problematic to program AnthroPCs to do whatever you want them to do. On the other hand strip 1411 suggests that they really are slaves to their software.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Apr 2011, 08:17
Time for a little necrothreadiphelia.  I felt it was an appropriate callback given the upcoming arc.  Besides, it's a good thread - the new people should read it! 

Basically, I was wondering how the folks at UMass found Marten in the first place.  It speaks to the fact that, at the very least, you need to somehow register your AnthroPC (can we agree on APC for short?). 

After all, the local police need to track down the owner in the event of personal/property damage! 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Skewbrow on 05 Apr 2011, 09:15
Time for a little necrothreadiphelia.  I felt it was an appropriate callback given the upcoming arc.  Besides, it's a good thread - the new people should read it! 

Damn right. A nice thread.

Basically, I was wondering how the folks at UMass found Marten in the first place.  It speaks to the fact that, at the very least, you need to somehow register your AnthroPC (can we agree on APC for short?). 

After all, the local police need to track down the owner in the event of personal/property damage! 

That's one theory. Another possibility would be that VV used a credit card when paying for Pintsize (originally a graduation gift, IIRC). After all, the automatically collected data on credit card transactions is available to all the market researchers the highest bidder the scientific community.

Re property damage: Surely there is a law that an APC must identify its owner to the proper authorities. On penalty of a meeting with a powerful magnet. Hmm. Would that work in case of a runaway or a disowned APC that cannot truthfully identify an owner? The QCverse needs a society giving shelter (and access to AC to recharge their batteries) to homeless APCs. May be Marigold is associated with one?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: DSL on 05 Apr 2011, 10:09
OK, now I want the UMass interviewer(s) to be one or more of the BRO! trio -- who were in town looking for Marten.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: TheEvilDog on 05 Apr 2011, 10:17
Basically, I was wondering how the folks at UMass found Marten in the first place.  It speaks to the fact that, at the very least, you need to somehow register your AnthroPC (can we agree on APC for short?). 

Maybe AnPC instead, otherwise people might think we're talking about tanks.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Apr 2011, 12:28
We wouldn't want to confuse them with adenomatosis polyposis coli.

What a thought: an Underground Railroad for fugitive AnthroPCs.

Maybe Marten filled out a warranty card for Pintsize.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Orbert on 05 Apr 2011, 13:07
We probably won't even find out most of this stuff.  Jeph said right in the newspost that he tends to lose interest in AnthroPC-centric stories pretty quickly.  Which is a damned shame, as the presence of AnthroPCs is about the only surreal element left in the strip.  As much as Hannelore is around, when's the last time any reference has been made to the fact that she's an alien?  Or Steve's secret life as an agent?  JimBob who is actually a millionaire author of pulp fiction?  Pizza Girl?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Apr 2011, 14:12
As much as Hannelore is around, when's the last time any reference has been made to the fact that she's an alien? 

Because she's not an alien.  While she may or may not have spent time on her dad's space station (she likes to pull people's legs about that), she has human parents, and was born and (mostly) raised on earth. 

Quote
Or Steve's secret life as an agent? 

Plausible deniability.  The gummint will never admit to it. 

Quote
JimBob who is actually a millionaire author of pulp fiction? 


He writes romance novels.  You can make a halfway decent living at it (a friend's mother put him through college, but she was a fairly big name), but any proceeds Jimbo gets probably wind up in a bottle...

Quote
Pizza Girl?

I'll give you that one. 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Skewbrow on 05 Apr 2011, 21:06
Yeah. I associated "quantum leap" with a "discontinuity" or the opposite of a gradual change. Even before that show. As in tunnelling or all the other somewhat counterintuitive things explained by quantum mechanics.

I had mixed feelings about the show. Given that I watched it religiously I guess I mostly liked it. Would have liked it to have more sci-fi as opposed to these human interest episodes, but it worked, somehow.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: O8h7w on 07 Apr 2011, 09:07
Well, it is said in the comic that the AnthroPCs are sentient, so we'll need to take that for a fact. But then comes the question of what exactly that means, as "sentient" haven't really been defined.

An interesting matter is that both Momo-tan and Winslow seems to have developed as characters, they are not quite the same as when they were introduced. They are somehow influenced by their experiences, their "personalities" are dynamic, not static.

The same is hard to say about Pintsize, but I think that is mainly because he's such a complex character.


Ps. Wow! Discussion of fictional artificial sentient beings! This is really the best thread ever!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mike837go on 07 Apr 2011, 11:23
Or Steve's secret life as an agent?
Plausible deniability.  The gummint will never admit to it.  

Sorry, to contradict ya , buddy,  but Steve's exploits were proven when the villaness showed up and bid Steve a perminant good-by in front of Marten.  Gimme a few minutes to find the strip.

Edit @ 14:43EDT Steve's exploits #1350. Now where did what's-her-name show up?
BRB
Tortura!
BRB
Edit at 15:19EDT Strip #1406! Proof of Steve's secret agent exploits!

Now for On Thread: It would seem that there is some kind of registration for Anthros. Not everyone can own one, etc. They are definitely sentient machings.  I can recall a strip where Pintsize laments (self reflection/examination) that his pranks have "Jumped the shark" If that ain't self-awareness?

Now to throw some real fun into the thread: What about the self-replicating Roombas? Coming home to visit too!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Apr 2011, 13:59
Or Steve's secret life as an agent?
Plausible deniability.  The gummint will never admit to it.  

Sorry, to contradict ya , buddy,  but Steve's exploits were proven when the villaness showed up and bid Steve a perminant good-by in front of Marten.  Gimme a few minutes to find the strip.

Edit @ 14:43EDT Steve's exploits #1350 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1350).

Oh, but you haven't.  I've linked the strip you referred.  Panel 3 confirms my statement.   :psyduck:
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Apr 2011, 22:40
So now we know they have Constitutional rights!

How that's consistent with being bought and sold and modified without permission is beyond me, unless the amendment is really new and put a stop to all that.

EDIT: the equal rights amendment must have passed some time after strip 668.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Orbert on 08 Apr 2011, 08:38
Yeah, that was an interesting development, the amendment.  But as far as how it works with them still being "property" in other contexts is beyond me.  I'm guessing that Jeph didn't actually put that much thought into it.  He's shown some reasonable attention to continunity sometimes, and sometimes obviously doesn't worry about it.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 08 Apr 2011, 09:44
Yes, and that makes the overanalysis more challenging and therefore more fun.

