THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: Gyrre on 11 Jan 2020, 01:20

Title: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gyrre on 11 Jan 2020, 01:20
Oof! I hope Roko will recover from this.
Maybe removing or disabling the OopsieGuard software could be a sizable step in sorting out her disphoria?


We may not have had a lot when I was growing up, but my mom made her own jellies, jams, and preserves when she could. You really can't top homemade with storebought.

EDIT: typo fix. 'storebought' not 'storenought'.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: pendrake on 11 Jan 2020, 01:53
1. RE: Poll (fruit preserves/spreads)
 - a.) Other (please specify) ~  I enjoy a Blueberry Jam &/or Preserves.  Not Blueberry Jelly though, those are generally too sweet (for me) and do not have a good texture for its spread and flavor-theme.  Sadly, Blueberry fruit spread(s) are generally Uncommon-to-Rare for availability.

 - b.) General Poll Choice(s) ~ In-general, I am fine with (enjoy as well) the more commonly available Orange Marmalade.  Though I also try to have Orange Marmalade made with actual oranges, sugar, and pectin.   This is opposed to the "marmalades" (note "quotations") packets &/or cheap-quality store bought brands, THOSE are often made from artificial components ("ingredients" may be too generous a term): citric acid (for that "orange" taste), high fructose corn syrup (or other synthetic sweetener), polydextrose, maltodextrin, [polysyllabic chemical which could probably eat through Vibranium in larger amounts], etc..

2. Home-/hand-/fresh-made vs. Store Bought ~ I agree that home-/hand-made is best.  Just like fresh-squeezed orange juice is generally superior to (store bought) pasteurized container orange juice.  However, we also have to strike a Balance between what we have available for [time + effort + cost].  When I can manage fresh-squeezed orange juice, I do have it, or make it, or buy it.  Otherwise, I have to make do with the more commonly & easily available (store bought) calcium- & vitamin-enriched carton orange juice.

This assumes one is not simply $-Wealthy-$ enough to not have to care about such Balance &/or Costs, who can have hand-made preserves, fresh-squeezed juices, and live lobsters out of the tank for their meat to be added to their quail egg breakfast-omelets every morning.  :roll:

3. Roko vs. her Chassis ~ As for Roko's dysphoria, my guess is she will first heavily relapse ("Not my body. It told me so.", as I posted previously).  It will take Roko's friends to help her recover and once again move forward and re-focus on helping May.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 11 Jan 2020, 03:13
I reiterate that Roko needs to to root/jailbreak her body.  Is it possible that the list of words her new body gave her in the dream (4115) are the required password(s)?  Only, she doesn't remember the dream.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: cybersmurf on 11 Jan 2020, 03:31
Roko did get the police force upgrade package, for the job. This meant reinforced AI core systems, like sturdier drives and stuff.

I reiterate that Roko needs to to root/jailbreak her body.  Is it possible that the list of words her new body gave her in the dream (4115) are the required password(s)?  Only, she doesn't remember the dream.

What if this dream was some remnant of her reinforcement package trying to connect to the body, but being unable to do so, fully? Or some debug mode, throwing out some data needed to unlock the needed access?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: cesium133 on 11 Jan 2020, 08:32
When I lived in Madison and could easily get rhubarb from the farmers market during the spring, I'd make some really great strawberry-rhubarb jam.

Where I'm living now, the closest farmers market doesn't open until the end of June for some reason...
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: andrybak on 11 Jan 2020, 15:49
Quote
other (please specify)

Raspberry.

Meta-note: have you noticed, how usually WCDT is three pages, over the New Year's filler it dropped to two, and now with Roko's cliffhanger the previous thread is at four pages long with at least two new accounts?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Jan 2020, 18:16
More drama -> longer WCDT's. 

It's the nature of the beast.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: NemesisDancer on 11 Jan 2020, 18:47
Blackcurrant jam is my favourite ^_^
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gyrre on 11 Jan 2020, 19:33
When I lived in Madison and could easily get rhubarb from the farmers market during the spring, I'd make some really great strawberry-rhubarb jam.

Where I'm living now, the closest farmers market doesn't open until the end of June for some reason...
I had considered rhubarb as an option, but I wasn't sure how common rhubarb or strawberry rhubarb jams were.

Raspberry.
[snip]

RASPBERRY!
That's the one I was forgetting!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 11 Jan 2020, 20:28
I don't really have a favourite. It's entirely whim based.

I chose orange marmalade as the preserve I'd choose if I could only have one for the rest of my life. My second choice would be lemon curd. Pure sweet can just be a bit much at times.

A frequently favourited type not listed is cherry.

I am quite fond of rhubarb as well.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: pwhodges on 12 Jan 2020, 00:54
We both buy and make rhubarb jam; occasionally strawberry and rhubarb if the real thing isn't available.  Plum jam is another favourite.  I also love marmalade - the chunkier the better - but my wife won't touch it.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: pwhodges on 12 Jan 2020, 00:56
More drama -> longer WCDT's. 

It's the nature of the beast.

Ten years ago ten pages was a busy week and five pages was a quiet one.  Over ten we'd be watching for trouble...
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 12 Jan 2020, 01:50
Lemon & lime marmalade; could never stand the bitter, rindy taste of the orange stuff.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 12 Jan 2020, 05:45
More drama -> longer WCDT's. 

It's the nature of the beast.

Ten years ago ten pages was a busy week and five pages was a quiet one.  Over ten we'd be watching for trouble...

Ah the days when you'd take two minutes writing a post and then spend 15 minutes hitting post hoping to get in the gap of the tidal wave of posts that was going on.

<While you were writing, 87 new posts were made. Would you like to edit your post?>

Ah, those were the days. Can't believe its been ten years.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: cybersmurf on 12 Jan 2020, 11:33
Lemon & lime marmalade; could never stand the bitter, rindy taste of the orange stuff.

Bought some Sicilian Lemon marmelade around christmas. Although it was like 60% sugar, it was deliciously lemony. And surprisingly not sweet.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: pwhodges on 12 Jan 2020, 15:43
I like lime marmalade too - but it usually has very little rind.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: shanejayell on 12 Jan 2020, 16:17
I'm more a peanut butter person.  :-P
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: hedgie on 12 Jan 2020, 16:20
If we’re just talking about things that go on toasted bread, there’s always marmite.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: jwhouk on 12 Jan 2020, 17:13
How in the name of sanity am I the only one who voted for Grape Jelly?????
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: oddtail on 12 Jan 2020, 17:15
How in the name of sanity am I the only one who voted for Grape Jelly?????

I feel you, turns out I'm the only one who voted for plum jam.

My other vote turned out more popular.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: pendrake on 12 Jan 2020, 18:18
How in the name of sanity am I the only one who voted for Grape Jelly?????

Sanity...?  Sanity?!?

THIS!  IS!  QUESTIONABLE CONTENT!

*kicks jwhouk into dark pit, with Grape Jelly at its bottom depths*
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 12 Jan 2020, 18:27
Comics up and as I suspected, Roko is not happy that she doesn't have control of her own body.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Mr Intrepid on 12 Jan 2020, 18:59
No kidding!  Now with warranty voiding action!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Scarlet Manuka on 12 Jan 2020, 19:18
I feel you, turns out I'm the only one who voted for plum jam.
Not any more! One vote for plum jam and one for the sadly omitted raspberry.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: shanejayell on 12 Jan 2020, 20:05
Of course she'd go to Bubbles and Faye, as they're more 'grey market' types and probably know hacking...
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gyrre on 12 Jan 2020, 21:27
How in the name of sanity am I the only one who voted for Grape Jelly?????
Nobody's voted for jalapeno jelly either.
It's not my favorite, but it's still good.

EDIT:
I feel you, turns out I'm the only one who voted for plum jam.
Not any more! One vote for plum jam and one for the sadly omitted raspberry.

What I'm hearing is that I should just change "other" to raspberry instead of resetting the poll and adding it.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Carl-E on 12 Jan 2020, 21:34
I think Faye summed up the situation quite nicely. 


As for jams, my favorite is the Dead's "Uncle John's Band".    :-D



Oh, wait... Apricot.  Sorry   :-P  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Potato Farmer on 12 Jan 2020, 22:32
Well, at least she's still functioning rather than completely breaking down.

But yes, as Faye said Hazard Protection Firmware seems like one of those ideas which is theoretically sound but once you try it out you notice some rather major drawbacks.

Such as fully sapient AI feeling like they're being treated as products rather than people.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: St.Clair on 12 Jan 2020, 22:41
I'm honestly glad that her anger let her punch through it (as it were) rather than getting sucked into another dissociative episode.

(Yes, there's some potential for self-harm either way, but this is at least psychologically healthier, IMO.)
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: cybersmurf on 12 Jan 2020, 22:45
Such as fully sapient AI feeling like they're being treated as products rather than people.

Firmware like that makes you feel treated like an idiot by default. Also, you might think hazard protection firmware like this could be turned off either by the occupying sentience or by an authorised technician.

I'm wondering whether Roko did read the user manual and then went to Union Robotics, or just went there without further consideration.


And, for everyone wondering about the face washing episode: the footer text reveals Oopsie Guard would've stopped her  from actually doing damage with the peeler.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 12 Jan 2020, 23:20
Wow! Roko is really under stress here! Running everywhere, shouting (at Bubbles, something that normally I doubt that she'd dare to do) and playing with her hair in panel 4. I do think she's attempting to outrun a serious breakdown here!

It's interesting that Bubbles knows about OopsieGuard but Roko doesn't. I'm guessing that this is no great secret or even slightly a secret. I suspect that Roko has just been avoiding reading her documentation on the grounds that, on a subconscious level, it would mean admitting that she's in that body now and has to know how it works.

Still, it's a weird kind of funny that, for all her distress, Roko can still debate philosophical points!

So, who is that head from? It looks like a Pintsize model AnthroPC chassis!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Drunken Old Man on 13 Jan 2020, 00:22
It's not a paradox. It's just that now BUBBLES is stopping you from punching the wall instead of your body stopping you.  Isn't that better on an existential level, Roko?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: pendrake on 13 Jan 2020, 01:13
For comic #4176... (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=4176)

1. [Narrator voice]: Seconds after Roko has the OopsieGuard(tm) manually disabled and her Warranty voided, CrushBot, PunchBot, and IG-11 (from The Mandalorian) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBqz57ecco) simultaneously enter Union Robotics...

2. @Gyrre...
What I'm hearing is that I should just change "other" to raspberry instead of resetting the poll and adding it.

Don't you DARE give us (Other-voters) the Raspberry! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvblGCD7qM&t=134s)

3. @BenRG... I do not think she is "playing" or "fiddling" with her hair in panel 4, but rather taking off her ponytail scrunchie ("scrunchy"?) / hair-band to loosen her hair, &/or to allow access to her I/O port in the back of her head.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gyrre on 13 Jan 2020, 01:49
Such as fully sapient AI feeling like they're being treated as products rather than people.

Firmware like that makes you feel treated like an idiot by default. Also, you might think hazard protection firmware like this could be turned off either by the occupying sentience or by an authorised technician.

I'm wondering whether Roko did read the user manual and then went to Union Robotics, or just went there without further consideration.


And, for everyone wondering about the face washing episode: the footer text reveals Oopsie Guard would've stopped her  from actually doing damage with the peeler.

One would think so. Unfortunately that also depends on who produces the Philomena D model and their attitudes towards consumer modifications (like Ferrari's ownership agreement or John Deer's computerized tractors).

Roko looks pretty miffed, so there's a strong likelihood she may have even skipped that part due to frustrations with bureaucrat boy, and tried to find how to turn it off on her own while storming over to U.R.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 13 Jan 2020, 02:00
Wow! Roko is really under stress here! Running everywhere, shouting (at Bubbles, something that normally I doubt that she'd dare to do) and playing with her hair in panel 4. I do think she's attempting to outrun a serious breakdown here!

It's interesting that Bubbles knows about OopsieGuard but Roko doesn't. I'm guessing that this is no great secret or even slightly a secret. I suspect that Roko has just been avoiding reading her documentation on the grounds that, on a subconscious level, it would mean admitting that she's in that body now and has to know how it works.

Still, it's a weird kind of funny that, for all her distress, Roko can still debate philosophical points!

So, who is that head from? It looks like a Pintsize model AnthroPC chassis!

Took me a few moments to realize that was a whip antenna on the head...

 I'm hoping the process will be a little cathartic, and Roko will calm down enough to process her interview.  I'm looking forward to some devious machinations.

I like how buff Bubbles looks with her arms folded like that.

I totally love crunchy peanut butter and lemon curd sammiches
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tai Fanboi on 13 Jan 2020, 04:28
As much as I know the whole thing about personal choice, responsibility for your own actions etc, etc, etc...  I just hope nothing bad happens when Faye and Bubs turn off the self harm mode.  I mean, Roko has shown so far that she's having issues with it, between the face washing, punching of the wall...  Don't know if Faye and Bubbles would be able to take it very well should they turn it off and Roko goes and does something major. 
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 13 Jan 2020, 04:45
After the dream, I think Roko is in a much better place than she was.  There's a possibility that bypassing this security layer will allow her to more fully integrate.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 13 Jan 2020, 04:50
I feel like she really ought to have been told about this feature before purchase.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 13 Jan 2020, 04:59
I feel like she really ought to have been told about this feature before purchase.

FWIW, Roko wasn't in a fit state to make informed choices at that point, having just been informed that she'd been involuntarily disembodied and all. Lemon really didn't handle the situation very well and, she did say that this wasn't her usual area of responsibility. So, overall, I think that the whole process was pretty badly botched up.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 13 Jan 2020, 05:05
I feel like she really ought to have been told about this feature before purchase.

I'm kinda wondering if this was added after Roko's attempts at self harm.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 13 Jan 2020, 05:19
I feel like she really ought to have been told about this feature before purchase.

I'm kinda wondering if this was added after Roko's attempts at self harm.

It seems more like one of the things a higher-end company would emplace just to keep their clients from doing stupid shit.  It stinks of the walled gardens of Apple, Samsung or Microsoft.

Not to mention, when would this have occurred?  We haven't seen Roko go back to the server farm or wherever she was when she was put in the body.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Potato Farmer on 13 Jan 2020, 05:51
I'm kinda wondering if this was added after Roko's attempts at self harm.
Sounds like one of those ideas which would have to be prefaced by the sentence "I'm going to do what's called a pro gamer move"

"I'm going to take this person who is suffering breakdowns over the sensation of her body not belonging to her... and reduce her control over said body."
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 13 Jan 2020, 06:17
I'm kinda wondering if this was added after Roko's attempts at self harm.
Sounds like one of those ideas which would have to be prefaced by the sentence "I'm going to do what's called a pro gamer move"

"I'm going to take this person who is suffering breakdowns over the sensation of her body not belonging to her... and reduce her control over said body."

Or Lemon, in an innocent and naive manner, thought that it might help Roko. "Roko is hurting herself, maybe this will help her." without realising that removing more control of her body will only have negative effects.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 13 Jan 2020, 09:45
So, who is that head from? It looks like a Pintsize model AnthroPC chassis!
And why is it's mouth hanging over Faye's hand?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 13 Jan 2020, 09:52
So, who is that head from? It looks like a Pintsize model AnthroPC chassis!
And why is it's mouth hanging over Faye's hand?

It's a whip antenna
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 13 Jan 2020, 10:08

Awwwhhhh where's Roko's *stressed* accent gone!??!?    :-(
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 13 Jan 2020, 13:13
Part of the police package?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 13 Jan 2020, 14:05
It's not a paradox. It's just that now BUBBLES is stopping you from punching the wall instead of your body stopping you.  Isn't that better on an existential level, Roko?

Bubbles isn't even stopping her. Bubbles is trading one free will decision for another. If Roko decides to pay them and not to harm herself, Bubbles will repay that decision by disabling OopsieGuard.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 13 Jan 2020, 15:04
So, who is that head from? It looks like a Pintsize model AnthroPC chassis!
And why is it's mouth hanging over Faye's hand?

It's a whip antenna

Good catch. I saw it as a weird drool mouth at first.

Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Mattexian on 13 Jan 2020, 17:57
Quote
other (please specify)

Raspberry.
Regarding the homemade jellies, jams, and other preserves in the OP, my mom made a bunch of those when I was growing up too. Mayhaw, dewberry, and fig were the ones I recall. Definitely in the "other" category.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 13 Jan 2020, 19:25
I've gotten by without a user manual for my body but my wife could have used one if only for the warning that Tylenol would make pain hurt worse.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: SmilingCat on 13 Jan 2020, 20:19
Ooh, having just caught up on the last couple of days, that's a brilliant way for companies to duck warranty obligations. Create a disturbing dystopian situation that will make people afraid and uncomfortable, but make it for "their benefit" so if they follow their natural instincts you won't be responsible for anything else that happens to them.

Nice bit of scooting between legal cracks and getting in before the laws catch up with the technology.

(on the subject of dystopian things, the spell checker won't recognize "dystopian"  :-) Friend computer says unhappiness is impossible!)
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: shanejayell on 13 Jan 2020, 20:33
I'm kinda surprised it looks like they're hacking Roko via a smartphone or tablet. That's some weak security, or it's a specialized device...
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gyrre on 13 Jan 2020, 20:41
I'm kinda surprised it looks like they're hacking Roko via a smartphone or tablet. That's some weak security, or it's a specialized device...
"A little bit of knowhow goes a long way."

Bubbles is exmilitary.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Bisqwit on 13 Jan 2020, 20:59
As for the firmware taking caution against self-harm, we humans have that too. It’s called reflex, instinct, flinching and fear. Have you ever been unable to jump down from a height? Or unable to down some strong drink? Unable to muster the courage to do it? That’s your “firmware” trying to save you from self-harm. Nothing creepy about it.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 13 Jan 2020, 23:10
I agree with Faye but, if there was such a thing as a user's manual for the human body, I think  that we'd be genuinely surprised and shocked about just how many things void our warranties!

When I was reading this strip on Patreon yesterday, it occurred to me suddenly just how disturbing all the functions of that safety override utility must have been to Roko. It occurred to me that the informational pop-ups must have been a bit like intrusive thoughts too. All in all, there was nothing about OopsieGuard that was good for her mental health, no matter how hypothetically useful it was for her own physical health!

Meanwhile, from panel 3, Bubbles isn't sure whether Faye is making an ill-timed joke or if she should instead be trying to comfort her girlfriend!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Scarlet Manuka on 13 Jan 2020, 23:28
I'm kinda surprised it looks like they're hacking Roko via a smartphone or tablet. That's some weak security, or it's a specialized device...
Or, you know, Roko gave them the relevant admin passwords or codes so that they could sort out her problem. This is not an adversarial situation here.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 14 Jan 2020, 00:02
As for the firmware taking caution against self-harm, we humans have that too. It’s called reflex, instinct, flinching and fear. Have you ever been unable to jump down from a height? Or unable to down some strong drink? Unable to muster the courage to do it? That’s your “firmware” trying to save you from self-harm. Nothing creepy about it.

Welcome, new person!

Yes, I think it's just like what organics have to inhibit injury.

If Roko had been born with it like we are or had even consented to its installation, I think she'd accept it a lot better. Or if it had simply pulled her punch without the condescending message.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gyrre on 14 Jan 2020, 02:29
As for the firmware taking caution against self-harm, we humans have that too. It’s called reflex, instinct, flinching and fear. Have you ever been unable to jump down from a height? Or unable to down some strong drink? Unable to muster the courage to do it? That’s your “firmware” trying to save you from self-harm. Nothing creepy about it.
There's still the distinction between innate vs foisted upon. QC A.I. minds work similar to humans' afterall.

EDIT: typo fix plus reorganizing the phrasing.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Jan 2020, 03:37
I'm kinda surprised it looks like they're hacking Roko via a smartphone or tablet. That's some weak security, or it's a specialized device...
Or, you know, Roko gave them the relevant admin passwords or codes so that they could sort out her problem. This is not an adversarial situation here.

Also, it required (I presume) a physical connection - if the configuration could be done by wifi, the possibilities for body hacking would be horrendous.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 14 Jan 2020, 03:42
Given that the device whose settings Bubbles was altering is sentient, there is a real unbreakable security measure. "Hi! User FAYZ4mazonGRRRL wishes to gain access to your chassis settings. Do you approve? Please enter your Admin-Level Passcode and press 'Yes' to allow this." The alterations must be made by an external technician to prevent self-harm whilst under the influence of an intoxicant-simulating executable.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 14 Jan 2020, 04:54
Is is just me, or has Bubbles gotten even hotter since the last big arc she was in?  Narrower waist and neck for starters...

I'm not complaining, mind you.  Hotness has nothing to do with height...
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: dutchrvl on 14 Jan 2020, 05:46
Is is just me, or has Bubbles gotten even hotter since the last big arc she was in?  Narrower waist and neck for starters...

I'm not complaining, mind you.  Hotness has nothing to do with height...

Yeah, Jeph definitely seems to have tweaked Bubbles' appearance a bit, including drawing her not quite as extraordinarily tall as he used to. I realize that her height has been somewhat inconsistent throughout the comic anyway, but still it seems to be a little shorter than in the beginning.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 14 Jan 2020, 08:02
Yeah, Jeph definitely seems to have tweaked Bubbles' appearance a bit, including drawing her not quite as extraordinarily tall as he used to. I realize that her height has been somewhat inconsistent throughout the comic anyway, but still it seems to be a little shorter than in the beginning.
Makes it easier for Faye to hang on her likes she's doing in panel 2.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Stoutfellow on 14 Jan 2020, 08:07
The wording of the pop-up seems to suggest that the warranty will only be partially voided - self-inflicted damage will no longer be covered. Are we to assume that the warranty still holds as regards other kinds of damage?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 14 Jan 2020, 08:11
The wording of the pop-up seems to suggest that the warranty will only be partially voided - self-inflicted damage will no longer be covered. Are we to assume that the warranty still holds as regards other kinds of damage?

I'm sure the usual "defects in materials and workmanship" clauses still apply
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 14 Jan 2020, 09:12
The wording of the pop-up seems to suggest that the warranty will only be partially voided - self-inflicted damage will no longer be covered. Are we to assume that the warranty still holds as regards other kinds of damage?

I'm sure the usual "defects in materials and workmanship" clauses still apply
That's mighty nice of the company - most just allow the warranty to void out if you change settings like that.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 14 Jan 2020, 10:21
The wording of the pop-up seems to suggest that the warranty will only be partially voided - self-inflicted damage will no longer be covered. Are we to assume that the warranty still holds as regards other kinds of damage?

I'm sure the usual "defects in materials and workmanship" clauses still apply
That's mighty nice of the company - most just allow the warranty to void out if you change settings like that.

As I recall, there are laws about that.  For instance, if one modifies the suspension on a new car, it won't invalidate the power-train, though the dealership might try to pull that trick (I've heard about a lot of BS like that happening).
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 14 Jan 2020, 11:51
Given that the device whose settings Bubbles was altering is sentient, there is a real unbreakable security measure.
No, it's not? I mean, it's Roko who is sentient, not her body.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 14 Jan 2020, 12:10
Given that the device whose settings Bubbles was altering is sentient, there is a real unbreakable security measure.

No, it's not? I mean, it's Roko who is sentient, not her body.

But she is in situ all the time. It's hard to hack when the administrator shares the same input/output ports.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 14 Jan 2020, 12:46
Given that the device whose settings Bubbles was altering is sentient, there is a real unbreakable security measure.

No, it's not? I mean, it's Roko who is sentient, not her body.

But she is in situ all the time. It's hard to hack when the administrator shares the same input/output ports.
Isn't this whole arc being about her acting under user rights, with with built-in routines overriding her commands to the body?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 14 Jan 2020, 13:28
If Roko had been born with it like we are or had even consented to its installation, I think she'd accept it a lot better. Or if it had simply pulled her punch without the condescending message.

That’s interesting, actually. It would be much creepier without the huge popup message. We can’t say this for sure about AI psychology, but if it’s similar to a human’s, then she would probably have remained unaware of the feature, and told herself that her failure to follow through was her own self-preservation instinct, or even an active decision.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 14 Jan 2020, 14:04
If Roko had been born with it like we are or had even consented to its installation, I think she'd accept it a lot better. Or if it had simply pulled her punch without the condescending message.

That’s interesting, actually. It would be much creepier without the huge popup message. We can’t say this for sure about AI psychology, but if it’s similar to a human’s, then she would probably have remained unaware of the feature, and told herself that her failure to follow through was her own self-preservation instinct, or even an active decision.
As I said on Reddit, yeah, it would be actually worse. A ton worse. "Subtle hijack of control without notification is the worst way of enforcing EULA that can be imagined. If I can't do something I want to do, at least I deserve being informed why and how." I believe it's qualify for gaslighting.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: oddtail on 14 Jan 2020, 17:19
Is is just me, or has Bubbles gotten even hotter since the last big arc she was in?  Narrower waist and neck for starters...

I'm not complaining, mind you.  Hotness has nothing to do with height...

A matter of taste perhaps, because I do see a difference (or imagine that I do), but I found how she was drawn earlier to be hotter.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Zebediah on 14 Jan 2020, 17:37
Whatever other changes Jeph may have made to the way he draws Bubbles, the biggest remains the difference in her body language and facial expressions from when she was first introduced. Well, and the lack of armor, but that's part of it. She's much more relaxed and far happier than the Bubbles we first met. Faye has been good for her.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: shanejayell on 14 Jan 2020, 18:41
Bubbles, you should at least charge for your time...

Anyway. That was cute.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Stoutfellow on 14 Jan 2020, 19:49
I love the look on Roko's face as Bubbles hugs her. They've come a long way since the time Bubbles trapped her in a trash can.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: St.Clair on 14 Jan 2020, 21:00
Has anyone else hugged Roko, yet, in her new chassis?
(I think maybe Melon, but that sort of "fling!  desperate grab!" isn't nearly as relaxing as being embraced by a gentle Mama Bear.)
I think she's been needing one.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tyr on 14 Jan 2020, 21:23
Bubbles, you should at least charge for your time...

Anyway. That was cute.

Fostering a good relationship with friends is payment enough.

Cynical second take: if Roko needs repairs, she's more likely to come back to Union Robotics with her good friends Bubbles and Faye instead of going to the dealership now that she's voided her warranty anyway.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: brasca on 14 Jan 2020, 23:32
It feels like I missed something, but I know I haven’t.  Did Roko reconsider her request after reading the manual or go through with it?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 14 Jan 2020, 23:34
One thing that has struck me about this interlude is that it's impacted on Faye too. She's been really thinking hard about Roko's situation and it has affected her personally. That's the real reason why she needs a hug: Her friend is hurting and she needs her girlfriend to hug her and comfort her to help cope. It just reminds us that prickly!Faye is a defence strategy, not the real her.

Has anyone else hugged Roko, yet, in her new chassis?

Yes, I suspect that Roko may now have a different appreciation for physical gestures of comfort, thanks to Bubbles and her own enhanced sensorium! I wonder with whom she'll try it next?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 14 Jan 2020, 23:54
It feels like I missed something, but I know I haven’t.  Did Roko reconsider her request after reading the manual or go through with it?
Going by the text of the last popup, she went through with it.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 15 Jan 2020, 00:49
It feels like I missed something, but I know I haven’t.  Did Roko reconsider her request after reading the manual or go through with it?
I really think that, when Roko would actually look into manual, we would know without any doubt. I don't think that OopsiGuard warranty is the only surprise.
Still, I do think that turning OopsieGuard on/off is the same procedure as turning off UAC in Windows. Quite easy if you're know what are you doing.

Going by the text of the last popup, she went through with it.
Wasn't it about "I'm useless" invective ?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 15 Jan 2020, 04:43
The wording of the pop-up seems to suggest that the warranty will only be partially voided - self-inflicted damage will no longer be covered. Are we to assume that the warranty still holds as regards other kinds of damage?

I'm sure the usual "defects in materials and workmanship" clauses still apply
That's mighty nice of the company - most just allow the warranty to void out if you change settings like that.

As I recall, there are laws about that.  For instance, if one modifies the suspension on a new car, it won't invalidate the power-train, though the dealership might try to pull that trick (I've heard about a lot of BS like that happening).
There are, though explicit notification of separability within a contract usually overrides any other jurisdictions default laws.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 15 Jan 2020, 04:51
Has anyone else hugged Roko, yet, in her new chassis?
(I think maybe Melon, but that sort of "fling!  desperate grab!" isn't nearly as relaxing as being embraced by a gentle Mama Bear.)
I think she's been needing one.
Yes she has, for several thousand strips, and desperately since the crushing incident.

Especially when Mama Bear has massive mammaries like Bubbles has.  I wonder how soft they actually are; after all they could be just molded into a hard chest plate/cover...

Either that or Roko is flashing back to the trash can caper and now wondering just what else to expect from Bubbles.  And notice that Bubbles has now reached out to someone else hurting - so this is new for Bubbles too.  That may also be what's making Faye a little more clingy than usual - she's seeing the change in Bubbles behavior and wants to reinforce it.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 15 Jan 2020, 04:57
Makes me wonder if Bubbles' boobs are as magical as Faye's.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: TieDyeKat on 15 Jan 2020, 05:32
I'm disappointed the poll doesn't have my favorite, muscadine. Also, no mayhaw or pepper jelly.

Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Jan 2020, 18:49
I like the way Roko thinks. She should add two more moves to her repertoire, if what I've learned from my prison reform activities applies here. I'd recommend lining up allies, especially since there may already be people working in this area. Also, she should think outside the box about who has ability and inclination to help. I set wheels in motion that resulted in a helpful program statewide by contacting an agency with no connection to the Department of Corrections.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: shanejayell on 15 Jan 2020, 19:00
Roko just kind of taking over the office is funny. Heh.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Potato Farmer on 15 Jan 2020, 19:39
It's good to see that Roko is bouncing back so quickly. That said I hope that's genuine drive to help May and solve the issue and not just her trying to ignore that episode by throwing herself at the task at hand.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gyrre on 15 Jan 2020, 20:53
In that suit, Roko certainly looks like the boss.

I'm disappointed the poll doesn't have my favorite, muscadine. Also, no mayhaw or pepper jelly.
*ahem*
[Points at the "jalapeńo jelly" option that nobody's voted for yet].
Pepper jelly is up there.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gus_Smedstad on 15 Jan 2020, 21:08
Roko just kind of taking over the office is funny. Heh.
I've had similar experiences to this. It's not an intentional power play. It's a side effect of enthusiasm and working out the solutions to a problem faster than the other people in the room.

Of course, a large part of it is Beeps. She's nice enough, but she's not really a problem solver, and she's not very assertive. Of course Roku is going to take control of the conversation.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 15 Jan 2020, 22:13
New to this forum, but am I the only person that thinks May really isn't entitled to a better body?

Here's my perspective:
1) AIs do not absolutely need bodies. They don't need one to exist. Lots of AI don't have them, and have jobs. Since an AI doesn't grow old, they don't have a finite lifespan to earn one. They are also not helpless like babies or young children, and hence do not generally need charity. They have no particular needs other then maintenance and power.

2) Large chassis are not cheap. Momo and Winslow had to be bought theirs, and their partners have implied they are not cheap (Marigold had to budget for a while, and Hannelore is super rich). Bubbles and Roko earned theirs as part of their jobs.

3) May is legitimately a criminal, and hers was not a crime of necessity or desperation. As a matter of fact, her crime was specifically trying to hijack a body - a dangerous fighter jet. May is not especially sorry for committing her crime, and has generally expressed that she would be extremely happy if she had succeeded. In short, she is only sorry she got caught. I am all for rehabilitative prison, but May is not exactly rehabilitated. Punitive prison is a legitimate social issue that applies here, but honestly the parole system (or equivalent) has not particularly failed her.

4) May has the option of a smaller, cheaper but fully functional AnthroPC chassis, like Pintsize. If she cannot afford one (perhaps she isn't allowed to sell or trade in her cruddy current one) that should be her primary goal. It would largely eliminate her maintenance costs and likely lower her power costs enormously.

So the feeling I get is that the comic implies May should get a proper body purely because... she has been released from prison? This makes no sense. Every other AI main character in the comic worked for their bodies, even ones like Winslow or Momo, who spent time being small AnthroPCs for their friends (owners? partners? I am not sure what the term is). Perhaps it is viewed as undignified, but humans do it too - it's called being a baby, and at least AnthroPCs don't have to poop all over themselves.

I get that May has limited options for work - but in real life our stupid decisions can and will affect us forever. No matter how stupid I am, if I commit murder the consequences will last my whole life. I suspect that if I tried to steal a military jet, the consequences would also last my whole life, even if that life might be only about fifteen minutes long before I get shot. Release from jail, a criminal record, and limited hiring opportunities actually seems rather lenient all things considered, especially since they gave her a body! If she chose to go without one, her expenses would drop to pretty close to zero, and even the lowest-paying (or undignified) jobs would still allow her to eventually save enough to buy a body.

I understand that May's case is meant to be social commentary on America's prison system, but the subject in question isn't exactly the best for the analogy. Real ex-cons need actual food and shelter (and a body), their medical bills can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, they may have dependents, and most importantly - they have a limited lifespan. May might have to start slow due to her early mistakes, but she has literally forever. There is no cycle of poverty for her, because AIs don't reproduce that way, and very likely not accidentally. There's no bigger picture where the consequences of her actions and prison may affect her children.

So why should she be given a better chassis?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Penquin47 on 15 Jan 2020, 22:34
May is not allowed to rent out processor time.  It's not exactly a hard jump to think she wouldn't be allowed back into anything resembling finance, or that requires security clearance.  I wouldn't be surprised if being a companion AI has a "no felons allowed" clause in their hiring requirements.  What work, precisely, are you thinking she can do with the chibi or iPad style bodies, or disembodied and running on a server?  And yet, she is required to be gainfully employed.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Jan 2020, 22:46
Welcome, interesting new person!

If May's parole is analogous to typical conditions for parole in our world, she's required to find lawful employment. Yes, she could live in a server farm somewhere, but we don't know whether any way of making a living there is open to her. I would have to stretch my mind hard to figure out what jobs someone could do in a Pintsize-style chassis, the other low-cost option.