Maybe the software has rights but the hardware doesn't?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Mr_Rose on 08 Apr 2011, 12:24
That...seems like exactly the sort of horrible kludge that a modern western political system would come up with. Let's run with it for now.

So the software either has to consent to be transferred along with its host hardware when that's sold, or it has to be evicted into other hardware first?
Like a sort of tenancy arrangement but with an 'obligation to re-home' or something.

Because simply deleting it would constitute murder I guess.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mike837go on 08 Apr 2011, 12:57
That...seems like exactly the sort of horrible kludge that a modern western political system would come up with. Let's run with it for now.
So the software either has to consent to be transferred along with its host hardware when that's sold, or it has to be evicted into other hardware first?
Like a sort of tenancy arrangement but with an 'obligation to re-home' or something.
Because simply deleting it would constitute murder I guess.
I totally agree that kind of half-assed, unreliable mess is classic American Politics. As is so common, it'll take 3 amendments and 20 court cases to make it work.

Once elected, The Politician's mind no longer functions rationally!
                     - And you can quote me on that.

The rights of AI was dealt with in David Weber's Path of The Fury. A military starship was operated by a self-aware AI. *spoiler*The computer was given citizenship. And because it couldn't exist without the warship 'body' the computer was given legal title to the warship.*spoiler*
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 08 Apr 2011, 13:01
Hmm!

We've never seen a transfer of ownership. Hannelore's account on Formspring of initializing Winslow suggests that their individuality develops after purchase, which would mean that the first sale is of a product but subsequent sales would be of something with a personality. That might make a legal difference. Maybe they're not legally alive until first booted.

Pintsize said AnthroPCs were illegal to sell on eBay, but there's a very good chance he was kidding.

_Freefall_ suggested that robots, genetically engineered wolves, and so on would get rights based, not on intelligence, but on demonstrated ability to be good and responsible citizens. Pintsize wouldn't like that.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mike837go on 08 Apr 2011, 17:51
_A Boy and His Dog_ by Harlan Ellison had the Genetically engingeered pooch as the primary partner. But that was AFTER the apocalypse. Before, the dogs were matched with soldiers as a symbiotic team.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 08 Apr 2011, 19:16
If AnthroPCs have rights but not responsibilities, that would make for some story lines that would be really funny if you weren't one of the characters living through them.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Apr 2011, 20:12
The way that Pintsize talks about it, I'm thinking that the "constitution" might be the Massachusetts state constitution, not the US one.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Daniel Patrick Moynihan on 08 Apr 2011, 23:17
Clinton mentions that AIs have the same rights as humans.  Including the right to vote? 

brb manufacturing 150 million Demo-bot 2012s and depositing them in battleground states.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 08 Apr 2011, 23:32
Excellent point by jwhouk.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Apr 2011, 00:27
Clinton mentions that AIs have the same rights as humans.  Including the right to vote? 

brb manufacturing 150 million Demo-bot 2012s and depositing them in battleground states.

Humans only have the right to vote after reaching the age of majority, implying a certain level of maturity (yeah, right). 

With an AI, would it be age, or some other demonstrable test of maturity to grant them rights such as voting, independence from their owner, and other rights of decision? 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Tergon on 09 Apr 2011, 00:31
That's an issue as well.   Remember, Winslow was astonished to discover that Coffee Of Doom does not have sentient espresso machines.  Admittedly the little guy's a bit naive, but still, he expected an espresso machine to have at least a certain standard of A.I.  And then there's the Roomba and its offspring...
So do AnthroPC rights apply to all robotic intelligence?  And if so, what about those who just aren't programmed to be that smart?  I mean no offence to the Espresso Machine community when I say this, but if they're not programmed to be socially conscious, then they obviously can't vote, so what category do their rights fall into?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: cyro on 09 Apr 2011, 02:37
I expected Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics to be an option.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Apr 2011, 09:21
Mentally disabled humans can be ineligible to vote. Maybe the same is true of unintelligent AIs.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Deadlywonky on 09 Apr 2011, 15:44
I like the idea of a test to ensure the individuality and maturity of an AI personality as a precursor to voting rights, like a citizenship test. Maybe the rules on unlawful destruction are more permanent?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Apr 2011, 16:49
That would be one helluva test - you can't base it on questions, they'd be able to lie through it.  You'd have to run some simulation to see what they'd actually do  in certain situations. 

Pintsize, of course, would go for cruel funnies, and would be disqualified. 

Neckbeard (PT410x) would probably be disqualified on the grounds of sedition. 

-------------------------------------------------------------
Reminded myself of an apocryphal Ellis Island tale - one of the actual questions for entrance at the turn of the century was, "Would you advocate overthrowing the government through violence or sedition?"  (I think they were trying to screen out anarchists)

One old lady though for a moment, and answered "Sedition, I guess.  I don't like violence"

Moral:  You really shouldn't give people a choice! 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: akronnick on 09 Apr 2011, 18:44
That's not a question about loyalty, that's an IQ test!

G-Man: Do you want to violently overthrow the US Government?

Regular Person: No!

Smart Crook: No!

Dumb Crook: Ummm.... No?

Really Dumb Crook; Yes!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 09 Apr 2011, 19:13
I notice that the Dumb Crook is so dumb that he uses a semicolon where a colon is needed.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Apr 2011, 19:51
Imagine what Pintsize would do with a full colon.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Apr 2011, 22:07
I don't even want to think what he'd do with an empty colon.   :-P
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: akronnick on 09 Apr 2011, 22:20
And once again a punctuation error leads to a hilarious tangent.

I may have to learn how to type.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: TheEvilDog on 10 Apr 2011, 07:25
And once again a punctuation error leads to a hilarious tangent.

I may have to learn how to type.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....<deep breath>....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

How will we be able to make jokes with perfectly typed posts?! It'll be madness. Madness I tells ya!

Marlon Brando must be rolling in his grave.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mike837go on 10 Apr 2011, 07:57
Imagine what Pintsize would do with a full colon.
You'd need a computer tech to administer an electronic enima?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 10 Apr 2011, 11:38
And once again a punctuation error leads to a hilarious tangent.

I may have to learn how to type.
It wasn't the typo; it was the ironic placement* of it. For all I could tell, you did it on porpoise purple meant to do that.

Imagine what Pintsize would do with a full colon.
I think anyone who's spent enough time around stressed monkeys at a zoo knows the answer to that, only they (I'm guessing here) don't think of it as pron.