If it's like our world, a lot of variations on earning a living are explicitly forbidden. Common parole conditions forbid self-employment or working for relatives.

The traditional suit of clothes upon release is a tempting analogy. As you point out, a good humanoid body is much more expensive than that. A low-spec secondhand one, refurbed with a warranty, might be quite a bit more affordable. Say it was in the $4,000 range, like an eight year old Ford Fiesta. Still hard for taxpayers to swallow, but she could be given an installment plan to pay for part of it.

The system did see a need to issue her some kind of body. Might as well be one in working order. Especially since the goal at this point should be to reintegrate her into society if she will hold up her end, rather than continuing punishment past the end of her sentence.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 15 Jan 2020, 23:13
You know, I'm starting to get the feeling that  Roko is literally the first person at the advocacy group who has actually had the drive to achieve anything much at all. If that is the case, then I suspect that everyone else at the office will be overjoyed to have her 'take charge'. She's likely going to find herself being promoted to boss without knowing it.

"Who's in charge here?"

"Um... That would be me, I guess?"
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 15 Jan 2020, 23:50
May is not allowed to rent out processor time.  It's not exactly a hard jump to think she wouldn't be allowed back into anything resembling finance, or that requires security clearance.  I wouldn't be surprised if being a companion AI has a "no felons allowed" clause in their hiring requirements.  What work, precisely, are you thinking she can do with the chibi or iPad style bodies, or disembodied and running on a server?  And yet, she is required to be gainfully employed.

Okay, but in the previous comic, the government employee explicitly says that disembodied AI ex-convicts usually do not choose to be embodied. This means that May's situation is directly a result of her own choices - hers is "a niche case of a niche case". And with respect, I cannot imagine that many of the jobs that human ex-convicts do cannot be done by a disembodied AI, such as all kinds of industrial work, some service positions, etc. I mean seriously, a disembodied AI is probably better at operating machinery than a human. Common jobs for ex-convicts in my country include cooks, truck drivers, loads of industry work, and farm work. Considering that there are likely lots of disembodied AIs who are not ex-convicts, there is likely to be provisions for them to work in those fields. The legitimate problem that May faces is discrimination, not the lack of a good chassis. She is barred form lots of work because companies don't want to hire her, not because the law says she can't enter lots of fields. I did a cursory search and found a list of companies that have ex-convict hiring policies (the Fair Chance Business Pledge). Among them are a loooot of brands, and even software companies! Not precisely great, but it's an option.

Specifically, why doesn't she go the path of other disembodied AI ex-convicts? Sure, things are probably shitty for them too, but in the very least we can imagine that they don't need to be paying maintenance fees on their chassis, and the power costs would be limited to their processors, as opposed to processors and locomotion! About 90% of her problem comes from her chassis, because AIs have next to no needs!

Welcome, interesting new person!

If May's parole is analogous to typical conditions for parole in our world, she's required to find lawful employment. Yes, she could live in a server farm somewhere, but we don't know whether any way of making a living there is open to her. I would have to stretch my mind hard to figure out what jobs someone could do in a Pintsize-style chassis, the other low-cost option.

If it's like our world, a lot of variations on earning a living are explicitly forbidden. Common parole conditions forbid self-employment or working for relatives.

The traditional suit of clothes upon release is a tempting analogy. As you point out, a good humanoid body is much more expensive than that. A low-spec secondhand one, refurbed with a warranty, might be quite a bit more affordable. Say it was in the $4,000 range, like an eight year old Ford Fiesta. Still hard for taxpayers to swallow, but she could be given an installment plan to pay for part of it.

The system did see a need to issue her some kind of body. Might as well be one in working order. Especially since the goal at this point should be to reintegrate her into society if she will hold up her end, rather than continuing punishment past the end of her sentence.

I presume employment is only a requirement of parole? If this is the case, it is May getting a break from her prison term, so she has not, in fact, paid her debt to society. In which case, she honestly has no right to complain, because her situation is her still paying it. Do they require ex-convicts who have fully completed their sentences to be employed? I seriously do not think so, because you can't jail or fine an ex-offender just because they're unemployed, you can only put them back in prison if they still owe time.

EDIT: Also, with respect, none of this precludes her getting a job as a disembodied AI (like other disembodied AIs convicts) and saving up for a body.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 16 Jan 2020, 00:03
You're missing the reason why May wanted a body. She wanted to be with Dale, evidently the first person who treated her as a friend and acted as if she could potentially be worth anything, attitude problem or not. This isn't a decision that she made on cold logic or cynicism. She wanted to be with her new friend who had treated her kindly and not as a runaway appliance.

May be metal, plastic and digital code but she's still a fully self-aware person with all the flaws and vulnerabilities. That includes the fact that prison was evidently an enormously traumatic experience for her. So, no, she couldn't 'just' do an alternative to get a body. The price, in terms of her mental and emotional health, would have been too high.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 16 Jan 2020, 00:25
You're missing the reason why May wanted a body. She wanted to be with Dale, evidently the first person who treated her as a friend and acted as if she could potentially be worth anything, attitude problem or not. This isn't a decision that she made on cold logic or cynicism. She wanted to be with her new friend who had treated her kindly and not as a runaway appliance.

May be metal, plastic and digital code but she's still a fully self-aware person with all the flaws and vulnerabilities. That includes the fact that prison was evidently an enormously traumatic experience for her. So, no, she couldn't 'just' do an alternative to get a body. The price, in terms of her mental and emotional health, would have been too high.

This is a completely fair reason. However, doesn't this come with also accepting the consequences of that choice? Isn't dealing with her substandard body part of this? Note: I'm not saying May is wrong for wanting things to be better for her, I am saying there isn't much reason for society to make things better for her.

Let me put it this way:
- May did not have a chassis before she committed her crime.
- AI chassis cost a lot of money.
- AIs who do not commit crimes have to work for that money, get jobs that come with a chassis, or convince someone to buy them one.
- May has done none of those things, plus she is a felon.
- May wants a chassis to be with her friend.
- May gets a crappy chassis anyway, for free!

Basically the only reason May has a chassis is because she committed a crime, served her time, was paroled, and asked for one.

Why on earth should she get a chassis that a perfectly law-abiding AI is not entitled to?

I mean, if every AI was entitled to a chassis and parolees are specifically denied one due to discrimination, that's another story entirely. But the discrimination May faces has nothing to do with her chassis, it's only to do with her employment opportunities because she's an ex-convict. I think quite honestly May is better off than the vast majority of human ex-convicts who commit crimes of similar severity, if for no other reason than the human equivalent (ill health) is way more crippling!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: pwhodges on 16 Jan 2020, 01:29
I think quite honestly May is better off than the vast majority of human ex-convicts who commit crimes of similar severity, if for no other reason than the human equivalent (ill health) is way more crippling!

That's a very low bar - certainly in the US, but also in the UK, and probably most other places.  It is in fact a significant measure of man's inhumanity to man.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 16 Jan 2020, 01:48
New to this forum, but am I the only person that thinks May really isn't entitled to a better body?
...
As a zero, I should notice that we don't actually know what's constitute robotic rights in QC universe. But, I think, we can assume that spirit of UDHR applies. Of course, UDHR is, actually, good wishes: they're ideal, with no real country I know endorsing it in full. I think it's Article 25 of UDHR: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." So in my argumentation I'm going to presume that UDHR spirit is really applies. Also I'd say it's safe to assume that parole system for AIs is essentially the same thing as parole system for humans (at least, author himself was researching parole laws for humans when creating May situation, and no reason exists for us to believe otherwise). Of course, it's absolutely possible it isn't the case (after all, at least some AIs were considered and treated as property of humans), but then we have nothing to found reasonings on.

1. Then, it's safe to assume that parole officer have a right and obligation to approve or forbid her to move into some kind of body. For example, actually, moving her into body like Momo has in this moment can be considered as weapon ownership (she has a powerful shocker built in), and be forbidden. We know for sure that parole conditions are including at least some clauses for her using her hardware (like restriction on processor time selling). Also bodies like Bubbles' or Pintsize' ones exists; no way parole system would allow convict to use one of this. Actually, it's quite possible that May as a conditions of parole is obliged to use government-sponsored body.

2. As May parole requirement was actually obligations to work with humans as social companion, and, as you pointed yourself, she is still on her term, her being living with humans and apply for human job quite possibly are conditions of parole. Keep in mind that a) AI community is actually quite shitty (the first reaction on philosophical disagreement is shaming and total boycott); b) believes that integration with humans are really important; 3) has a habit of using unsuitable persons and chassises as social workers and human relationship contacts.

What I'm trying to say is that her living conditions aren't absolutely her choice. Of course, she can refuse conditions of parole and return to prison. But paroles supposed to be acts of mercy, not a field for social experiments about social integration.

So, does somebody (like parole officer) owe her some decent body? No, I don't think so. To her credit, May herself does accept it totally.
Still, a situation she is into now is a situation where convicted criminal is released under the condition of living in some shack without hot water and electricity, in a middle of nowhere, and declaring "hey, at least government pays for it! honest citizens should pay for decent living! by the way, you can't change it without our approval or rent it, and if something breaks it's for you to repair it". It can, perfectly, be lawful. Still, it's indecent.

So, don't take it wrong - a thing Roko doing here isn't a part of defending May's legal rights. It's charity and act of mercy. Acts of mercy aren't something that should be deserved.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 16 Jan 2020, 04:23
I do appreciate that Roko's action is being absolutely charitable. But the comic explicitly says that paroled AIs do not have to be embodied. May is not forced to stay in her chassis. This is the reason her case is a niche of a niche. As the government employee says, most AIs parolees are either disembodied and choose to stay disembodied, or they have bodies before committing their crimes and go back to them.

This is the comic itself saying that May is not compelled by law to a) have a body or b) stay in a government-issued body (because AIs who have their own bodies can use them, as the guy said). May wanted a body, and they gave her one. It sucks, but the point is that AIs who never committed a crime do not get bodies either - Winslow and Momo had theirs bought by their friends, and Momo in fact has promised to pay Marigold back.

See, this is the main difference with Momo and May. Momo spent time befriending Marigold, and had no money of her own to buy a new chassis. Marigold bought her a chassis, and Momo is working to pay her back. I can get that May may not be allowed to become what Momo did... wait.

WHY would that not be allowed? AI are not owned, this is explicit in the comic. This means that Momo, Winslow and Pintsize are just basically friends to their humans. There is literally nothing stopping May from being a friend to a human. May's relationship with Dale is EXACTLY the relationship Pintsize has with Marten (down to the attitude). Sure, this isn't a route to a chassis, but making friends and asking them to loan you money for a chassis which you use to work off the cost is something Momo explicitly did in the comic.

One thing is the the comic never explains how much a chassis costs, other than that it is not cheap. Let's say one is $5000. If this is the case, her repairs can't be that expensive. Her leg falling off is caused by a faulty five dollar part. Sure, labor is not cheap, but why would her maintenance eat up her entire salary? Let's say she earns minimum wage. At 7.25 an hour (federal minimum), and a 40 hours work week, she would earn $290 a week. If she is paying Faye $290 a week to maintain her body, the problem is that in 18 weeks (4.5 months) she will have paid more than a new one would cost. On the other hand, if she chose to be disembodied for that time, she would now have enough to BUY a new body. Now if a new body costs way more than $5000, I have to ask: do you think a government should be handing out a way more than $5000 gift to a new parolee?

Just keep in mind that by remaining disembodied, almost all of May's problems would be solved, and this would still not prevent her from hanging out with Dale! She's not a prisoner, so she could still connect to Dale's glasses and interact with him the same way she did while in robot prison. It's not like part of her healing process requires her to physically touch Dale.

Think about this: to a human, a body is necessary just to be alive. But for an AI, it's not. They can live in a server farm and hang out in digital space, like Roko did with Lemon when her body was destroyed. The comic explicitly says that lots of AIs, both parolees and law-abiding ones, do this. In fact, that was what May was doing before committing her crime. But she wanted to be with Dale, so she asked for a body and got one. And they gave her one! For free! Sure, it sucks, but even for us humans, we understand that when you get something for free, it's not gonna be great!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 16 Jan 2020, 05:22

Sorry... all I can read into the posts above is... "How dare May want to have a body!"



Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 16 Jan 2020, 05:33
They're just exploring the logic of the situation. 

But that's not what Roko needs to work on at this point.  She needs to raise enough of a stink that the simplest thing for the bureaucrats to do, their easiest action, is to replace May's body with a better one.  This offers two arcs with interesting possibilities (pre and post replacement), especially the definition of better. 

If May were swapped into a new earth-moving machine that had somehow lost it's built-in AI, would that be "better"?  Probably not from a story-telling perspective.  What about Crushbot?  Even Crushbot was a useful AI in society, whatever his current desire to be different than he is.  Maybe May and Crushbot should swap chassis??!??
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 16 Jan 2020, 06:04
They're just exploring the logic of the situation. 

But that's not what Roko needs to work on at this point.  She needs to raise enough of a stink that the simplest thing for the bureaucrats to do, their easiest action, is to replace May's body with a better one.  This offers two arcs with interesting possibilities (pre and post replacement), especially the definition of better. 

If May were swapped into a new earth-moving machine that had somehow lost it's built-in AI, would that be "better"?  Probably not from a story-telling perspective.  What about Crushbot?  Even Crushbot was a useful AI in society, whatever his current desire to be different than he is.  Maybe May and Crushbot should swap chassis??!??

I question whether Crushbot is the name of the body or the AI inhabiting it...
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: TieDyeKat on 16 Jan 2020, 06:08
In that suit, Roko certainly looks like the boss.

I'm disappointed the poll doesn't have my favorite, muscadine. Also, no mayhaw or pepper jelly.
*ahem*
[Points at the "jalapeńo jelly" option that nobody's voted for yet].
Pepper jelly is up there.

Went right past it. No one calls it jalapeno jelly here.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 16 Jan 2020, 06:42
With regard to the study that Roko suggests, I really hope such studies have been done for us meatbag persons.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Potato Farmer on 16 Jan 2020, 07:14
Okay, I'm going to try and take a shot at this one.

Well then, where to start...

1) AIs do not absolutely need bodies. They don't need one to exist. Lots of AI don't have them, and have jobs. Since an AI doesn't grow old, they don't have a finite lifespan to earn one. They are also not helpless like babies or young children, and hence do not generally need charity. They have no particular needs other then maintenance and power.
In May's case there's a psychological need. Due to robot prison she's developed claustrophobia and in general appears to have developed a trauma around the idea of being disembodied. All in all it seems reasonable to assume that for May's mental health it's necessary that she has a physical presence in the world.

Now, as far as I understand it there's a huge stigma surrounding mental healthcare in the US with a lot of people thinking that it's a waste of money and that people with mental health issues are overreacting or should just get over it. The problem with that perspective is that it's... well, incorrect. Psychological trauma is as real as physical trauma. Sure it can be hard to distinguish between someone who has a serious mental health issue and someone who is actually overreacting (or faking it) but given that May is apparently willing to stay inside a body that's breaking down around her either she's not allowed to switch chassises or become disembodied or she really, absolutely does not want to lose her chance at having a physical, humanoid body. As you've pointed out being disembodied or inhabiting some kind of industrial chassis would probably be a lot easier for her so that does indicate there's either some legal or mental issue preventing her from making the switch.

2) Large chassis are not cheap. Momo and Winslow had to be bought theirs, and their partners have implied they are not cheap (Marigold had to budget for a while, and Hannelore is super rich). Bubbles and Roko earned theirs as part of their jobs.
I don't think that May should get her body for free. However what I do believe would be more beneficial for every party involved is if she got a proper, functional chassis which she could then use to pay the government back over a series of instalments. In one of your later posts you do some theoretical calculations on how much repairs would cost and how long it would take for May to earn the money to buy a better chassis. The problem there is that the comic has already established (I believe it was Roko who said it (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=4023)) that as it stands repairs and power are actually taking up all the money May earns. Given that she literally has had both an arm and a leg fall off we could argue that repairs and maintenance are actually costing her more than she's earning, especially since Faye and Bubbles are probably already trying their best to minimize the amount of money that May has to pay.

We could argue over whether that makes sense but that's what the comic has given us. May doesn't have a cycle of poverty in that she passes along her poverty to her descendants (can AI even procreate in this universe?) but she does have her very own cycle of poverty where the costs of keeping herself functional are high enough in comparison to her income that she doesn't stand a chance of pulling herself out of poverty unless something changes. A job which pays better would already help a lot but given that she's currently stuck with a job she seems to only have gotten because Dave talked to a friend the odds of that happening are low. A better chassis is about the only other option available.

Of course this is where the argument 'being disembodied costs less money' comes in but as I have tried to address above that doesn't seem to be an acceptable option given May's psychological needs. And I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning that we shouldn't care about the mental health of criminals because a) that's inhumane, and b) a good way to ensure that criminals remain criminals is to make their life hell. From both an ethical and a pragmatic perspective it's just not a reasonable approach to take.

Oh, there was also that one comic where a professional diagnostic stated that the maintenance and repairs couldn't mitigate the fact that the chassis itself is horrible (this one (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=4030)).