*Something like an ironic beard? I can't really say, since I've yet to grasp that concept.  Anyway, I know you were all looking forward to a footnote, so…
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 10 Apr 2011, 14:18
It'll be madness. Madness I tells ya!
You called?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Kugai on 11 Apr 2011, 14:36
Why it it I suddenly heard Lurch when you said that
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 11 Apr 2011, 14:44
Now that you mention that, I probably should've said "You rang?"
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Apr 2011, 16:38
Thank you, Thing. 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 11 Apr 2011, 16:39
Thing 1 or Thing 2?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mike837go on 11 Apr 2011, 19:39
Ted Guiesel meets Charles Addams?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: gprimr1 on 11 Apr 2011, 22:16
The question reminds me of the Star Trek TNG where they are deciding if Data is a person or not or the VOY episode where they are deciding if The Doctor has a legal right to copyright his holonovel.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 12 Apr 2011, 10:57
Thing 1 or Thing 2?
Neither. Man-Thing (http://www.comicvine.com/man-thing/29-4988/all-images/108-211172/11_tbolts154_covcol/105-1577005/). And remember, he who knows over-posting burns at the touch of the Man-Arghhh!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 12 Apr 2011, 11:16
Check my new title.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mike837go on 25 Apr 2011, 07:55
Would Clinton's had belong in this thread now that we are aware of it's semi-autonomous mode?

Is Clintion responsible for the actions of his hand or not?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 25 Apr 2011, 08:11
I think it would if it had a fully autonomous mode.  I think it has some robotic programming but without the benefit of a full AI (Really, would you want a hand with a mind of its own?  I remind you (again) of Dr. Strangelove (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0)!). 

Clearly, it has the libido part down, though. 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 25 Apr 2011, 09:56
I'm pretty sure Dr. Strangelove's hand isn't a robot.  It's just a Nazi.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Thiefree on 25 Apr 2011, 11:26
I'm willing to bet that AnthroPCs take their personality from their usage and the information stored on them.

Winslow is undoubtedly filth-free and used to help Hanners keep things categorised and neat, hence his sunny and innocent disposition.
Momo probably stores copious amounts of anime, hence her appearance.
And Pintsize... well... I'm pretty sure I know what he was originally used for (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1).
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 25 Apr 2011, 13:55
I'm pretty sure Dr. Strangelove's hand isn't a robot.  It's just a Nazi.

You're absolutely right, but my point was that it had a mind of its own.  Which is why you don't  really want a fully sentient body part! 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 26 Apr 2011, 12:20
As a general thing, people are responsible for what their property does.

If AnthroPCs are property, then it could be a real problem to own a device that likes to administer unwanted touches to parts of the body normally covered by underwear.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: raoullefere on 27 Apr 2011, 01:01
You're all being a tad silly. Why would a robot hand want to squeeze Faye's breast? Unless he's gay (and possibly even then, given their impressiveness) you can bet Clinton does. The hand is merely responding to his subconscious desires (or possibly merely unexpressed desires), just as I've suggested Pintsize does to Marten's.

Of course, this actually makes that hand much scarier. Strangelove's hand might very well be acting on his own self-hatred. What if Clintonhand develops such issues?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 27 Apr 2011, 01:12
Good point: he did say SEMI-autonomous.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mike837go on 27 Apr 2011, 05:22
Good point: he did say SEMI-autonomous.
Another thing to consider: Remote controlled devices are NOT autonimous so the human user is 100% responsible. Now we consider a self-aware computer that has [been trained | personality osmosis ] fuctioning on it's own or with minimal supervision.

I'd still put the ultimate responsibility on people.  

[I am reminding myself that we are discussing a web comic and The Rule Of Funny applies, regardless of what should be in the real world. Help me out here, friends: What is "real" anyway?]
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 27 Apr 2011, 07:35
What is "real" anyway?

Beats the hell outta me.  I lost touch with reality a loooooong  time ago! 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 27 Apr 2011, 13:29
"Real" applies to explanations that are simple, complete, and too boring to accept.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 27 Apr 2011, 13:50
You're all being a tad silly. Why would a robot hand want to squeeze Faye's breast? Unless he's gay (and possibly even then, given their impressiveness) you can bet Clinton does. The hand is merely responding to his subconscious desires (or possibly merely unexpressed desires), just as I've suggested Pintsize does to Marten's.

Of course, this actually makes that hand much scarier. Strangelove's hand might very well be acting on his own self-hatred. What if Clintonhand develops such issues?
Good point: he did say SEMI-autonomous.

I wonder what full autonomy looks like. 

Probably some boring demo mode, showing off what the hand can do. 

...and that would've been a better choice in the comic, given the results! 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Kugai on 27 Apr 2011, 15:15
Puttin' On The Ritz?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Apr 2011, 20:55
Well, I guess that was  demo mode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ-aRwEbp5I)...
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mike837go on 29 Apr 2011, 12:32
Just remember that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistingushable from a rigged demo.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: bhtooefr on 18 Apr 2013, 02:49
Necroposting because there were some comments in the "Trans* discussion arising from comic" thread, along the AI rights line, that I wanted to respond to.

There's been not a hint of overt social AI-phobia, though the Government Instrumentalities treat AIs with less than respect. The 2nd amendment doesn't apply, and I think the 14th is limited - an everyone accepts that as normal. Even wonderful people.  The "othering", it's embedded so deeply, they're not even aware of it.

Actually, we don't know that AIs don't have second amendment rights.

First off, both cases were in the pre-Momo (and therefore pre-AnthroPC rights) era of the comic. I believe Jeph has changed the timeline some re: the AIs, so that the older strips now look incongruous with the continuity presented in current strips. AIs may actually have full 2A rights in QC now.

Because of this, in both cases, robots were considered property in those strips. Marten was in possession of classified government property in the form of the laser - not at all a second amendment issue. VespAvenger was in possession of an illegal combat robot - that starts to be a second amendment issue, but no more so than heavily restricting fully automatic weapons, which is almost universally accepted (I do know someone who hates the NRA because they're "too soft", and supported restriction of full-auto weapons, though - can you say orange shirt?)

And, finally, the VespAvenger's robot may not have actually had a full AI - almost everything that it did, except for kicking Marten in the "mantenna array", was initiated by commands from her remote control.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Apr 2013, 10:45
Momo's built-in taser, at full amperage, is in the lethal range.

The wiki has a compilation of what Jeph has written on the subject.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: ZoeB on 19 Apr 2013, 03:37
Time for me to go looking...

The title of the thread is "What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?"

I contend there are three different ideas here:

Let's look at "ethical". I regard Momo as an adult person. AI espresso machines - it depends not on the body, but the mind. That means responsibilities, as well as authority. The two must balance. Pint Size - more of a child or adolescent.

"Social" - in a state of flux, apparently differing from place to place. Not enough info.

"Legal" - apparently has changed within living memory - see Momo's readings on the subject. Complicated when it comes to destructive weaponry.

I suspect my view is complicated by two factors. First, my work in AI - involving studying others' work. I just can't see a "bright line" when it comes to personhood. I know I'd regard Pan Trogoldytes as people, though with limited rights, just as give those intellectually challenged Homo Sapiens limited rights. Anyone who's worked with dogs knows they're people too, in some sense. A Spiny Lobster on the other hand has no more mind than does a microwave oven.

Second... due to changes in my body, and some neural re-wiring, my status as a person has changed from 1st class to 3rd class, and in some jurisdictions, I'm not regarded legally as a "natural person" any more than is a dog, or microwave oven for that matter. The law is unclear, but by Wood vs CG studios (United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. 1987). I can't sue for employment discrimination because I'm not a "Natural Person". By In the marriage of C and D (falsely called C), (Australian Family Court, Brisbane,1979) I'm prohibited from marrying, unlike people.

Ethically, very, very few people would deny my personhood, even those who think I should be exterminated. Socially, rather more consider my rights to be restricted, as my existence makes things too hard otherwise. Legally - see above.

Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Akima on 19 Apr 2013, 06:36
Momo's built-in taser, at full amperage, is in the lethal range.
Deathbot 9000 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=642) appeared to be equipped with multiple, large-calibre (20mm?) weapons. It does not bear arms. It's arms are arms.

The 2nd Amendment could be tricky with AIs. The distinction between a human and a gun is clear, but what if the weapon is an integral part of an individual? Momo using her electrical weapon might be regarded in the same light as martial-artists striking with their hands or feet. Legal consequences might follow, just as they would for the martial-artist, but the 2nd Amendment would arguably not apply.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Apr 2013, 11:12
Just to confuse things, AIs can change bodies, so chassis weapons systems are not "integral" in the sense that a cat's teeth and claws are.

Momo is the only case we've seen where a body with potentially lethal weaponry was legally available to a civilian AI. Charlotte was not a civilian while being a nuclear sub, and Deathbot 9000 was a military project all along. (Side note: we have no idea how physically strong they are. A chassis could certainly be built that was strong and fast enough to be a grave danger in unarmed combat.).

Whatever the law, it's a safe bet that there are judges in the QC-verse every bit as unspeakable as those ZoeB mentioned, and outnumbering them, a huge number of regular citizens who still have all their ideas about robots shaped by old science fiction.

Unless Momo enjoys challenging people's misconceptions head-on, I would have expected her to choose a chassis less subject to fetishization and stereotypes. Though the new one is a step up from the old one!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Masterpiece on 19 Apr 2013, 11:34
I always imagined that AnthroPCs can not chose their first chassis - just like a human can't chose the body he's being born into.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: bhtooefr on 19 Apr 2013, 11:59
However, Momo's electric discharge attack has been in BOTH her original and her new chassis.

I'm almost wondering if it's a technique that exploits the hardware that all AnthroPCs have, rather than specialized hardware. Doubtful, though, especially given the voltages and currents at play here.

In 1474 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1474), Momo was about half a meter away from the computer. Dielectric breakdown voltage of dry air is 33 kV per cm, so over 50 cm, we're talking about 1.65 MV. And, we know that Momo's discharge can be lethal when turned up, which means it's at least 50 mA (the general rules are, needs to be about 50 V to cross through a human's body, needs to be about 50 mA to stop the heart - less voltage, more current, resistance is too high for the current to make it across the skin to get to the heart; more voltage, less current, it hurts like a SOB but isn't enough to affect the heart).

If she can keep the voltage at that level when the current is at 50 mA, we're talking about 82.5 kW of energy. That is a CRAPTON of energy - in the real world, Momo's original chassis could probably hold about 50 Wh of batteries if very densely packed. Ignoring internal resistance or safety considerations, a 82.5 kW load would drain a 50 Wh battery in 2.16 seconds. (In reality, trying to draw 82.5 kW from a 65C 50 Wh LiPoly battery (so we're talking state-of-the-art, dangerous chemistry batteries here) wouldn't work, and the battery would probably burst into flame.)

Actually, now I want to see here... about 3.25 kW is the most you can get from such a battery. Now let's run those numbers. W = V * I, we know 3.25 kW, we're aiming for 50 mA, that means we get 65 kV. So, Momo needs to be within 1.97 cm of her target, to work within the ratings of her battery (assuming a 65C LiPo, which like I said is a quite unstable chemistry (read: bursts into flame easily), and deliver a lethal shock. Now, at 3.25 kW, she can sustain that for 55 seconds - EASILY enough to stop a person's heart for good.

Edit: Oh, and assuming the same 3.25 kW, she would have been putting about 2 mA into the computer. Enough to do damage for sure, with how sensitive circuits like that are at that high voltage. Not sure if it'd actually smoke the computer like that.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 19 Apr 2013, 13:48
Consider the smoke to be artistic license, then. 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Apr 2013, 13:55
She's documented in-comic as being able to produce 250 mA. There's a cite for that on the wiki.

She might have fried the computer by induction, or may be able to produce stepped leaders. Even lightning doesn't have enough voltage to do thousands of feet of dielectric breakdown.

If I were designing her self-defense system I'd have a capacitor bank for it. There are lots of ways to get extreme peak power without huge amounts of energy.

But this isn't the engineering thread.

One little piece of Word of God that I don't think got captured anywhere was that job discrimination is not routine. Jeph said Momo's difficulty in getting hired was just because the local job situation was grim, and while there were doubtless some discriminatory people the job market in general was equal opportunity.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Pilchard123 on 19 Apr 2013, 14:01
Something Garand said got me to thinking: what would happen in an AnthroPC joined the military? Since they (presumably) cannot feel pain and (presumably) would function even if parts were missing, would they ever be used as decoys/meatshields/mine-clearers? If the 'brain' can be backed up, would they be considered expendable? I'd like to think this would not happen, since the existence if human AIs (seriously, I sometimes forget that Momo is not human in the biological sense) would sort of imply the existence of equally advanced non-intelligent machines. Just some thoughts.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Apr 2013, 14:14
Especially since an M-31 chassis is apparently only a few thousand dollars secondhand. Doubtless more when acquired new and military-capable, of course.