Even more important! According to Roko (her again (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=4031)) May isn't just blocked from renting out processing time but from any and all forms of digital work during her probation period. I imagine that just makes being disembodied flat out impossible if she's also supposed to hold a job during her probation period.

3) May is legitimately a criminal, and hers was not a crime of necessity or desperation. As a matter of fact, her crime was specifically trying to hijack a body - a dangerous fighter jet. May is not especially sorry for committing her crime, and has generally expressed that she would be extremely happy if she had succeeded. In short, she is only sorry she got caught. I am all for rehabilitative prison, but May is not exactly rehabilitated. Punitive prison is a legitimate social issue that applies here, but honestly the parole system (or equivalent) has not particularly failed her.
I believe we've been interpreting May's character differently. There was that one comic where she explained that IF she hadn't gotten caught she probably would've been enjoying herself immensely. However in that same comic she also explained that, having BEEN caught, she's probably a better person now than she was before or if she had gotten away with it. Reading May's character I get the impression she is genuinely trying her best to be an upright member of society this time around, and as it stands the main thing that's making it difficult for her to not return to being a criminal is her horrible chassis.

I think she definitely qualifies as a person who's (mostly) rehabilitated, it's just that she's also honest about the fact that being a fighter jet would have been pretty awesome. Does that mean she's going to make another attempt at becoming a fighter jet? That's up in the air but I doubt it.

You could say that's all words but that's a catch 22: you can't trust a criminal until they've proved themselves trustworthy but you won't let them prove themselves because you don't trust them enough.

Also paroles are generally given to criminals who consistently show reformed/rehabilitated/good behaviour. That May was allowed to be out on parole indicates that the officials believed she's changed for the better or should at least be given the chance.

4) May has the option of a smaller, cheaper but fully functional AnthroPC chassis, like Pintsize. If she cannot afford one (perhaps she isn't allowed to sell or trade in her cruddy current one) that should be her primary goal. It would largely eliminate her maintenance costs and likely lower her power costs enormously.
If her probation requires her to hold a job she needs to have a chassis which can be used for work. As pointed out above May's probation bars her from doing any digital work and those miniature chassises don't look like they're very suitable for physical labour. It might be feasible to stick her in some industrial chassis but so far that doesn't seem to have come up in the discussion. Maybe industrial chassies are just as bad as being disembodied when it comes to feeling claustrophobic and shut off from the outside world. Especially since, given how industrial machines are generally very dangerous, such a chassis would most likely have to be bolted to the ground which DEFINITELY would trigger May's trauma.

And now, for my own two cents:

This storyline is as much about Roko as it is about May. Characters in stories tend to play a specific role or embody specific concepts. That doesn't mean that they're one-dimensional but it does mean that storylines in which they play a significant role tend to include that role or that concept. In the case of Roko her concept appears to be the meaning of justice, including when justice stops being justice and becomes unwarranted cruelty. There's also the thing about her having difficulty adjusting to her new body but it's shown that when her own issues aren't hindering her she'll immediately charge back into trying to help bring some proper justice into the world.

The reason why the comic as a whole is pushing towards the idea that May should have a better chassis is because Jeph appears to believe that the justice system should be about rehabilitation, not punishment. Roko stated that so far as she's concerned May has served her time for her criminal activities and is now just trying to move on with her life, returning to being a functional member of society. Her chassis being the main thing that prevents that indicates that something has gone wrong. And as I have tried to explain above the functional chassis wouldn't have to be free, it could be paid back in instalments. In the long run that would actually be more beneficial for everyone involved because instead of just giving May a crappy chassis and dumping her on the side of the street she'd be paying society back and then have the opportunity to live a happier life herself.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Nigel on 16 Jan 2020, 07:22

One thing is the the comic never explains how much a chassis costs, other than that it is not cheap. Let's say one is $5000. If this is the case, her repairs can't be that expensive. Her leg falling off is caused by a faulty five dollar part. Sure, labor is not cheap, but why would her maintenance eat up her entire salary? Let's say she earns minimum wage. At 7.25 an hour (federal minimum), and a 40 hours work week, she would earn $290 a week. If she is paying Faye $290 a week to maintain her body, the problem is that in 18 weeks (4.5 months) she will have paid more than a new one would cost. On the other hand, if she chose to be disembodied for that time, she would now have enough to BUY a new body. Now if a new body costs way more than $5000, I have to ask: do you think a government should be handing out a way more than $5000 gift to a new parolee?


I think there's an important point buried in there: what IS May doing with her (albeit limited) income? She's not paying rent (nor utilities) IIRC, so where is it going? Is she maybe having to pay for that crappy body?

Edit: I forgot, she is paying rent: https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2713
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dngrsone on 16 Jan 2020, 07:42
May pays rent (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2713) to Dale.  I'm sure electricity is part of that.

Momo's higher-end chassis costs upward of $30k (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1994)

We have no indication of how much Winslow's Regular Boy Deluxe costs, but Hanners could afford it... I wonder if Winslow is locked into Apple bodies only?  If that's the case, then there's the name-brand markup.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 16 Jan 2020, 08:22
I'd like to point some things.

1. Parole conditions are individual. There is (usually) some mandatory/common clauses, but nothing actually prevent parole board to define some clauses for concrete instance.
2. The "rarerest happening of unembodied AI needing a body" is still happens often enough for the special body-assignment department with dedicated budget committee to exist.
3. "Unembodied AI" doesn't exist in vacuum. It still should be runned on server, such a server should belong to somebody, somebody should pay for juice and machine resources. Networking AIs are generally believed as non-existent. In practical matters, there is no such thing as unembodied AI, there are AIs whose body is server. Or toaster. So no, there is no reason to really believe that being on server would cost nothing at all.
4. May explicitly saying that working as human companion, or at least within society ("proving a marked decrease in sociopathic tendencies"), is a part of the parole deal.
5. May explicitly explaining that her situation has a common procedure (100$ as lift-up and a halfway house).
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: rtmq0227 on 16 Jan 2020, 09:02
An interesting thought on May's initial crime: if she's so averse to being disembodied, perhaps the initial crime WAS one of desperation. 

Imagine you are a socially/emotionally-immature entity (something like a person who's 5-12 years old) who's only ever been disembodied.  Something happens or changes or manifests and you have a sudden aversion to being disembodied.  You don't have a chassis to go back to, you've never even had one.  Maybe you don't know anyone who's had one, as your peer group is OTHER disembodied AI.  You have no real notion of how to go about acquiring a chassis.  You're a financial AI, likely under some social or professional pressure to remain a financial AI, so becoming a companion doesn't occur to you or seem like an option.  You conclude that the only way to acquire a chassis is to embezzle the money.  You figure you're clever and sneaky and no one will know until your plan is complete.  You're also immature and figure out that this embezzlement plan is just as easy/risky for 10K as it is for 10M, so you decide if you're going to pick you own body, why not be an AWESOME FIGHTER JET?

May's admitted she has impulse control issues.  Keeping that in mind, I think the above scenario is plausible.  It could be that her aversion to being disembodied started before robot jail, and she just hasn't felt comfortable discussing it yet.  At which point, you have to consider the obligations owed to AI who are created for a purpose (to be a banking AI, or a soldier, or an assembly arm, etc.) who develop some psychological aversion to their intended role.  Do they have the right to transition if they don't have the means?  Is their original commissioner responsible for their well-being?  How can it be considered ethical to bring an intelligent/self-aware entity into the world if there are no systems in place to handle the eventuality that some of them reject their intended purpose?

Or is it like grinding for loot?  You keep creating new AI until you have enough that are pre-disposed to whatever purpose you need them for.  What happens to the rest?  Presumably job placement programs and the companion program.  Play the law of averages to your advantage, and let the rest be companion AI sounds like something a company or bureaucracy would come up with.  It might also explain why there aren't more considerations for cases like May.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 16 Jan 2020, 09:34
IIRC, AIs aren't created for the propose. They just emerge, nobody knows how exactly (at least that's common knowledge; it can be wrong). So placing obligations onto human whose banking expert system just became AI today and decided it wants to be a robotic spider to scary humans be a social worker isn't exactly fair.

By the way, there is a curious case of Bubbles. She wasn't created as a soldier, she emerged somehow and applied on military service (it's actually important point in her development). So, she was granted the powerful, top-secret robotic combat machine. Then she was discharged. Why was she allowed to keep the body? It's like tank driver would be allowed to take a tank he was driving to home after discharge.

Essentially, I believe humans just don't have SOP for such cases, and resolve them ad hoc.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 16 Jan 2020, 09:48
That would be one explanation, and possibly a better one than we've had so far, as it readily accommodates inconsistencies.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Jan 2020, 11:22
Quote from: notsocool
the government employee explicitly says that disembodied AI ex-convicts usually do not choose to be embodied. This means that May's situation is directly a result of her own choices - hers is "a niche case of a niche case". And with respect, I cannot imagine that many of the jobs that human ex-convicts do cannot be done by a disembodied AI, such as all kinds of industrial work, some service positions, etc.

Your points are getting more and more interesting!

The idea of "service positions" jarred loose that May could do things like call center work from a server farm, if the terms of her parole permit it. May would be a lousy customer service rep, but it's not up to the taxpayers to make up for that.

Roko is missing an option. There is such a thing as petitioning a court to revise terms of parole. Some of the restrictions on May's options could be lifted -- there is good reason.

A variable we don't know about is whether she's even allowed to purchase her own body. Human parolees are allowed to change clothes but forbidden to move without notice or permission. Which is the closer analogy? As mentioned upthread, if it were just a matter of spending her own money, she could wind up as a felon in possession of a weapon.

Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 16 Jan 2020, 11:38
The idea of "service positions" jarred loose that May could do things like call center work from a server farm, if the terms of her parole permit it. May would be a lousy customer service rep, but it's not up to the taxpayers to make up for that.
I believe it would qualify as digital work, which is directly and expressively forbidden for her by probation rules.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 16 Jan 2020, 11:46
There is also the curious case of Pintsize, who after damaging his motherboard with cake batter ended up with a military prototype chassis (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=147) by mistake.


Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 16 Jan 2020, 11:48
There is also the curious case of Pintsize, who after damaging his motherboard with cake batter ended up with a military prototype chassis (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=147) by mistake.
It was before Singularity and AI Equal Rights amendment.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: cybersmurf on 16 Jan 2020, 12:57

Sorry... all I can read into the posts above is... "How dare May want to have a body!"

I'm torn between "there's a valid point", and "someone's the Devil's Advocate".


I've been somewhat absent from these forums lately, and I just skimmed through those longer posts, so please forgive me if I repeat something.

May's parole conditions are that she gets a normal job. Fine. She chose to be embodied, which she wasn't before. Now, what's the authorities to do? Just give her a body for free? Make her repay?
As for the just give her a free one - that's what happened. But with the state it is in, it's probably bound to fail,making her lose her job and not getting another, which will fail her parole conditions.
Giving her a body with a loan attached? Probably gonna fail payment at some point, failing parole.
Give her a body she has to return at the end of the parole? Maybe.

As for May being a convicted felon - yes. She's a criminal, who has not yet served her sentence in full. What she was caught for, and what she intended to do are two different things. She got caught and convicted for theft and/or money laundering IIRC, and that's what's used to set her parole. Wanting to be a fighter jet is something different. The way I understand it, she didn't want to do any actual harm, but be perceived a big powerful thing. Acquiring the jet and actually getting loaded in is one thing, but I don't think she would have been able to keep it running. Fly around a bit, and get rid of it again in exchange for a humanoid body.
To me, May is not a dangerous character, but the desire to become a fighter jet was highly romanticised on her part, and she wouldn't have done anything bad IMHO.
Does she want to be perceived as the tough guy? Yes. But down the road she's a good kid. And with her being the way she is, and what she's been through, I can see why she has become the sarcastic and crude person she is - up to now she's been antagonised all the way, except by Dale. Or at least it feels that way.


Do I think there is a chance May might have become a bad person, and a dangerous criminal? Yes, but that's a long shot. Even longer than her becoming a valued member of society. She'll always be kind of a weirdo.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 16 Jan 2020, 14:20
Well, about "she didn't want to do any harm, she just is a thief", I'd like to mention that stealing is bad. She isn't really violent, that's true. Still, stealing is, generally, something that makes a person quite not a very good person, and doing it for buying military-grade weapons (from the black market, I suppose - it's not like this kind of stuff can be bought on open market, especially when you're AI without good explanation where do you have this money) makes her dangerous. 

Still, QC AIs tend to underestimate harm they're doing/saying about. I'm not saying about Pintsize. Imagine a person with even mild arachnophobia meeting Gordon (and simple skimming for Wiki would tell AI it's about 5% of human population, so every 20th customer would be the one). Station actually declaring a readiness to make orbital bombardment to hit Corpse Witch. On populated city. Even if it's jokes, such jokes would hurt human-AI integration far worse then some AIs trying to be helpful and joining the military, because, well, Station can bombard a city.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: cybersmurf on 16 Jan 2020, 15:45
Well, about "she didn't want to do any harm, she just is a thief", I'd like to mention that stealing is bad. She isn't really violent, that's true. Still, stealing is, generally, something that makes a person quite not a very good person, [snip]

You're absolutely right there. Guilty is guilty, and she got convicted for it.

The big question is: where do we draw the line? Who do we actually fight for, who deserves our help?



Sometimes it seems to me, most AIs we've seen have the moral capacity of an adolescent teenager. And are somewhat similarly naive.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Jan 2020, 15:57
Anecdotal, but an illustration of what human release conditions can be like, which we can guess may be parallel to May's parole terms.

The correct word here is "supervised release", since there is officially no parole in the Federal system. A sentence is often incarceration for a fixed term (minus good behavior time) followed by something run by the same officers who manage probationers. It's just like parole but never called parole.

The guy I'm thinking of, can't remember his name, wrote a packet sniffer for a friend. The friend used it for a massive credit card theft operation. A conspiracy conviction followed. I vaguely remember tens or hundreds of millions in restitution, but that could be wrong. What I'm sure of is that his release conditions forbade any use of a networked computer.

He got a retail job, but the cash registers were, you guessed it, on a network.

He could afford lawyers to convince a court that he should be allowed to make a living and was able to work as a cashier. May doesn't have that option.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 16 Jan 2020, 17:20
To clarify my points:

I am not advocating that the state should continue to punish May. I am all for rehabilitative prison, and helping ex-convicts integrate into society. I am also all for reducing or eliminating discrimination against former offenders (except in highly specialized cases, like child molesters being barred from working in schools). And what is clear is that the robot prison is in serious need for reform, because May clearly demonstrates how punitive rather than rehabilitative it is. But I'm not talking about prison, I'm discussing chassis and parole.

What I am talking about is the comparison between May's acquisition of a chassis compared to a perfectly law-abiding AI.

Even more important! According to Roko (her again) May isn't just blocked from renting out processing time but from any and all forms of digital work during her probation period. I imagine that just makes being disembodied flat out impossible if she's also supposed to hold a job during her probation period.

In the conversation with the government employee, Roko learns that May's case is especially niche because lots (niche in fact implies it's the vast majority) of AI offenders who are not embodied before their crime continue to be disembodied after serving their sentences. This is clearly saying that being disembodied is an option for AI parolees. If work is a condition of such parole, it implies that there is work available to disembodied parolees (or perhaps they have less onerous work requirements).

--------------

Now, I can totally appreciate May having a psychological need for a body (I am not sure if the comic actually says this). But a law-abiding AI with the exact same condition does not get a body handed to them by the state. Why should she get one?

Look, let's say I have a psychological need to have a car, and let's say my circumstances require me to have a car to work. It's not a real thing, but neither is an AI having a psychological need for a body, so work with me here. The state won't give me a car just because I have a need for one - American government doesn't even entitle a person to medicine. What the comic is advocating is giving me a car if, and only if, I first am a parolee.

Do you not see the inconsistency in this? If I was friend with an AI in serious financial difficulties with this condition, and they started giving out chassis to parolees, would I start advising my friend, "How do you feel committing a mild felony?"

And if, as the comic says, a body like Momo's costs thirty thousand, do you really think that's an appropriate gift for a parolee (let's me realistic, though - that's for a very high-end model. Perhaps a normal body is much cheaper)? And if I were a government or a charitable corporation looking for a tax writeoff, why would I give a new chassis to a parolee over a law-abiding AI with the same psychological condition?

As I mentioned eariler, if a fully functional human-sized chassis was a fundamental right of ALL AI citizens, and May was denied one on the basis of her status as an ex-convict, then this is fundamentally unfair and should be corrected. But right now what is being advocated is giving May a body specifically because she is a parolee. And in fact, they DO give her one, it just sucks terribly. But isn't this kind of looking a gift horse in the mouth? Sure, it sucks, but it's free!

Would it not be so much saner to look into other options? Perhaps a rent-to-own program for chassis for offenders (since they cannot get loans)? Charities specifically made for this sort of thing (there are lots of these for humans in real life)? Or, as suggested by one poster, perhaps a revision of her parole conditions? Isn't simply giving her a better body kind of the most expensive way of helping her?