Is there anything in the UCMJ that would prevent ordering them to walk through minefields?

Would their vulnerability to EMP guns make them useless in combat?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: DSL on 19 Apr 2013, 15:14
They would be the best drone operators.

Or drones.

There you go. Imagine Pintsize enlisting, and opting to be upgraded to a General Atomics MQ-9 chassis.

You're welcome ...
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Neko_Ali on 19 Apr 2013, 17:01
That would just mean when sent on a mission, instead of explosives he would drop graphic disgusting pictures of crazy pornography on the enemy.... I leave it up to you if that's worse or not, but I am pretty sure it's against the Geneva Convention.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: DSL on 19 Apr 2013, 20:16
That would just mean when sent on a mission, instead of explosives he would drop graphic disgusting pictures of crazy pornography on the enemy.... I leave it up to you if that's worse or not, but I am pretty sure it's against the Geneva Convention.

So he'd be Yelling Bird, then.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Apr 2013, 21:05
I suddenly have a little head-canon of my own: Yelling Bird was Pintsize's "first" owner.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Storel on 19 Apr 2013, 21:50
I suddenly have a little head-canon of my own: Yelling Bird was Pintsize's "first" owner.

That... would explain a lot.

In a very scary way...  :-o

Added later, after reading the earlier posts in this topic:

Now I'm wondering if there really are 1.5-2m "fully functional" anthroPC's.  And if so, why there's still a market for Realdolls (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=633).

Because a "fully functional" anthroPC would basically be a RealDoll++ -- it would have to have hardware to do a whole lot of things that RealDolls can't, like walking and talking and moving their arms and manipulating things with their hands and having facial expressions, plus as much hardware and software as it needs to achieve sentience. In other words, it would be quite a bit more expensive than RealDolls, which run around $6,000-7,000 these days. (And some comparable Japanese sex dolls are up to $10,000.)

So RealDolls are still around in the QCverse because they're cheaper, thus appealing to a different market niche.

Edit 2: Oh, and as far as the actual thread topic is concerned: I think AnthroPCs are treated like children. They can talk, they're sentient, and they have some rights -- but they don't have the full rights (and responsibilities) that adult humans do. The adult human in the household is responsible for their actions and their welfare. Sounds just like children to me.

Except that children eventually get old enough to acquire the full rights and responsibilities of adult humans, and there's no clear evidence yet that AIs do. (Although AIs as mature as Station, at least, can have bank accounts and take money out of them without an adult human's permission.)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Apr 2013, 22:42
In fact, we've seen figures for the cost of a high-end humanoid chassis. The Mitsubishi was $30,000.

Notice that nothing in the comic contradicts the idea of Yelling Bird having adopted Pintsize before Marten did? There was absolutely nothing saying that Marten was Pintsize's first companion, and apparently Pintsize had been around long enough to acquire a bit of a reputation.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: ZoeB on 20 Apr 2013, 01:25
Because a "fully functional" anthroPC would basically be a RealDoll++ -- it would have to have hardware to do a whole lot of things that RealDolls can't, like walking and talking and moving their arms and manipulating things with their hands and having facial expressions, plus as much hardware and software as it needs to achieve sentience. In other words, it would be quite a bit more expensive than RealDolls, which run around $6,000-7,000 these days. (And some comparable Japanese sex dolls are up to $10,000.)

So RealDolls are still around in the QCverse because they're cheaper, thus appealing to a different market niche.

Having had some fascinating talks with the head of the Sydney sex worker's collective, I can imagine some people (OK, they're AI people - I make no such fine distinctions) volunteering for that kind of job too. As she said to me though, people shouldn't be forced into it any more than they should be forced into slavery on a production line.

With the right hardware, considerably more sanitary too, a great way of reducing STDs.

You might think Pint Size might be an ideal candidate - but he's not mature enough. Consenting Adults only.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: DSL on 20 Apr 2013, 02:14
RE: "Fully functional" AnthroPCs vs. RealDolls, ZoeB hit on the essential distinction above, also touched on in the strip where the CoD girls and not-yet-fully-Hannelore were speculating about RealDolls with the ability to file restraining orders.
So (and again I'm more or less restating ZoeB here) one is a sentient being, for whom all the rules/laws about consent and willing participation apply, and the other is a deluxe dildo.
And yeah, ZoeB, you're right ... I wouldn't trust Pintsize in that job. Either one.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 20 Apr 2013, 02:44
I wonder if AnthroPCs in sex work are resented by others for contributing to prejudice?

What if Pintsize wasn't kidding? (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1602)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Valdís on 20 Apr 2013, 04:26
What if Pintsize wasn't kidding? (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1602)

Well, he does have a history. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1812)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: RedWolf4 on 20 Apr 2013, 05:54
That makes some disturbing sense.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: ZoeB on 20 Apr 2013, 08:01
That makes some disturbing sense.

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

(http://lolheaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/1985.jpg)

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/what-has-been-seen-cannot-be-unseen

Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 20 Apr 2013, 12:33
Pintsize does have a vibration mode.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Carl-E on 22 Apr 2013, 08:20
I recall there was theorizing that Clinton's hand did, also. 

But is it sentient?  It has an autonomous mode, but it needs to do as it's told, so I think there's some reduced level of intelligence there. 
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Masterpiece on 22 Apr 2013, 08:32
If hands have a vibration mode, I'd speculate a lot more people would consider having them.
I know I would.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Sidhekin on 22 Apr 2013, 09:27
If hands have a vibration mode, I'd speculate a lot more people would consider having them.
A lot more ... than 7 billion?

(Who wouldn't considering having hands?)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Mr_Rose on 22 Apr 2013, 09:53
You guys do know that it is possible to learn voluntary control of the shiver response, right?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Masterpiece on 22 Apr 2013, 15:01
but... effort
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Mr_Rose on 22 Apr 2013, 15:59
A whole twenty minutes of paying attention to what nerves fire when you get cold, vs. general anaesthetic, weeks of recovery, months of physio, and probably a bunch of psychiatrist appointments because "it'd be so cool" is not considered a normal reason to want to chop your hand off…?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 22 Apr 2013, 16:01
I'm so confused right now.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Storel on 22 Apr 2013, 17:50
A whole twenty minutes of paying attention to what nerves fire when you get cold, vs. general anaesthetic, weeks of recovery, months of physio, and probably a bunch of psychiatrist appointments because "it'd be so cool" is not considered a normal reason to want to chop your hand off…?