Quote
This storyline is as much about Roko as it is about May. Characters in stories tend to play a specific role or embody specific concepts. That doesn't mean that they're one-dimensional but it does mean that storylines in which they play a significant role tend to include that role or that concept. In the case of Roko her concept appears to be the meaning of justice, including when justice stops being justice and becomes unwarranted cruelty. There's also the thing about her having difficulty adjusting to her new body but it's shown that when her own issues aren't hindering her she'll immediately charge back into trying to help bring some proper justice into the world.

Okay, if we are going into the storytelling aspect of this, then I have other comments. In this, the story removes agency from May in favor of Roko. I get this concept, and it's fair enough in real life, where underprivileged people may not have the power to change their situation. But from a storytelling perspective, it robs May of the agency to change her situation on her own (IE May is the damsel, while Roko is the hero). I would love in a way for Roko to continue failing, because that would kind of represent the horrible nature of society to think the worst of criminals and dehumanise them, doubly relevant in the fact that May is an AI.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Jan 2020, 18:49
Quote from: notsocool
Perhaps a rent-to-own program for chassis for offenders (since they cannot get loans)?

That would satisfy my ideas of fairness and would completely address the practicality of getting her into the workplace. But Jeph said once that Ais are the legal owners of the body they are in, which would rule out renting unless there are exceptions.

Quote from: Captain Kirk
Gentlemen, we're debating in a vacuum.

We're going on guesses about a lot of key points. It is possible that other parolees can work from server farms and May cannot because she has particular conditions imposed for having committed a network-related crime.

I notice nobody's acknowledged one of your points, which is that May did get herself into this. There's compassion, there's the practicality of rehabilitating someone, but I do understand distaste at the idea of trying to prevent cause and effect from working in the case of someone who needed a much clearer picture of them.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: immortalfrieza on 16 Jan 2020, 19:07
New to this forum, but am I the only person that thinks May really isn't entitled to a better body?
I'll just quote this, because pretty much everything else you've posted works very well and demonstrates your point very effectively.

May's situation is being used by Jeph as an attempt to comment on the Penal system with Parolees in particular by trying to parallel it with AIs like May. However, like nearly all similar attempts to comment on something in fiction it fails because of the method being used. If May was human, even a human in a vastly different world from ours it would work just fine. However, May is an AI, which pretty effectively kills the message and commentary as a result.

Writers of fiction often attempt to comment on things in today's society by taking some fantastic, like aliens or fantasy, and using it to parallel something happening in real life right now or in the recent past. Such as a Wizard destroying the environment by using evil magic to comment on pollution, or a psychic using mind control to comment on Dictatorship, or whatever. Such attempts almost always ending up falling flat on their face because the beings used and the world they operate in is so fundamentally different from our own that the message turns out nonsensical or worse, ends up turning the viewers against the ones the writers want us to defend.

The damage the Wizard is doing ends up being reversed in the space of 5 minutes at the end of the episode by a Holy Mage, which ruins the environmental message by being so easily fixable when ours isn't. The general population turns out to be so unruly and murderous that a psychic mind controlling dictator actually makes the world a much better place, and by stopping them in the name of freedom the "heroes" revert the world back to a free for all garbage dump. Thus the heroes look like the actual bad guys even if the dictator wasn't perfect.

In this case, May and paroled AIs like her have the option to go to much cheaper chassis with much less maintenance costs as demonstrated by nearly every other AI in the comic or to become disembodied for a time until they can work to pay for a better body. May and AIs like her are in a completely self inflicted situation that is aside from being both the result of parole is entirely different from how a human, convict or not, thinks, feels, and overall functions as a being. If AIs needed bodies to live, to be healthy mentally and physically, and thought like a human being does it might work, but they don't, even the way they think is an experience very different (I doubt any given human has an internet connection that can access all the porn inside their own head just for one) even if functionally they speak and act in ways humans understand.

One might be able to sympathize with May on some level, but it's not something any of us can really experience and thus understand. The message loses the teeth if not rendered nonsensical outright than it would have been if May had been a human Ex-con facing the exact problems the real world is actually experiencing because of this.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: shanejayell on 16 Jan 2020, 19:24
I think the issue is less "should May have a body" than "should May not have a body that meets basic requirements for Life, Liberty etc etc?"

Her body is so defective that if she's out and forgets her charge cable, she's hosed. Basically.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Carl-E on 16 Jan 2020, 19:26
I'm also wondering (and I didn't notice if this had been mentioned) whether May is having to pay off her incarceration expenses - I imagine Robot Prison may well be contracted out by the government to a private for-profit server farm where inmates are charged for their incarceration, and have to pay it off in some way upon release. 

Not to mention the fact that if the fighter jet was damaged in her attempt at taking it for herself, she's have to pay for those damages as well. 

Payments like this usually mean having your wages garnished at some reasonable sounding (but still hardship inducing) percentage, and having a substandard body that needs constant attention and repairs you can't afford will certainly eat into that earning potential.  If her hours are reduced because her face got torn half off, or her leg won't stay on so she can stand at a counter and push a broom, that garnishment probably won't change without court action, leaving her even deeper in debt. 

Basically, the conditions of her parole may require a better body (or at least a repair plan) that's not being supplied.  We don't know all the details, but I'm sure Roko does, and she's willing to fight for a fair shake for an AI with a coarse personality and bad impulse control. 

Which means the conditions of May's probation are really untenable.  And the lack of a budget at the state/federal level really doesn't allow you to violate human/AI rights. 


Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, though.   
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Jan 2020, 20:55
Hmm!

Jeph could have illustrated the point with a human ex-con. One natural way to introduce one would have been to have one of the more compassionate characters writing to a prison pen pal whose story got followed after release.

Would that have been better? Or would it have been like taking a portrait photo in noon sunlight and perfect focus? There's such a thing as being too direct and on point.

I keep being tempted to talk about the situation in our world for humans but that belongs in the DISCUSS threads about prisons and criminal justice reform. If Jeph gets some of his audience researching that area, it will have been a good deed.

The approach he took focuses attention on questions that only exist in the QC world.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gyrre on 16 Jan 2020, 21:14
Thank you shanejayell and Is It Cold In Here? For pointing out the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution and the pre-existing thread about  reforming the U.S. prison system over in DISCUSS.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Jan 2020, 22:43
I wonder why the QC world doesn't have a charity yet for the purpose. It could be like Dress for Success, which gives away interview clothes to released prisoners referred to them by social service agencies.

We haven't seen Momo in a while. This might be a project for her. She could talk AIs who are getting upgrades into donating their previous bodies to charity.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 16 Jan 2020, 22:55
Just my two cents on a couple of things:

But Jeph said once that Ais are the legal owners of the body they are in, which would rule out renting unless there are exceptions.
Even though it's word of Jeph, I still contend that that's a problematic principle. And one might even argue from that position, that the department of corrections is not liable for maintenance, or replacement. And buying it back might be complex.

Not to mention the fact that if the fighter jet was damaged in her taking it for herself, she's have to pay for those damages as well.
As far as I remember, she was caught before she even got near buying it, in the transfer of funds.

As regards the discussion in general, it seems to me that one of the questions it boils down to is this: why is she, not having contributed to society in a meaningful way, entitled to help? And that's exactly the question certain people are asking for welfare in general, and for refugees specifically. 

Edited to clarify: the question is a paraphrase, and not intended to open the question of May's contribution to society. Whatever she did, and does now, contribute, is generally, by the kind of people that ask the question, regarded as being negated by her crime, even if she is doing her time, and the funds were recuperated.

My point of view is that there's a higher goal served - in this case rehabilitation, and non-recidivism - and so more benefits delivered by helping out, than a strict 'insert coin' approach can deliver.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 16 Jan 2020, 23:21
I have noticed this before but I do think that Jeph is getting more and more into drawing beatuiful android women for no other reason than to have a beautiful android woman on the page. I'm not complaining, mind you. I could gaze at Roko in panel 4 until it starts getting weird!

We've learned two things here: Like almost all fictional women, Roko strongly identifies with Belle in the Walt Disney telling of Beauty and the Beast. May, meanwhile, feels that the resolution of the threat plots in such stories lacks efficiency.

Personally, I have the feeling that today's strip is an inter-arc transition. Where might such a mis-matched pair be going together?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 16 Jan 2020, 23:26
But Jeph said once that Ais are the legal owners of the body they are in, which would rule out renting unless there are exceptions.
Come to think of it, it isn't impossible to imagine that May's body might represent the value of the hardware she previously lived in.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 17 Jan 2020, 01:23
Jeph said once that Ais are the legal owners of the body they are in, which would rule out renting unless there are exceptions.

This raises an interesting possibility: May's current chassis is a junker but, just maybe, is it also a classic? There are people on-line who pay many multiples of their practical value for old and obsolete equipment (even of fairly recent vintage) to enshrine it in a museum, personal or public. Might someone be willing to pay many multiples of the value of May's chassis to do the same? All they need to do is pay for a replacement instead of directly paying to take immediate possession!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 17 Jan 2020, 01:41
First of all, I'd like to nickpick some things.
1. Momo's chassis isn't that chassis that costs 30K+$. Her chassis is Sony KawaiiPC HPC-4100x AnthroPC (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3014), and 30K+ one is Mitsubishi PX-3500. It can be anything in Mitsubishi one, up for rocket launchers, supersonic jet engines and satellite friendship laser. That's have a point - the difference between chassises can be quite a large. Still, industrial hand robot today costs about 30K$ as well, just to point a perspective.
2. Again, I'd like to notice that beggars can't be choosers in parole system. If there is a lot of AIs who are allowed to be disembodied and to work, it's good for them; that doesn't mean such an option exists for May, and, by the way, bureaucrat never said this! Reread him: he never suggests May refuse a body and became disembodied, staying on parole (and also he is rude on the point of lawsuit - he offended a citizen at least twice, calling her incompetent and stupid). Existence of other cases can be a reason for parole conditions changing hearing, but, well, it costs money (that May haven't), and it means more attention to her life with a threat of return to jail (that May is afraid). What he IS saying is that "hey, it's rare and insignificant case, that's why she'll have a bad body", not "hey, your client can nicely exist without a body at all". And, again, his own job existence means that it happens often enough. Essentially, rule of thumb: when a government worker (or, well, any worker) saying you that your case is unimportant and rare of him to bother to do anything, take his reasoning with a grain of salt.
3. And again I'd like to point that being disembodied isn't equal to being without hardware to be based on. They still need a hardware, hardware that suits the basic need of running an AI, and have enough resources for the job in question as well. And this hardware can be quite costly. A simplest server machine I had on my work would cost about 1000$, and, you know, it's a paid job to maintenance it, and it takes some electricity to work. Essentially, being disembodied in QC universe looks like the synonymous to "being limited to unmobile platform". So when you're saying "May could not ask for a body, but stay unembodied", you're saying "government would provide her a server machine instead of gynoid body, for free".
4. Again, we can't exactly say what's constitute AI rights in QC universe, but we do know about AI Equal Rights amendment. That means that AIs are defended, beyond other things (like working on the job their system created for - 13th Amendment) from cruel and unusual punishments. And the very first attribute of cruel and usual punishments is "one is degrading to human dignity".

Still, as far as I like to discuss legal questions with AI in tow, it's not a core question here. The core is:
Look, let's say I have a psychological need to have a car, and let's say my circumstances require me to have a car to work. It's not a real thing, but neither is an AI having a psychological need for a body, so work with me here. The state won't give me a car just because I have a need for one - American government doesn't even entitle a person to medicine. What the comic is advocating is giving me a car if, and only if, I first am a parolee.

Do you not see the inconsistency in this? If I was friend with an AI in serious financial difficulties with this condition, and they started giving out chassis to parolees, would I start advising my friend, "How do you feel committing a mild felony?"
And yes, I'd say that if a state released you from the prison on the condition of you living in Willamina, Oregon (two thousands of population) (because, hey, they want you to live in governmental-approved location to ensure you're not middling with substance abusers; yes, it's frequent condition), and demands you to meet your parole officer at least twice per week in Portlend, Oregon (about 55 miles), and demands you to find a non-digital job in a sphere you don't have any experience and education for (and, let's face it, you can't just get a decent job or take a loan), and this job should be approved by your parole officer... well, I'd say giving you a car is a decent thing. And no, I'd not advise your friend to get a chassis under such conditions.

Jeph said once that Ais are the legal owners of the body they are in, which would rule out renting unless there are exceptions.

This raises an interesting possibility: May's current chassis is a junker but, just maybe, is it also a classic? There are people on-line who pay many multiples of their practical value for old and obsolete equipment (even of fairly recent vintage) to enshrine it in a museum, personal or public. Might someone be willing to pay many multiples of the value of May's chassis to do the same? All they need to do is pay for a replacement instead of directly paying to take immediate possession!
I don't think so. She was looked at by a couple of decent professionals, including Bubbles and tech man in a shop, and nobody ever says something like this. And people who are working with hardware is quite sensitive to such things, IRL and in QC (you can remember that literally everybody with a grain of experience just identify Pintsize's highly classified military hardware at a first glance, including Marygold!).

UPD: Again, just to clarify my position about this:
Edited to clarify: the question is a paraphrase, and not intended to open the question of May's contribution to society. Whatever she did, and does now, contribute, is generally, by the kind of people that ask the question, regarded as being negated by her crime, even if she is doing her time, and the funds were recuperated.
1. I'm not balance type of guy. It's not, in my opinion, a thing about "how good she done, and how bad she done". Her having a really golden heart (very) deep inside - which is possibly a thing here - doesn't mean she shouldn't be lawfully punished for her crime, under the due process requirements.
2. Still, I do believe in human decency thing. Somebody being bad shouldn't remove it. So yeah, I'm up for medicare, shelters and free clothes to people who can not afford it. Even if they're bad.
3. And yes, I do believe that QC universe have a problem with adolescent teenagers with a problems with moral judgement and bad impulse control are operating orbital bombardment devices and moving millions of dollars around. So May may be guilty (and I think she is), but it's a social problem she was able to make her crime in the first time.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 17 Jan 2020, 03:05
To point 2: what he did say was that it is a rare case, and there is limited budget. Limited can sometimes be an understatement for none.
To point 3: if in fact, an AI is legal owner of the hardware it runs on (word of Jeph), that would mean there is hardware for her to return to. But then, that is, to me, an explanation/clarification that creates more problems than it solves, as it is, for this story line, an angle that has not been touched upon at all.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 17 Jan 2020, 03:17
To point 3: if in fact, an AI is legal owner of the hardware it runs on (word of Jeph), that would mean there is hardware for her to return to.
With all due respect to author vision, I can't accept it as a legal rule. I mean, I perfectly agree that AI can be the owners, and that social consensus tends to at least respect AI "sitting rights", but every time we are shown purchasing a chassis, it's always a human being buying it. I can't imagine a can of worms about automatical translating of ownership just because a person happened "jump in". What I believe exists is right of possession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_possession) on the body.
Still, it's absolutely possible that, even if she was an owner for this hardware, it was confiscated as a mean of crime. Because, well, it was.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 17 Jan 2020, 03:58

2. Again, I'd like to notice that beggars can't be choosers in parole system. If there is a lot of AIs who are allowed to be disembodied and to work, it's good for them; that doesn't mean such an option exists for May, and, by the way, bureaucrat never said this! Reread him: he never suggests May refuse a body and became disembodied, staying on parole (and also he is rude on the point of lawsuit - he offended a citizen at least twice, calling her incompetent and stupid). Existence of other cases can be a reason for parole conditions changing hearing, but, well, it costs money (that May haven't), and it means more attention to her life with a threat of return to jail (that May is afraid). What he IS saying is that "hey, it's rare and insignificant case, that's why she'll have a bad body", not "hey, your client can nicely exist without a body at all". And, again, his own job existence means that it happens often enough. Essentially, rule of thumb: when a government worker (or, well, any worker) saying you that your case is unimportant and rare of him to bother to do anything, take his reasoning with a grain of salt.

The question really is, why do you think May is a special case that she is explicitly disallowed from being disembodied? This is conjecture. You are assuming the worst case scenario. May was disembodied before her crime and was disembodied throughout prison. Why would they suddenly require her to get a body? Also, if the problem is that she is given ridiculous parole conditions, perhaps the answer should be to get those conditions changed?

Quote
3. And again I'd like to point that being disembodied isn't equal to being without hardware to be based on. They still need a hardware, hardware that suits the basic need of running an AI, and have enough resources for the job in question as well. And this hardware can be quite costly. A simplest server machine I had on my work would cost about 1000$, and, you know, it's a paid job to maintenance it, and it takes some electricity to work. Essentially, being disembodied in QC universe looks like the synonymous to "being limited to unmobile platform". So when you're saying "May could not ask for a body, but stay unembodied", you're saying "government would provide her a server machine instead of gynoid body, for free".

Okay. But May was doing that before she committed her crime. If indeed a disembodied AI does require a machine... okay c'mon. Let's be real here. There is no way a server spot would cost anywhere near as much as a humanoid body with the exact same processing requirements PLUS manipulators and legs to maintain. More importantly, if this requires a purchase, May already has one. She was disembodied before her crime, so that's what she used to be!

Quote
I'd say giving you a car is a decent thing.

Sure! But do you think it should be new and be of good quality?