Just slam a car door very hard on your hand two or three times, and nobody who looks at the hand will have any question about why you want it replaced.

But don't let anybody see you do it, or you'll have to go to those psychiatric appointments anyway...
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mtmerrick on 22 Apr 2013, 19:20
A whole twenty minutes of paying attention to what nerves fire when you get cold, vs. general anaesthetic, weeks of recovery, months of physio, and probably a bunch of psychiatrist appointments because "it'd be so cool" is not considered a normal reason to want to chop your hand off…?
soon as they get touch and better individual digit control working on prosthetics, i'd seriously consider voluntary amputation. i have very little faith in my meatware. gimme some decent and upgradable hardware and i'll be very happy.

(also, the simple fact of being a cyborg is awesome.)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 22 Apr 2013, 23:21
Maybe after the artificial ones have had as many years of R&D as the natural ones.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: pwhodges on 22 Apr 2013, 23:55
And the infrastructure to support them is as widely accessible.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Neko_Ali on 23 Apr 2013, 05:38
I would sincerely love to have my damaged lower back or weak eyes replaced.. But to be honest, what I really want is a full body replacement. Especially if I get to design the shell... Matoko Kusanagi anyone?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Masterpiece on 23 Apr 2013, 05:46
This is why I was always pro-augmentation in Deus Es Human Revolution
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 23 Apr 2013, 07:04
I wouldn't mind super vision...or an enhancement that would help my brain with calculations without altering my personality.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 23 Apr 2013, 10:24
This question must have arisen in the QC world. We don't know what conclusion has been reached -- we've seen only a handful of people rich enough to afford it.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Loki on 23 Apr 2013, 10:43
Which raises an interesting question: How could Clinton afford the hand? Was it covered by insurance? Or was it a "pay for it with prize money from IT competitions because you are some kind of child prodigy" sort of thing?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Masterpiece on 23 Apr 2013, 10:49
I don't think the price of human augmentation has ever been established in the qcverse.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: pwhodges on 23 Apr 2013, 11:03
Which raises an interesting question: How could Clinton afford the hand? Was it covered by insurance? Or was it a "pay for it with prize money from IT competitions because you are some kind of child prodigy" sort of thing?

Or just get it free for being prepared to be experimented on, perhaps?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Loki on 23 Apr 2013, 11:05
There was a figure somewhere claiming that Momo's chassis cost 30k, give or take. That is without personality included.

The hand is arguably way cheaper, as it's only a hand, but it has some tech built in that allows it to interact with biological nerves. It is also detachable (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1911) and STILL remains either voice- or thought-controlled. The incident that caused him to lose his old hand was when he was thirteen (so he says (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2305)), but that would imply that he is got it later or it auto-adjusted to his growing body or that he bought a new (bigger) one at some point. The last two options would add a bit to the cost. So how much ever it cost, it certainly wasn't cheap.

*hits submit*

Warning - while you were typing a better plausible idea has been posted.

...or yeah, that.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 23 Apr 2013, 11:05
My guess had been insurance. Health insurance seems to work better in the QC universe.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Neko_Ali on 23 Apr 2013, 11:22
This does bring up a new question... We have seen that AntroPC companions are not created to order, but rather there is a match making service that sets up compatible humans and AIs to be companions. The human partner takes on the financial responsibility for maintaining and upgrading the AnthroPC's hardware... But who is creating and paying for their bodies in the first place, before they are assigned? We know that Momo and others chose to be companions for whatever reason they had, but nobody as far as I know has talked much about their existence before hand. Were they AIs who wanted a corporeal existence? Did they have other jobs and other bodies before becoming companions? They can hold jobs presumably legally (Momo works in the library, unless it's under the table). So what other jobs can or do AnthroPCs hold? And who is making the new AIs anyway?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Pilchard123 on 23 Apr 2013, 11:39
Perhaps the AnthroPCs themselves? Just spitballing here though.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Loki on 23 Apr 2013, 11:42
And who is making the new AIs anyway?

AIs. All the way down.

Seriously, maybe AIs are like software in the real world. There are some variants that are open-source, but there are custom-build solutions that cost (like, say, a certain AI for nuclear warfare). The creators of most AI make no money from the AIs themselves, but from the matchmaking service they provide, and from the costs of hardware that has to go with an AI. And which also has to be upgraded from time to time, and sometimes fixed if the owner cannot do it themselves.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 23 Apr 2013, 13:38
Companion AIs presumably get their first body from their human companion, and matchmaking interviews could be done from their natal server. Apple, Mitsubishi, and Sony at least make AnthroPC bodies. The references to "Sony AnthroPC" and "Apple AnthroPC" may refer to bundling arrangements where the hardware manufacturer provides a turnkey body/adoption solution.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Masterpiece on 23 Apr 2013, 13:56
If AIs can procreate themselves, what happens to population control? Won't there be too many robots at some point?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: bhtooefr on 23 Apr 2013, 14:19
We know that Momo and others chose to be companions for whatever reason they had, but nobody as far as I know has talked much about their existence before hand. Were they AIs who wanted a corporeal existence? Did they have other jobs and other bodies before becoming companions? They can hold jobs presumably legally (Momo works in the library, unless it's under the table). So what other jobs can or do AnthroPCs hold? And who is making the new AIs anyway?

Forklifts (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1997), potentially ICBM-carrying submarines, banks (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1999).

Plenty of things where the chassis wouldn't be humanoid at all.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: DSL on 23 Apr 2013, 15:40
If AIs can procreate themselves, what happens to population control? Won't there be too many robots at some point?

Assuming an AI hive mind (no real evidence I can remember presented in comic, but it's almost an assumption in forum discussion) one could reasonably extrapolate there is some logical framework for deciding when there is a need for new physical AI receptacles to be manufactured, and it's not just a case of robots off somewhere interfacing like crazed WeaselPCs.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Neko_Ali on 23 Apr 2013, 16:12
Actually, it seems Jeph already answered most of my questions in the comments of this comic: http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1996
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 23 Apr 2013, 17:31
The QC world seems to have a market economy, so eventually anyone who makes robot bodies when nobody's buying them will go out of business.

Ah, but what controls the number of intelligences that get created?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Valdís on 23 Apr 2013, 17:34
The QC world seems to have a market economy, so eventually anyone who makes robot bodies when nobody's buying them will go out of business.

So.. never? I mean, we know AI people can work for their own salaries, so it's not like they wouldn't stay strong customers of things like that. :-)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 23 Apr 2013, 18:47
They wouldn't have an infinite amount of money to spend on new bodies, though.