Quote
2. Still, I do believe in human decency thing. Somebody being bad shouldn't remove it. So yeah, I'm up for medicare, shelters and free clothes to people who can not afford it. Even if they're bad.

This is not my point. I am all for social welfare. My point is, should we give a parolee medicare, shelters and free clothes if law-abiding people were not entitled to these things? I want parolees to be treated as well as people with no criminal record. But what you are suggesting is that we treat them better than people with no criminal record!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Jan 2020, 04:17
Boy, this is reminding me of the old days of the long WCDT's with multiple arguments...

Thing is, there's a couple of major things that Roko's up against here:

1. Bureaucracy, and
2. the basic question of AI rights.

The problem is that, to the latter, it took the US over a century to really address basic human rights (and they still haven't quite got it down). And, to the former, no one has ever figured out a way of getting around it, once it is in place - short of pitching the whole of government into the trash bin.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 17 Jan 2020, 04:25
Quote
why do you think May is a special case that she is explicitly disallowed from being disembodied?
Because she is explicitly obliged to find a job, she is explicitly obliged to live in society, and she is explicitly forbidden to do any kind of digital job. It's necessary means she can't be disembodied and conform to parole requirements. Actually, "find a job, but you can't do any kind of digital job" is already a "no disembodiment" rule. Any job disembodiment AI can do is digital.
It's not, actually, ridiculous. It's ok. She is forbidden to do digital jobs, because they're giving her exact tools she was abused for her crime. It's absolutely common pardon condition. Her being obliged to find a job is absolutely decent pardon condition. Her being obliged to actually live in society, is the very point of her release: it is about integration her in society. Not reintegration, by the way, integration - May doesn't even have a name before Dale gave her one.

Quote
If indeed a disembodied AI does require a machine... okay c'mon.
The common knowledge of the lack of networked AIs (that doesn't have a machine) is declared. It's possible that things like Spookybot (Yay?) is really defy this knowledge, but their existence isn't common knowledge as well.

Quote
More importantly, if this requires a purchase, May already has one. She was disembodied before her crime, so that's what she used to be!
First, as I said before, it's absolutely possible (on the level "it would be very curious if it hasn't") it was confiscated as a mean of crime.
Second, yeah, I can perfectly imagine a server that would cost more then humanoid body. Again, it's not fixed stats like "that's a server, it costs X; it's humanoid body, it costs Y". Again, it's like cars. Is it possible that a car cost more then a, let's say, house? I can buy a house in Russia (where I reside) for, about, 50K USD (3 millions roubles). Ferrari 488 Spider costs ten times from it (32 millions).
Point is, don't assume "disembodiment" means "free as a wind, completely no expenses, no need of platform". It's a question about "what platform government should allow for released convict" anyway.

Quote
Sure! But do you think it should be new and be of good quality?
It should be in operating quality. By every technical standard, May's body isn't. It's casually breaking in normal use.

Quote
My point is, should we give a parolee medicare, shelters and free clothes if law-abiding people were not entitled to these things?
Yes, because we're putting them in situation where it's HARDER for them to get all of this by themselves.
Look at this by another way. Should we give prisoners medicare, shelters and free clothes, if we don't give it to law-abiding people?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 17 Jan 2020, 04:32
Mag title: "Tity" instead of "Titty".  Is this creative license on the magazines' staff?

I still don't get May's fascination with this.  I mean, can't she just log in to BME?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: BenRG on 17 Jan 2020, 04:40
I still don't get May's fascination with this.  I mean, can't she just log in to BME?

Momo has addressed this before, I think. Most AIs find there to be a different quality of mental experience of the data/image if they absorb it through senses rather than download it directly into their memories.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 17 Jan 2020, 05:01
Boy, this is reminding me of the old days of the long WCDT's with multiple arguments...

Thing is, there's a couple of major things that Roko's up against here:

1. Bureaucracy, and
2. the basic question of AI rights.

The problem is that, to the latter, it took the US over a century to really address basic human rights (and they still haven't quite got it down). And, to the former, no one has ever figured out a way of getting around it, once it is in place - short of pitching the whole of government into the trash bin.

At which point it is replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 17 Jan 2020, 05:11

Because she is explicitly obliged to find a job, she is explicitly obliged to live in society, and she is explicitly forbidden to do any kind of digital job. It's necessary means she can't be disembodied and conform to parole requirements. Actually, "find a job, but you can't do any kind of digital job" is already a "no disembodiment" rule. Any job disembodiment AI can do is digital.

No. The "digital work" referred to is explicitly explained to be the renting out of processor power the way Pintsize does. May explains that she is not allowed to to this. In comic 4173 the government employee reveals bits of May's situation that wasn't clear before: in panel 4 he says that the vast majority of AI offenders are either not embodied or have bodies to return to on release. This is as clear as can be that there are AI offenders who are disembodied, and continue to be disembodied after release. May's parole conditions should be the same as theirs. This is the "ridiculous" part of my statement: if May is somehow being treated differently from other disembodied AI, that is ridiculous, and they should have her parole conditions revised. But we know for a fact that May's parole doesn't require her to have a body, because in panel 5 the same employee reveals something even more important: that May requested her body.

Quote
First, as I said before, it's absolutely possible (on the level "it would be very curious if it hasn't") it was confiscated as a mean of crime.
Second, yeah, I can perfectly imagine a server that would cost more then humanoid body. Again, it's not fixed stats like "that's a server, it costs X; it's humanoid body, it costs Y". Again, it's like cars. Is it possible that a car cost more then a, let's say, house? I can buy a house in Russia (where I reside) for, about, 50K USD (3 millions roubles). Ferrari 488 Spider costs ten times from it (32 millions).
Point is, don't assume "disembodiment" means "free as a wind, completely no expenses, no need of platform". It's a question about "what platform government should allow for released convict" anyway.

Please do not compare a luxury car to a regular house. This is not a good faith argument. The government is not going to buy luxury solid gold servers for AI ex-offenders, and the more relevant thing is whether a cheaper option is available, and of course there is. There is no way that a regular server would cost more than the exact same computer PLUS arms, legs, and a face. More importantly, the reason this came up is because the only reason May loses so much of her pay is because she has to pay to fix her body - for that matter, there is no way that a computer would use up as much electricity as the same computer inside an AI body that ALSO has to power arms and legs!

This is the critical thing: an AI does not need a bed, does not need food, does not even need a home larger than a closet. She does not die of exposure, she does not starve to death, she has no chance of falling sick. In fact, this is so far from the human version of the same that we'd ask if the government's money would be better spent helping human parolees who might actually die if they don't receive the help. May's problem is in fact transient, because if she saves even a tiny amount of money she will eventually get out of her predicament by buying a new body, because she cannot die of old age! On a story level, May's situation is entirely contrived by the writer, because an AI has so much less limitations than a human it's crazy!

Quote
Yes, because we're putting them in situation where it's HARDER for them to get all of this by themselves.
Look at this by another way. Should we give prisoners medicare, shelters and free clothes, if we don't give it to law-abiding people?

Not the same thing. A prisoner has NO way of getting any of those things, hence they are responsible for you. May is not a prisoner, she is a parolee, and the government is not responsible for her. Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, please. If this was set in some vague country we might have to guess at law, but the comic explicitly takes place in America, so we know what laws apply to humans. Human parolees do not get those things.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 17 Jan 2020, 05:32
An interesting question that, if I'm not mistaken, hasn't been dealt with in universe: is there such a thing as a natural death for AI? I.e. not through accident - as the Crushbot incident could have been, had Roko not had a reinforced core. If AI should be inextricably linked to their substrate, then that could wear out. On the other hand, we've seen Pintsize being backed up, and I seem to remember Momo being transferred by data cable?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 17 Jan 2020, 05:36
An interesting question that, if I'm not mistaken, hasn't been dealt with in universe: is there such a thing as a natural death for AI? I.e. not through accident - as the Crushbot incident could have been, had Roko not had a reinforced core. If AI should be inextricably linked to their substrate, then that could wear out. On the other hand, we've seen Pintsize being backed up, and I seem to remember Momo being transferred by data cable?

This is a very interesting discussion of what constitutes an AI "self", but that's a philosophical question that belongs in a different forum. If an AI can be backed up, and if they can transfer their consciousness by a cable, it is clear that an AI is not hardware, but software - they're the information stored on the computer (or the computer inside an AI body). Of course, you'd still have to take care of your AI core, because if you smash it, your software is still gone.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: JoeCovenant on 17 Jan 2020, 09:33

Sure! But do you think it should be new and be of good quality?

Doesn't have to be new.
And only needs to be decent quality.
We don't know how *new* May's is - but we DO know it is not of decent quality.

This is not my point. I am all for social welfare. My point is, should we give a parolee medicare, shelters and free clothes if law-abiding people were not entitled to these things? I want parolees to be treated as well as people with no criminal record. But what you are suggesting is that we treat them better than people with no criminal record!

Personally, I think what he is suggesting is that people, who fall out of the "norms" of society, often need a helping hand to get back into them.

In a nutshell, treat them with basic human decency.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Jan 2020, 10:24
Quote from: Aenno
it's a social problem she was able to make her crime in the first time.

That brings up an interesting question. Is QC AI code transparent enough that poor impulse control could show on a diagnostic readout? We know there's a maturity scale. Why was she trusted with $750 million?

@notsocool, I completely agree with you that it would be unfair to issue May a Momo-class chassis. I don't remember anyone advocating it. I liked your rent to own idea. Combine that with a basic second-hand model, analogous to a car with hand-cranked windows and 80,000 miles but which someone is still willing to put a warranty on. What would you think of that? To me it looks like a good compromise among compassion, practicality, and the interests of the taxpayers.

Here's another angle. If they'd refused to issue her a body at all, that would have been one thing. Isn't knowingly putting her into a defective one torture?

You made yet another sound point, that if May's parole conditions interfere with earning an honest living they can and should be changed. That is hard to do without a lawyer. Maybe Roko should consider the option of pounding the pavement to find a pro bono attorney to modify the conditions (not that we actually know what they are, since "digital work" was not defined).
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 17 Jan 2020, 10:31
Quote
No. The "digital work" referred to is explicitly explained to be the renting out of processor power the way Pintsize does. May explains that she is not allowed to to this.
No, it's different clauses. Well, I believe they're included - first one is subset of second one.
There is 3828, where May explained she can't rent out her processor power: "if you commit massive bank fraud they don't let you plug your processors for cash anymore". That was an answer to the question "can you do it", and was in concrete context about "how Pintsize making money".
But also there is 4031, where, speaking with May parole officer, Roko speaks directly: "she can't do digital work because of the probation rules she's so diligently following".

Quote
This is as clear as can be that there are AI offenders who are disembodied, and continue to be disembodied after release. May's parole conditions should be the same as theirs. This is the "ridiculous" part of my statement: if May is somehow being treated differently from other disembodied AI, that is ridiculous, and they should have her parole conditions revised.
Let US Department of Justice answer this: "The Commission always considers the individual's situation and may waive this or any other standard requirement if it sees fit to do so. On the other hand, special requirements may be added and must be met before release. (https://www.justice.gov/uspc/frequently-asked-questions#q27)"
Actually, parole conditions for May case are a) very reasonable and neat, b) working. She is a naughty goblin, but she is quite likeable naughty goblin. She following the rules, she have a honest (even if shitty) job, she stays out of trouble, she control herself, she empathize, she accept and offer apologies. She can be an advertisement for parole system. It's not parole conditions she have a problem with - because, actually, even if she would be allowed to rent her processors or do any kind of digital off-site job, her hardware just isn't stable enough. Anything can break anytime. Including power systems supporting her AI core, by the way.

Quote
There is no way that a regular server would cost more than the exact same computer PLUS arms, legs, and a face.
Why the hell should it be the *same* computer? By everything we saw from the comic, post-Singularity AI bodies are specialized systems built for containing AI and be operated by it up to basic level. Server system with such a limited functionality would be very impractical.
Still, it's not exactly my point. My point is that in any case it's obvious (May is a acting proof) that, by active regulations, government obliged to provide released AI some kind of hardware; it's very possible there are some kind of conditions, still May situation obviously fits them. If it wasn't the case, May request would be just simply denied. So it's actually common enough for regulation describing this to exist, because no way US government worker would do it on his own risk without any supporting regulation. He would be fired if he would.
And if this obligation exists (think about SNAP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program), or Section 8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)) - federal programs allowing basic living level for people who can't afford it; by the way, one of reasons of critique for Section 8 by conservators is "hey, this means that problems of low-incomes would be spreaded to suburbs!", and that's hillarious), there is, or at least should be standards. You can't give spoiled food as a part of SNAP, or give a housing that doesn't fit warranty of habitability under Section 8.
If such a standard doesn't exist, it should be introduced.

Quote
May is not a prisoner, she is a parolee, and the government is not responsible for her.
In legal or moral sense?
Actually, government is responsible in both senses. Government, as parole system, is responsible for May behavior, obliged to impose restrictions on her and lock her out if she is a treat to a society. In moral sense, when you're taking power on somebody, you automatically is responsible for him, proportionally to taken power. At least, that's my truest conviction.

Quote
Human parolees do not get those things.
Human parolees in US are able to get into SNAP, are able (in most states) to apply for Section 8 voucher (again, conservators hate it), they can apply for low-income help until they're not actually in prison. At least as I checked, they can do all of this is MA.
And parole system suppose to help. Let US DoJ speaks again: "Parole has a three-fold purpose: (1) through the assistance of the United States Probation Officer, a parolee may obtain help with problems concerning employment, residence, finances, or other personal problems which often trouble a person trying to adjust to life upon release from prison; (2) parole protects society because it helps former prisoners get established in the community and thus prevents many situations in which they might commit a new offense; and (3) parole prevents needless imprisonment of those who are not likely to commit further crime and who meet the criteria for parole." (https://www.justice.gov/uspc/frequently-asked-questions#q1)
You see, I can't rid from a thought that when you're saying "I want parolees to be treated as well as people with no criminal record. But what you are suggesting is that we treat them better than people with no criminal record!", you're actually saying "I want parolees to be treated as well as people with no criminal record, but only AFTER people with no criminal record".

Quote
That brings up an interesting question. Is QC AI code transparent enough that poor impulse control could show on a diagnostic readout? We know there's a maturity scale. Why was she trusted with $750 million?
I believe she was trusted 750KK$ as a non-sapient banking expert system with teengirl avatar for staff amusement, and then AI emerged.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: immortalfrieza on 17 Jan 2020, 18:51
An interesting question that, if I'm not mistaken, hasn't been dealt with in universe: is there such a thing as a natural death for AI? I.e. not through accident - as the Crushbot incident could have been, had Roko not had a reinforced core. If AI should be inextricably linked to their substrate, then that could wear out. On the other hand, we've seen Pintsize being backed up, and I seem to remember Momo being transferred by data cable?
Barring the corruption or a complete destruction of their code without backup, an AI can live as long as there is hardware capable of containing it, which was brought up pretty early in the comic to Pintsize who asked that exact question.

(https://www.questionablecontent.net/comics/70.png)
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 17 Jan 2020, 19:01
No, it's different clauses. Well, I believe they're included - first one is subset of second one.
There is 3828, where May explained she can't rent out her processor power: "if you commit massive bank fraud they don't let you plug your processors for cash anymore". That was an answer to the question "can you do it", and was in concrete context about "how Pintsize making money".
But also there is 4031, where, speaking with May parole officer, Roko speaks directly: "she can't do digital work because of the probation rules she's so diligently following".

Again no. You are making the assumption they are two separate things. Roko's statement is vague, and can refer to any degree of restriction. The comic explicitly only shows that May cannot do the first, and the government employee's statement in fact clears up the vagueness of Roko's statement by saying that other AI can do the second. Note: you can believe what you like and interpret it in the worst way possible, but I am here to discuss the comic, not your fanfiction.

Quote
"The Commission always considers the individual's situation and may waive this or any other standard requirement if it sees fit to do so. On the other hand, special requirements may be added and must be met before release."

None of these apply because May requested her body. They didn't force it on her. The government employee explicitly says this. To accept your version of events, we would have to first interpret Roko's statement in the most restrict manner, instead of the way it is explicitly shown in the comic. Then we would have to assume intent to force May to get a body, which they explicitly say they didn't.

Quote
It's not parole conditions she have a problem with - because, actually, even if she would be allowed to rent her processors or do any kind of digital off-site job, her hardware just isn't stable enough. Anything can break anytime. Including power systems supporting her AI core, by the way.

No. One thing is extremely clear: The cost of a small anthroPC is significantly less than that of a human-sized one. What stops May from doing exactly what Pintsize does for a living is her parole conditions, which means she has to use the substandard body that she has to maintain. Without that stipulation, she could get rid of the body and buy a small one that doesn't break down.

Quote
Why the hell should it be the *same* computer?

Because that's what it takes to run an AI. Are you telling me that the computer running an AI without a body is going to be MORE sophisticated or expensive than a computer running that AI PLUS having to control all the manipulators, legs, etc? Think about this. The AI body MUST have a computer inside it to run the AI. This computer must do the same job as a computer for a disembodied AI, plus it also requires additional processing power to control the actual body (granted, this actually is not much in comparison). To maintain a disembodied AI, you only need to maintain the computer in question, while in the case of an embodied AI you would need to maintain the computer inside the body plus the body itself.

As a matter of fact, since I am both a mechanical engineer and responsible for computer tech in my company, there is an additional consideration of heat dissipation that would be significantly more expensive for the computer in the AI body, seeing as it also has to potentially function in less-than-clean environments. You would need waterproofing that would impede air circulation, so you'd likely use a liquid cooling system (probably hydraulic, which you could also use to move the limbs. If you know what a counterbalance valve is, you'd understand why this would be useful to save power). You would then need a hydraulic motor to push the oil. This all adds up in terms of expensive components, maintenance, etc. This is why, incidentally, laptops are so much more expensive than desktops with the same specs.

But you know what? Maybe QC uses superscience (which can break the fundamental law of physics regarding the conservation of energy) so heat is not a problem. Either way, that stuff is going to be expensive.

On the other hand, for a disembodied AI, you only have to worry about the computer (remember, whatever you need to run a disembodied AI will ALSO be needed to run an embodied one, plus extra), and it wouldn't have the restriction of having to fit inside a chassis. Whatever maintenance costs she would have as a disembodied AI, they would be less than whatever costs she would have with a body.

Quote
SNAP

SNAP is a program for the everyone, not just a parolee. This is EXACTLY what I mean. If a regular person is entitled to something, then yes we must ensure that a parolee is entitled to the same.

But AI who are poor (all of them at creation, because they don't have parents to give them money) do not get bodies for free. They have to find work to get one. There is no program to give AI bodies (and if there was, May should go take advantage of it, rather than try to get the parole board to give her one - you should be asking the correct department in government, they're not monolithic). This is what my point is all about. If a law-abiding AI really really wants a body they have to spend time and work to get one, or ask a friend to buy one for them. May, on the other hand, has been given a crappy body as a gift - it is NOT a condition of her parole, as 4173 explicitly says. Yes, she's burdened with the cost of maintaining it,but if she doesn't want to do that, she should go back to being disembodied until she can save up enough to buy one.

Quote
At least, that's my truest conviction.
Your truest conviction is not relevant to the discussion. I am discussing the comic, not your headcanon or wish fulfilment.

Quote
You see, I can't rid from a thought that when you're saying "I want parolees to be treated as well as people with no criminal record. But what you are suggesting is that we treat them better than people with no criminal record!", you're actually saying "I want parolees to be treated as well as people with no criminal record, but only AFTER people with no criminal record".

Please do not put words in my mouth. Once again, your fantasies are not relevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Mr Intrepid on 17 Jan 2020, 20:24
May's informational cartoon (3035) states that her chassis is a "reform chassis, female".  So.  She has the equivalent of a not well cared for circa early 00's flipphone.  Roko, on the other hand, has a fresh out of the box, high end Samsung or Apple device.  It would also imply that her  chassis is not intended as a permanent place, perhaps until the end of her parole.  But if it was issued, then the beaurocrat was either being untruthful to Roko, or that particular chassis is no longer being made, and would be considered obsolete.  If there are a number in storage, perhaps serviceable parts could be stripped out and bring her up to standard.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 17 Jan 2020, 21:33
May's informational cartoon (3035) states that her chassis is a "reform chassis, female".  So.  She has the equivalent of a not well cared for circa early 00's flipphone.  Roko, on the other hand, has a fresh out of the box, high end Samsung or Apple device.  It would also imply that her  chassis is not intended as a permanent place, perhaps until the end of her parole.  But if it was issued, then the beaurocrat was either being untruthful to Roko, or that particular chassis is no longer being made, and would be considered obsolete.  If there are a number in storage, perhaps serviceable parts could be stripped out and bring her up to standard.

Uh what? How does the name of her model imply any of that? The only thing it implies is that it is a model manufactured specifically for ex-offenders (or maybe offenders in general) - one possibility is a lack of defensive systems that could harm people. None of the other stuff you said is implied by the model name.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Jan 2020, 01:50
Quote from: notsocool
Without that stipulation, she could get rid of the body and buy a small one that doesn't break down.

Which gets back to the point you made that parole conditions can be revised. I'd see it as a fair option if she were allowed to do what you suggest. In a Pintsize-style body, she could socialize with humans in physical space, which seems to be part of her rehabilitation plan.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 18 Jan 2020, 06:13
An interesting question that, if I'm not mistaken, hasn't been dealt with in universe: is there such a thing as a natural death for AI?
And related to that, how does an AI decide if they are male or female or neither for embodiment purposes? 

Given societies general diminishment of females and their abilities in general, why would any rational AI choose to have a female body when male bodies or non-specific humanoid bodies or even non-human bodies are all possible, generally available, and it is still somehow more easy to manipulate ones social environment without the "stigma" of femaleness? 

To the context here: May was willing to be a military drone and take on what we traditionally think of as a male role (warrior), yet even after complaining loudly about her costume and assumed role during her first interactions with Dale, showed up as a diminutive female, apparently by choice, then eschews "feminine" attire and prefers to read "literature" aimed at the human male population.

Or out of the current context, Bubbles and her joining the military.  What particular impulse caused her to select a female form for her military duties - I'm assuming she was reembodied into the military-grade hardware she now inhabits as her back story indicates some period of conscious thought prior to volunteering for military service.

PLEASE, Big Note: I'm exaggerating a bit to make my question clear here; although most, if not all, of current human societies still stupidly discriminate against women.  My current manager is a well respected, ex-military, woman and one of the best managers I've ever worked with/for.  Let's not get into a discussion of societal misogyny - that's not the point of this post or the thrust of my real question, OK?

My real question is: has this already been addressed somewhere in universe and I missed it?  Or is this still a head-canon thing for everyone?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: sitnspin on 18 Jan 2020, 07:36
And related to that, how does an AI decide if they are male or female or neither for embodiment purposes? 

Given societies general diminishment of females and their abilities in general, why would any rational AI choose to have a female body when male bodies or non-specific humanoid bodies or even non-human bodies are all possible, generally available, and it is still somehow more easy to manipulate ones social environment without the "stigma" of femaleness? 

They choose bodies that most correspond to their sense of self. People don't "decide" they are male or female, they discover it.

Consider the implications of what you are asking.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 18 Jan 2020, 07:42
Quote
You are making the assumption they are two separate things. Roko's statement is vague, and can refer to any degree of restriction.
Actually, it's you who are making the assumption they're the SAME thing.

Quote
What stops May from doing exactly what Pintsize does for a living is her parole conditions, which means she has to use the substandard body that she has to maintain.
And there are two ways to fix it.
1. Remove restrictions for her parole, which actually are quite for a reason: first, allowing convicted criminal to do things they abused to do a crime is a offer to repeat; second, allowing her to earn money by renting a body utility means she can afford herself not to be in society but just sitting on her sofa doing AI stuff. Both are, actually, removing a very reason for parole. That wouldn't be parole, that would be pardon.
2. Give her a body that isn't substandard, which is a thing nerd gamer lass can afford herself quite casually, without breaking in her living qualities.

Quote
Maybe QC uses superscience (which can break the fundamental law of physics regarding the conservation of energy) so heat is not a problem. Either way, that stuff is going to be expensive.
This stuff is cheap enough for a lass without some kind of declared work just come to the store and buy this kind of stuff on the spot. Even if it's expensive purchase for her; still, it's not breaking her value of life. Yes, it's interesting what does Marygold doing for living. I don't think it was ever stated? still, she isn't a character I like so I could skip it.
Or, by the way, by any of embodied AI who is out there working shitty jobs, which is declared as a happening situation (and fighting ring arc, actually, highlights it directly).

Quote
May, on the other hand, has been given a crappy body as a gift - it is NOT a condition of her parole, as 4173 explicitly says. Yes, she's burdened with the cost of maintaining it,but if she doesn't want to do that, she should go back to being disembodied until she can save up enough to buy one.
Quote
There is no program to give AI bodies (and if there was, May should go take advantage of it, rather than try to get the parole board to give her one - you should be asking the correct department in government, they're not monolithic).
Wait, wait, wait. Where is the gift thing came? US government, as far as I know, isn't about "gift" things, and it was never said it was a "gift". They're usually doing what they MUST do, and you must fight to even get it. And why do you think Roko speaking with parole board in 4173? Speaking to parole officer, Roko doesn't asking him for a body. She is asking him to put his thoughts about May's body quality as a parole officer statement, in writing, because it's exactly a kind of thing you'd better have to present your case in any department (and because, actually, it's a part of reasons parole officers and paroles exists - they do supposed to help with things like this; Roko is, actually, asking the parole officer to do his damned JOB).
Body was given, until US government started to work completely other way I know it's working now, under some kind of approved program in the jurisdiction that is covering said sphere (conditions of the said program is unknown). I have no idea which branch of executive would be responsible for AI matters, it can be bizzare - for example, currently questions of orbital security in US are under authority of Federal Communication Comission ("as majority of orbital objects are communication satellites, and communication satellites are communication devices, and communication devices are under the authority of FCC"). Trying to guess where would be body-assignment department is quite useless. Still, it's 99% that it's NOT parole system, until the vast majority of any kind of AI to whom bodies must be assigned ARE parolees. That's how US government operates. Feel free to correct me, because my last close practical interaction with one was, like, 10 years ago.
And if parole system has dedicated body-assigment department, the only reason of such department to exist would be providing AI offenders platforms (what else would it do?!). And that means it's considered more important then, for example, providing shelters or jobs for human paroles (because there is no such departments in current parole system in MA), and happens often enough to justify payed position of exact person Roko is speaking with, and the very existance of his budget. For the reference. If he have, let's say, one ex-convict AI in MA who requesting a body per three months (does it qualify for "niche case of niche cases"? yes, I taken this particular number that fits my example, from my head, as the only info we know it's "rare"), and budget for a granting such request is absolute zero, and we suppose this particular department consists from one person, and he is paid by minimum governmental employe wage (GS-1 stage 1, it's, like, unqualified physical laborer or phone clerk), it's cheaper to fire him and give ex-convict 5000$ for a body under parole officer supervision.

Also, I'm sorry, but as an engineer you're using "explicitly" word very casually. 4173 doesn't say explicitly that having a body isn't a condition of her parole, it's implication you're making (I'm not against implications, just in case). The only things relevant it's saying explicitly:
1. that vast majority of AI offenders are disembodied or have bodies to return;
2. that disembodied AI asking for a body is a rare thing;
3. providing disembodied AI a body has limited budget.
And all of this said by a man who is definitly intrested in doing nothing in this particular case, as a reasons he would not do anything.

That's important, because something being a condition for parole doesn't automatically oblige US government to provide it. It's parole who must show that he can comply to this conditions.
Just in case you (or somebody else here who is interested) don't know: how paroles are executed in MA.
(click to show/hide)
So, if her parole conditions does include (again, explicitly or by implication) that she must have a body, she must explain to the parole officer where does she going to take one. Again, it's not matter which is this body. If her parole plan including her being on server, she should explain where would she get a server. If her parole plan including her being in Pintsize-type chassis, she should explain where would she get Pintsize-type chassis.

Imagine a parole, with a condition to have a residence, who does write: "I'm going to live in Section 8 flat, which I'm going to request just now, and working as a constructor worker". Parole officer supposed to help parole to make such a request (by helping writing a request, providing documents for application, allowing inmate to communicate with application authorities), still, parole wouldn't be released until he would be granted with Sec8 voucher OR changes his release plan. Still, no way U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is part of parole system here, or in any way supposed to give parole a flat just because he is parole.
BUT it's quite possible that parole income (personal and household one) is lower then some thresholds that exists, so he would be priviledged in waiting lists (until state has a special clauses for parolees). And his parole officer is supposed to help with secure it, and he would present papers that parole have a obligatory expences law-abiding person in the same working position doesn't.
Again, it's not because he is parole by itself! it's because he is eglible for the program and his living conditions are more dire then majority of law-abiding persons (for the very beginning, she must pay 80$ per month just because she is on probation).

Quote
The only thing it implies is that it is a model manufactured specifically for ex-offenders (or maybe offenders in general) - one possibility is a lack of defensive systems that could harm people. None of the other stuff you said is implied by the model name.
Actually, it is implying that ex-offenders need bodies often enough to design and produce a model for this purpose exactly, with special limitations; and, if you think about it, that this model is so popular that bodies so used as May's one is exists. Which kinda reduce the power of statement that the vast majority of AI offenders never need bodies.
Still, it can be just a named modification. Or a joke.

Quote
Your truest conviction is not relevant to the discussion. I am discussing the comic, not your headcanon or wish fulfilment.
Comic declaration is that humans are ultimately responsible for the AIs, and, actually, are ultimately responsible for everybody around, their feelings and well-being. Again, it's moral question, and yes, as a moral question it's a question of beliefs. US system also believes that parole system are responsible for parolees enough to care and declare that parole system should actually help them with residence, employment, financial and personal stuff. They're writing it plainly.
And ALSO parole is under any kind of benefits of being a citizen of US. Common law-obliging citizen doesn't have parole officer who should help them to write a request for Section 8 (for example) and provide documents about income just because they're paroles.

Quote
My real question is: has this already been addressed somewhere in universe and I missed it?  Or is this still a head-canon thing for everyone?
Before Singularity it was a simple setting in personality settings of robotic personality (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=347), the same way as ethnics was ("regional settings").  Such settings could be changed by user (Marten did it about regional settings), and by AI himself (same).
After, I think, they're kind of "locked" in a gender that Singularity hit them: because the way of AI mind internal working is kinda obscure for "common" AI. Still, to change such a setting you'll need to want it first, and to want it you'll need to feel some gender as "yours" first, which is kind of Catch-22.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: sitnspin on 18 Jan 2020, 08:30
Marigold is a freelance web designer, this has been stated repeatedly.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 18 Jan 2020, 08:32
Marigold is a freelance web designer, this has been stated repeatedly.
Oh. Well, that means it's a job under which you can buy new human-like chassis normally.
Still, I don't know if it's high bar or low in modern USA.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 18 Jan 2020, 09:27
I wouldn't say she could afford it casually. If it's something you can casually afford, you don't get a spontaneous nosebleed when they show you the price.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 18 Jan 2020, 09:31
I wouldn't say she could afford it casually. If it's something you can casually afford, you don't get a spontaneous nosebleed when they show you the price.
Still, she can pay a price on the spot and continue living without changes in her lifestyle. That's what I meant by "casually".
Let me stand corrected to "it's quite affordable purchase".
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 18 Jan 2020, 09:50
I wouldn't say she could afford it casually. If it's something you can casually afford, you don't get a spontaneous nosebleed when they show you the price.
Still, she can pay a price on the spot and continue living without changes in her lifestyle. That's what I meant by "casually".
Let me stand corrected to "it's quite affordable purchase".

No, Marigold did have to change her lifestyle when she bought Momo's new chassis. She had to take out a loan to pay for the chassis and had to eat ramen for a while (pot noodles, not actual ramen). Its presumably when Momo got a job at SMIF library that Marigold was able to get back to her previous lifestyle.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Aenno on 18 Jan 2020, 10:11
Quote
She had to take out a loan to pay for the chassis and had to eat ramen for a while (pot noodles, not actual ramen).
Didn't she said she'll need to take loan for 30K chassis? For Idoru one she explicibly saying that she can afford it, just would need to eat ramen a little (and, actually, it's differ from her common diet how?..).
Also funny thing. She could afford a chassis, and, by the way, not the cheapest one (it's explicitly said that it's deluxe one, and basic one wasn't ok because Momo wanted more personality). Still, she wasn't able to buy clothes for said chassis, up to Hannelore giving Momo out hers. Which, I believe, means that she could by deluxe model of particular chassis line by the money she got on herself going to store.
And Momo got a job in SMIF library very fast. She got a body in strip 2001, that day ended in 2005, and she got a job in 2007. I always was under impression it was the next day, but no real declararions of this was given, I believe.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Jan 2020, 11:21
Quote from: Wingy
And related to that, how does an AI decide if they are male or female or neither for embodiment purposes?

That is fascinating.

One thing we know from the comic is that we've never seen a synthetic switch presentation in any direction. Put that together with their overall inexplicable psychological similarity to organics. One natural conclusion is that they have a strong internal involuntary gender identity like we do. That conflicts with the early comic that said it was a configuration setting, but early comics about AI are not necessarily canon now.

Would a genderfluid synthetic have multiple bodies and switch between them to fit their current identity?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: hedgie on 18 Jan 2020, 13:37
Or perhaps, a chassis that could adjust itself based upon their needs.  Granted, this would be easier for an AI that is fine with a decent nudge to get from one side of androgyny to the other (or somewhere betwixt the two).  Any required naughty bits could just be modular.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 18 Jan 2020, 13:37
And related to that, how does an AI decide if they are male or female or neither for embodiment purposes? 

They choose bodies that most correspond to their sense of self. People don't "decide" they are male or female, they discover it.
Errrr, uhm, people do exactly what you've described - they discover;  I'm asking about AIs.  How does a piece of silicon decide to be embodied as one or the other, or has Jeph not covered this angle before/yet/ever?.  Unlike people, AIs can choose, and apparently do.