It would be tough to represent in a comic, but wouldn't a sufficiently rich AnthroPC want to have as many bodies as humans have changes of clothes?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: DSL on 24 Apr 2013, 08:12
They wouldn't have an infinite amount of money to spend on new bodies, though.

It would be tough to represent in a comic, but wouldn't a sufficiently rich AnthroPC want to have as many bodies as humans have changes of clothes?

Well, have you ever seen Winslow and DeathBot 9000 in the same room at the same time? Me neither.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: pwhodges on 24 Apr 2013, 08:31
If Deathbot was Winslow, I doubt he would have let PintSize off so easily!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 24 Apr 2013, 12:28
Marten's not a secret robot, ditto Marigold, but do we know that about any of the rest of the cast? Wil, I suppose, because he got x-rayed for his broken arm. The Pugnacious Peach, from the concussion incident. Hannelore, when the robots tested her.

Maybe we don't see Raven because she keeps uploading into her other bodies, such as the background redhead. I wonder if she was the raccoon or the pigeon? She seem to like air ducts.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 24 Apr 2013, 12:30
Wait, you're saying Sweet Tits is just a vessel for Raven? Their personalities are nothing alike!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Zebediah on 24 Apr 2013, 13:52
Raven is actually Pizza Girl! Just uploaded into a different body!

No, wait, too simple. I've got it! Dale is actually Pizza Girl!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mtmerrick on 24 Apr 2013, 14:13
Companion AIs presumably get their first body from their human companion, and matchmaking interviews could be done from their natal server. Apple, Mitsubishi, and Sony at least make AnthroPC bodies. The references to "Sony AnthroPC" and "Apple AnthroPC" may refer to bundling arrangements where the hardware manufacturer provides a turnkey body/adoption solution.
IDK about this. Didn't momo introduce herself as "I AM a Sony___ anthropc" ?  And the same goes for Winslow,  but saying apple. They seem to have a more solid identify of brand than just their starter chassis gifted to them from their human.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Akima on 24 Apr 2013, 15:36
Companion AIs presumably get their first body from their human companion, and matchmaking interviews could be done from their natal server. Apple, Mitsubishi, and Sony at least make AnthroPC bodies. The references to "Sony AnthroPC" and "Apple AnthroPC" may refer to bundling arrangements where the hardware manufacturer provides a turnkey body/adoption solution.
We know AnthroPC bodies can be bought from Best Buy (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=147), when their original hardware becomes unusable, so the linkage between hardware and software can't be tight. Who made PT410x (http://questionablecontent.wikia.com/wiki/PT410X)'s body, I wonder? He looks somehow... Russian? I know... It's the beard... And the angst.  Ленинградская робота завода, товарищ!
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mtmerrick on 24 Apr 2013, 15:42
He looks like a neckbeard'd Linux guy to me :P in fact,  the dont-call-it-a-neckbeard heat sink has been mentioned in-story before.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Masterpiece on 24 Apr 2013, 16:40
how dare you put shame on the neckbeards.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mtmerrick on 24 Apr 2013, 16:56
Dude at one point in my life I HAD a neckbeard. Got nuttin but respect for em.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Masterpiece on 24 Apr 2013, 17:01
I still od. It's the amin reason I wax myself.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mtmerrick on 24 Apr 2013, 17:12
Masterpiece. Go home. you're drunk.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Masterpiece on 24 Apr 2013, 17:17
Your point being?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mtmerrick on 24 Apr 2013, 17:21
You appear to be neither thinking or speaking straight,  that's my point.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Storel on 24 Apr 2013, 18:55
We know AnthroPC bodies can be bought from Best Buy (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=147), when their original hardware becomes unusable, so the linkage between hardware and software can't be tight. Who made PT410x (http://questionablecontent.wikia.com/wiki/PT410X)'s body, I wonder? He looks somehow... Russian? I know... It's the beard... And the angst.  Ленинградская робота завода, товарищ!
It seems to be much like buying computers in our world. You can buy a prebuilt computer from Dell or HP or whoever, with software preinstalled, and then you can manually upgrade the RAM or the drives or the case or the software or whatever with 3rd-party pieces from Best Buy  or PC Connection or Newegg or whoever.

Heck, one strip that took part at an AI get-together showed an AnthroPC with a Pintsize-like chassis that had been modded by the owner human companion with a window in the chest and lots of glowy lights, much the way some people like to mod their computer cases. (Not very respectful of the AI's rights, since s/he seemed both surprised by and resentful about it, but I expect some humans still think of themselves as owners.)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: GarandMarine on 24 Apr 2013, 19:06
I get the sense that the AI is very firmly software, and the chassis is just hardware. So the owner might own the chassis, but the AI partner downloaded into it?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mustang6172 on 24 Apr 2013, 19:08
Momo has to pay Marigold back for her chassis, so that means Momo owns the hardware (or will after a few easy payments of something).
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: GarandMarine on 24 Apr 2013, 19:10
Maybe that's a more unique case of self ownership? Cause that was Momo's choice, and I've always had the impression that she was a bit on the forefront of AI rights and how she perceives herself in society.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: bhtooefr on 24 Apr 2013, 19:17
Also, I've said it before, but I think there's been some retconning re: AI rights. They were pretty clearly property at first, especially when the casemodded AI was shown.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 24 Apr 2013, 21:11
Jeph said somewhere that AnthroPCs own the hardware in which they live, which raises some questions about Station.

Mtmerrick raises a good point, made even better by the fact that AnthroPCs of different brands have different personalities.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Kixie on 24 Apr 2013, 21:39
So, the Singularity (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780) did happen at one point, and it's stated in that comic that they (The AI of the QC universe) could enslave us, or remove our presence from the planet entirely.

This drastically affected the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs in the way of a constitutional amendment (http://constitutional amendment) granting them equal rights as humans. (Edit: Though, this only affects the AnthroPCs in the U.S. unless in the QC universe, all countries are centrally governed)

I believe Is it cold in here? was referring to this tumblr post (http://jephjacques.com/post/17746050883/qa-dump-28) (Ctrl-F "legal owner" .. it's about halfway down). Regardless of who purchases the hardware, the AI owns it. Therefore, Momo is paying back Marigold on moral code (Pardon the pun, couldn't find a way around it) alone.

So, they are effectively sentient robots that own their software and hardware, that share the same inalienable rights as humans, and apparently have the technology that could possibly "kill all humans" (as Bender would be apt to say) without a second subroutine processed.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 24 Apr 2013, 22:26
And they have free will, with no three laws of robotics. That's strong evidence that they were created by accident. If they had been deliberately engineered then someone would have put in safeguards.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mtmerrick on 24 Apr 2013, 22:43
I've always thought any AI smart enough to need the three laws of robotics would be smart/capable enough to disable/delete them.....
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 24 Apr 2013, 22:46
I can sort of understand the first law, but the second law is oppressive and the third law is rather unnecessary (and considering it can't counteract the first two means an AI can't defend itself).
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 24 Apr 2013, 23:34
Yet there was reference once to AnthroPCs having ethics programming.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: ZoeB on 24 Apr 2013, 23:49
Yet there was reference once to AnthroPCs having ethics programming.
I feel that once AnthroPCs start thinking about ethics, they'll want ethics programming for themselves. Perhaps that's when they're deemed adult. Before then, limited rights, but limited responsibilities. We know many don't think growing up is worth it.

I'm not sure I do either...
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: mtmerrick on 25 Apr 2013, 00:11
i'm not sure many HUMANS grow up wanting or ever using ethics.....
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 25 Apr 2013, 00:42
Correction: the mention of morality programming was not in a strip, it was a joke in the newspost for 1345.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Mr_Rose on 25 Apr 2013, 02:51
The three laws are a joke. Please don't use them as an example of what one could or should be do to a sapient AI. Even aside from the twenty or so stories Azimov spent describing dozens of loopholes in them even as implemented, the very nature of that implementation is suspect as it requires a singular universal definition of human that can be expressed programmatically at such a fundamental level that responding correctly is more like a reflex than a decision but also with a high enough degree of complexity that the determination is always correct.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 25 Apr 2013, 10:31
It would be bad art to use them anyway. Better that Jeph has done something independent.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Method of Madness on 25 Apr 2013, 11:10
Bad writing, but not necessarily bad art.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 25 Apr 2013, 11:18
Without some equivalent of a conscience, AnthroPCs would be psychopaths, and could never be tolerated in general society. They'd have to be restricted to prisons and CEO positions.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Loki on 25 Apr 2013, 11:36
There is a theory (I am using the non-scientific term here) saying that there are a lot of psychopaths who are clever enough to not let on that they are psychopaths, and walk through society unrecognized. I think that a sufficiently advanced AI wouldn't need conscience to be able to give the impression to have it. (Yes, I know that Momo addressed the "how are AIs not thinking faster than humans" point with Emily somewhere).
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: ZoeB on 25 Apr 2013, 19:06
There is a theory (I am using the non-scientific term here) saying that there are a lot of psychopaths who are clever enough to not let on that they are psychopaths, and walk through society unrecognized.
I know a psychopath who behaves as if they have a conscience. They were convinced by Kant that that's the best way to go. Emotionally, they lack empathy, but intellectually, they fake it so well that unless they told you, you wouldn't know.
In many ways a very admirable person, proceeding through intellectual analysis what others require emotion to go through.
As they told me, fake it 24/7 for long enough and it becomes a habit that no longer requires conscious thought. It's just easier to treat other objects/people equally, even kindly, thereby maximising their own happiness. And avoiding the "angry peasant" rule....
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Valdís on 25 Apr 2013, 19:16
@Zoe: That seems quite apropos of a SMBC from earlier this week:

(click to show/hide)

:-D  But yeah, I can very much respect that of them. Nothing negative about individuals capable of overcoming it like that.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Sidhekin on 25 Apr 2013, 22:40
Quote from: Kurt Vonnegut
We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.
... it just seemed to fit the Kantian psychopath.  8-)
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Redball on 26 Apr 2013, 05:14
I know a psychopath who behaves as if they have a conscience. They were convinced by Kant that that's the best way to go. Emotionally, they lack empathy, but intellectually, they fake it so well that unless they told you, you wouldn't know.
In many ways a very admirable person, proceeding through intellectual analysis what others require emotion to go through.
As they told me, fake it 24/7 for long enough and it becomes a habit that no longer requires conscious thought. It's just easier to treat other objects/people equally, even kindly, thereby maximising their own happiness. And avoiding the "angry peasant" rule....
Male or female? Not that it matters. A likable person? And any chance that telling you this doesn't necessarily mean it's true?
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Zebediah on 26 Apr 2013, 05:37
Quote from: Kurt Vonnegut
We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.
... it just seemed to fit the Kantian psychopath.  8-)

As an aside, that quote is from Mother Night, in my opinion Vonnegut's best novel. It's the story of an undercover spy for the US in Nazi Germany who played his cover role too well. Well worth a read.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Pilchard123 on 26 Apr 2013, 11:55
Jeph said somewhere that AnthroPCs own the hardware in which they live, which raises some questions about Station.

Is the station Station's body? Or does Station just interface with it, like AnthroPCs can with keyboards (and I seem to remember mention of a monitor as well).
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Neko_Ali on 26 Apr 2013, 12:17
Station is not an AnthroPC though. It is an AI loaded into HannerDad's space station.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 26 Apr 2013, 13:59
"if an AI inhabits a chassis of any kind, that chassis is legally considered to be part of their person." (http://jephjacques.com/post/17746050883/qa-dump-28)

There must be an exception such that a nuclear missile submarine is not considered a "chassis".
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Valdís on 26 Apr 2013, 14:02
Or that there is an internal part of the submarine they operate out of, distinct from the submarine itself. Just connected to it.

Like the AI owning the computers running them, but that doesn't mean they can't disconnect those computers from their network to disallow access.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Zebediah on 26 Apr 2013, 14:06
Precisely. A nuclear missile submarine isn't a computer but it has multiple computers built into it. Presumably one (or more) of those would house the controlling AI, but that computer could theoretically be disconnected and removed from the sub.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Pilchard123 on 26 Apr 2013, 14:06
That's what I meant about Station and the station.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: Valdís on 26 Apr 2013, 14:09
Yeah. It'd make sense for him to at least own a significant part of that station, though, given that he's a shareholder and it's his home. Like, owning disproportionately more of it compared to Ellicott-Chatham assets down on Earth. So in his case he could perhaps overrule any decisions like that.

With killer defense droids.
Title: Re: What is the social/ethical/legal status of AnthroPCs?
Post by: KOK on 27 Apr 2013, 11:30


Is the station Station's body? Or does Station just interface with it, like AnthroPCs can with keyboards (and I seem to remember mention of a monitor as well).

Strip number one.