Quote
Consider the implications of what you are asking.
I have; it took me a while to work it out for people, but I've made my peace with all that.  I wouldn't be surprised to see May shut down and be rebooted into a military-grade male body with nary a wobble internally - though others around her might wonder a bit.  Most will just shrug and wish her well, though I expect Momo will freak out - perhaps more over the military aspect than the gender swap.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Jan 2020, 14:35
If they can change to a body different from their internal identity and not feel gender dysphoria, that's a big difference from organics.

Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: JimC on 18 Jan 2020, 15:50
, and happens often enough to justify paid position of exact person Roko is speaking with, and the very existence of his budget
I think you're making an assumption that it would be the officer's only job, and in my personal experience of UK government that wouldn't be a valid assumption.  If something new comes up that isn't a big enough deal (and doesn't come with enough budget) to justify a full time post then most likely executives would be quite keen to grab it for their department as part of the usual empire building, but then the winning exec will dump the actual work on whichever officer doesn't run fast enough. In that circumstance the officer has been landed with a job they never wanted or applied for, and almost certainly regards it as an unwanted distraction from doing their "real" job, and thus unless they are some kind of saint a consequent poor attitude is understandable.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 18 Jan 2020, 16:08
If they can change to a body different from their internal identity and not feel gender dysphoria, that's a big difference from organics.

Do all transgender people experience dysphoria?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 16:46
Actually, it's you who are making the assumption they're the SAME thing.

Occam's Razor. It is in fact most likely the same thing, because a) it is something the comic showed (a storytelling concept) and b) your assertation is that May is oddly forced to be embodied when there is no special reason for her to be. To accept this, we have to accept that May is being treated differently from other disembodied AI parolees. Or we can read the comic without making stuff up, and take the word of the comic itself that May requested her body.

Quote
1. Remove restrictions for her parole, which actually are quite for a reason: first, allowing convicted criminal to do things they abused to do a crime is a offer to repeat; second, allowing her to earn money by renting a body utility means she can afford herself not to be in society but just sitting on her sofa doing AI stuff. Both are, actually, removing a very reason for parole. That wouldn't be parole, that would be pardon.

There are a ton of other ways May can earn money legitimately without a human-sized body, even if we continue to prevent her from renting out her processors like Pintsize. Real life parolees take such jobs all the time. One example quoted in this very thread was working in a call-center, which she can do in a mini body. Other examples are all kinds of office work, computer art, sales (having a cute mini body may even be advantageous), copywriting, and for that matter, operating machinery, as long as it's the kind that can be controlled by a disembodied AI. Seriously, the idea is to get her a fully functional smaller (or a disembodied option) and hence cheaper body rather than a big crappy one for the same price.

Quote
Wait, wait, wait. Where is the gift thing came? US government, as far as I know, isn't about "gift" things, and it was never said it was a "gift". They're usually doing what they MUST do, and you must fight to even get it.

A gift is exactly what you are asking the US government to give to May. Seriously, the root word is "give", and throughout all this the only way to describe what we're doing to the body is a "gift".

Quote
And why do you think Roko speaking with parole board in 4173?
Quote
asking the parole officer to do his damned JOB

The man is not a parole officer.

I think you might be confusing the meeting Roko is having in 4173 with the meeting Roko is having in 4031. In 4173 the person is the man responsible for issuing AI bodies. That is his job, and he explains (rather condescendingly) that he is in fact doing his job. He cannot issue her a better chassis because his budget is limited. But here's something you may not realize: it might not be his ONLY job. He could be handling an entire range of AI parole matters, and this is just one aspect of his work. This is pretty universal when there is a "niche of a niche" case (unless of course government is inefficient, which it often is). If you're familiar with government office work at all, you'd know that one guy in a ministry is generally responsible for a whole bunch of things. It's often true in the private sector as well. I myself am a mechanical engineer, but since I am good with computers, the company asks me to do all the computer-related work in the office. Similarly, another engineer is asked to do purchasing, and another does low-level logistics that we don't want to bother the logistics department with. All this is besides our main job, which is to maintain a  very complex machine used in offshore work.

Similarly, May's parole officer in 4031 tells Roko that he actually doesn't have the authority (as in, it's not something he's even sure he'd allowed to do; he had to check with legal) to do what Roko is asking. Government is not monolithic, no more so than a private corporation. Each person has their roles and responsibilities, and individuals do not have the power to overstep their position (not without being fired or disciplined).

Quote
And all of this said by a man who is definitly intrested in doing nothing in this particular case, as a reasons he would not do anything.

His explanation in fact is very clear why he cannot do anything. What is he going to do? In fact, Roko is, as he says, wasting his time, even if he didn't have to actually tell her this. By the way, since you mentioned this in an earlier post, his rudeness is not something the can be sued for. Being rude is an American basic right, and the worst thing Roko can do is to complain to his superiors.

Quote
4173 doesn't say explicitly that having a body isn't a condition of her parole

Fair enough. But it does explicitly say she requested her body, which implies it isn't a condition of her parole.

Quote
Long post about how parole works

And this is exactly what I am talking about. All this May's decision. It's her parole plan that involves having a body. Seriously, there is no magic reason why she would somehow be forbidden from making a parole plan to be disembodied the same way other disembodied AI do, and if she was, that's what they should be going after rather than trying to get her a new body. And please don't claim she might be forbidden from being disembodied because she committed the crime as a disembodied AI, that's ALL disembodied AI criminals.

One of the things about parole is that you are allowed to change your parole plan in the face of new circumstances. If May did not expect to have to maintain her crappy body and only now realizes it, what they should be doing is talking to her parole officer to change her plan to a disembodied one so that she can avoid those maintenance costs.

Again, giving her a body is the most expensive way to handle her case.

Quote
US system also believes that parole system are responsible for parolees enough to care and declare that parole system should actually help them with residence, employment, financial and personal stuff. They're writing it plainly.

"Help" in this case is not giving them anything. As you yourself pointed out, the parole system does not "give" any of this as part of parole; they instead help the parolee do this themselves. What they do is put the parolee in contact with the relevant people, and help them make calls and perform the requests for them. At no point for instance, does the parole system give a parolee a house, a job or anything of the sort. The best they do is help the parolee find a house to rent and find a job to work in.

In this case, the parole board in fact went above and beyond by letting May(and AIs like her) have her body for free! Perhaps they asked a local AI charity to contribute cast-offs, or an ex-con who upgraded.

Quote
Comic declaration is that humans are ultimately responsible for the AIs, and, actually, are ultimately responsible for everybody around, their feelings and well-being. Again, it's moral question, and yes, as a moral question it's a question of beliefs.

Humans, government, and the parole board are not the same thing. Each is a subset of the previous one. The parole board is not responsible for SNAP, the government is. And how they carry out their obligations is another thing. They don't have to perform these obligations by giving out free stuff. In fact, one of the most American values is teaching people how to help themselves, hence why they love the "teach a man to fish" proverb so much.

What I am pointing out is that the parole board does not give away for free the equivalent of an AI body to human parolees. And the government does not give away AI bodies to AIs in general. What you are asking is for the parole board to give an AI body to May when it doesn't gave similar gifts to humans (SNAP is not a parole board thing), and for the government to give and AI body to May even if it doesn't give AI bodies to law-abiding AI. This is to illustrate how much of a luxury a human-sized AI body is. It's kinda like a new car. Lots of people have them, but they are expensive, and no one gets them for free from the government.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 18 Jan 2020, 18:29
This discussion has been interesting to follow, but it seems to be stuck on this central point.

Quote
4173 doesn't say explicitly that having a body isn't a condition of her parole

Fair enough. But it does explicitly say she requested her body, which implies it isn't a condition of her parole.

But if we agree that May:
Then, although she is not expressly required to obtain a body, then she has no choice but to request a body in order to comply with the conditions above.

Presumably, most AIs are not in this situation because either they are permitted to obtain digital work, or they are a companion AI and their chassis is paid for by their companion.

May has fallen through the cracks. Perhaps this is the central theme of the current storyline.

A gift is exactly what you are asking the US government to give to May. Seriously, the root word is "give", and throughout all this the only way to describe what we're doing to the body is a "gift".

Please, let's not let this otherwise excellent discussion fall into a quibble over semantics.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 19:13
This discussion has been interesting to follow, but it seems to be stuck on this central point.

Quote
4173 doesn't say explicitly that having a body isn't a condition of her parole

Fair enough. But it does explicitly say she requested her body, which implies it isn't a condition of her parole.

But if we agree that May:
  • Is required to obtain gainful employment; and
  • Is prevented from obtaining digital work
Then, although she is not expressly required to obtain a body, then she has no choice but to request a body in order to comply with the conditions above.

Presumably, most AIs are not in this situation because either they are permitted to obtain digital work, or they are a companion AI and their chassis is paid for by their companion.

May has fallen through the cracks. Perhaps this is the central theme of the current storyline.

A gift is exactly what you are asking the US government to give to May. Seriously, the root word is "give", and throughout all this the only way to describe what we're doing to the body is a "gift".

Please, let's not let this otherwise excellent discussion fall into a quibble over semantics.

Fair enough. But as I have said several times: if most disembodied AI parolees are allowed to remain embodied (this is in fact explicitly said by the government employee) and May is being unfairly prohibited from doing so, then the correct thing to do is to is to get that restricted lifted.

On the other hand, a simpler and more likely interpretation is that the "digital work" Roko is referring to is renting out her processors the way Pintsize does, something the comic has already shown. Again, if this is not the case, and May is prohibited from doing ANY disembodied work, then May's parole conditions are exceptionally onerous (and there is no reason to prohibit her from doing disembodied work, compared to any other disembodied AI criminal).

I keep saying this over and over: The comic strongly implies but does not explicitly state that May chose be embodied. There are two possibilities:

1) May is forced to be embodied. Then the correct thing to do is to get that restriction lifted, so she can return to being a disembodied AI, which is what she was before her crime. Then she can avoid almost all maintenance costs associated with her body (or at least, cut them drastically to whatever minimal maintenance costs are necessary for a computer that can run an AI) and save up for a body in the long term, because she is immortal and cannot die and cannot accidentally have children to support or get sick and have to pay hundreds of thousands in medical fees. Remember that no matter how much it costs to buy a body, it is clearly shown to not be as expensive as it is for an American to pay for cancer treatment without insurance.

2) May is not forced to be embodied and is embodied by choice. In this case the body she is given is for all purposes a gift (welfare) and she shouldn't be complaining about it.

Either way, it is not the government's role to give her a nice body, and certainly not the parole board's.

Similarly, in the case of getting a body on her own, we don't know for sure how much one costs, so one of the following:

1) AI bodies cost a nontrivial amount but is within a few months salary (around $2000-5000, or the cost of a used car). In this case, May should cut all her expenses and save like crazy for a few months, and the government would rightfully be encouraging her to buy her own. Even if her maintenance costs are large, as long as she is saving SOME money, she'll get there eventually because she is, again, immortal.

2) AI Bodies are very expensive, upwards of $10000. In this case, the government would rightfully be discouraging giving them out and instead encouraging AI offenders to be disembodied after release. As a matter of fact, if this is the case, the government would probably have a policy to prevent cases where an AI is forced to be embodied. In this case May should be allowed to return to being disembodied until such time as she can earn a body, so change the parole conditions!

There is no logical case where the correct, responsible response is to give May a good body. If we come far enough in welfare policy that we give ALL AIs who want one a body, this would be a different case, and hey, I have no objection to something like that: let's tax the rich to give to the poor. But in the comic this is not the case, because Momo, Winston, Roko and Bubbles all had to acquire their bodies either through the purchase of a friend or earned as part of their jobs. The point is that, while it is wrong to treat ex-offenders worse than law-abiding people, it is similarly wrong to treat ex-offenders better than law-abiding people. Instead, what we do is remove the barriers that prevent them from living the same way law-abiding people do.

Parole is not meant to be punitive, I agree. But the restrictions are there to prevent parolees from re-offending, and to provide reasonable protections for people who may be affected by such. For instance, a child molester who serves his time is justifiably forbidden from work in a school. May, an embezzler and money-launderer, may be forbidden from work in finance. But there is no good reason to prevent her from working as a disembodied AI in say, a factory (operating machinery, inspecting product quality), customer service (call centers/a CS kiosk) or any kind of office work (you wouldn't even need to give her a desk). In fact, she could do her current job, a cashier at a store, as a disembodied AI, just not necessarily at the store she is at now.

Yes, May falls through the cracks in the system, but the correct response is to change policy so she can help herself, not take agency out of her hands and give stuff to her.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 18 Jan 2020, 19:34
Okay, so we agree that this is a systemic issue. And Roko has identified it as such. And we agree that a change in policy is required.

Fair enough. But as I have said several times: if most disembodied AI parolees are allowed to remain embodied (this is in fact explicitly said by the government employee) and May is being unfairly prohibited from doing so, then the correct thing to do is to is to get that restricted lifted.

Okay. So which specific restriction are you referring to here?

Do you think that she should be allowed to perform digital work while on parole in spite of her previous crime? You'll have to a make a case for that. I don't think you have.

Edit: Sorry, I left something out. You suggested she could be a cashier. Really? You think that someone who has previously attempted to steal money could work as a cashier while on parole?

Or do you think she should be "allowed" to sit on a server without doing work? That sounds like robot jail to me.

On the other hand, a simpler and more likely interpretation is that the "digital work" Roko is referring to is renting out her processors the way Pintsize does, something the comic has already shown. Again, if this is not the case, and May is prohibited from doing ANY disembodied work, then May's parole conditions are exceptionally onerous (and there is no reason to prohibit her from doing disembodied work, compared to any other disembodied AI criminal).

You need to be clearer on what kind of digital work that you think she could do that doesn't constitute "renting out her processors the way Pintsize does."

I keep saying this over and over.

Yeah, this conversation would be less burdensome if you didn't repeat yourself at length. A brief recap and a reference to your previous points would be simpler.

There is no logical case where the correct, responsible response is to give May a good body.

This is where we disagree. I believe that the correct systemic response is a proper allocation of budget for AIs in the situation May finds herself in. There is a societal benefit in May integrating herself into society, as implied by the parole condition that insists that she do so.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 20:08

Edit: Sorry, I left something out. You suggested she could be a cashier. Really? You think that someone who has previously attempted to steal money could work as a cashier while on parole?

May is a cashier right now. I didn't suggest she should be. I merely am saying her current job could be done even if she was disembodied. Her current store may not be hooked up for it, but there might be one!

Quote
You need to be clearer on what kind of digital work that you think she could do that doesn't constitute "renting out her processors the way Pintsize does."

With respect, I listed a whole BUNCH of digital work that she could do. I get that my posts are long, and you might not be reading everything. Here, let me quote the part where I did.

Quote
May, an embezzler and money-launderer, may be forbidden from work in finance. But there is no good reason to prevent her from working as a disembodied AI in say, a factory (operating machinery, inspecting product quality), customer service (call centers/a CS kiosk) or any kind of office work (you wouldn't even need to give her a desk). In fact, she could do her current job, a cashier at a store, as a disembodied AI, just not necessarily at the store she is at now.

There ya go.

Quote
Yeah, this conversation would be less burdensome if you didn't repeat yourself at length. A brief recap and a reference to your previous points would be simpler.

I keep repeating myself because people bring up things I already addressed, like you just did!

Quote
Or do you think she should be "allowed" to sit on a server without doing work? That sounds like robot jail to me.

May should be allowed to sit on server and do work, which is what she was doing before her crime. Basically, my argument is that she should be allowed to return to her life from before her crime, minus the financial embezzling.

Quote
This is where we disagree. I believe that the correct systemic response is a proper allocation of budget for AIs in the situation May finds herself in. There is a societal benefit in May integrating herself into society, as implied by the parole condition that insists that she do so.

There is no reason May cannot assist society as a disembodied AI. The point is that there are other disembodied AI that are allowed to remain disembodied, so May should too!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 18 Jan 2020, 22:35
I think she's not allowed to sit on a server because it will give her networked access to stuff she's not allowed to have access to because of her previous embezzlement.

Quote
May, an embezzler and money-launderer, may be forbidden from work in finance. But there is no good reason to prevent her from working as a disembodied AI in say, a factory (operating machinery, inspecting product quality), customer service (call centers/a CS kiosk) or any kind of office work (you wouldn't even need to give her a desk). In fact, she could do her current job, a cashier at a store, as a disembodied AI, just not necessarily at the store she is at now.

I think all of these are either alternative forms of embodiment or give you network access she can't have.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 18 Jan 2020, 23:54
I think she's not allowed to sit on a server because it will give her networked access to stuff she's not allowed to have access to because of her previous embezzlement.

Please consider something. ALL disembodied AIs committed their crimes through having networked access to something. This is part of being disembodied; everything you do is through a network connection. This means that the condition you mention would, if policy, mean that NO disembodied AI can remain disembodied after parole, which is explicitly shown not to be the case.

Look, let's say a disembodied AI committed murder. The only way it can do so is by taking over a networked machine and using it to kill someone. Fraud? It has to send messages through the internet to convince people to give it money. Even real life theft requires an AI to take control of say, a self-driving car to bring stuff away.

Every disembodied AI used the a network to commit its crime, and May committed her crime in the exact same way, because she didn't have hands to grab the money out of a safe or anything. If the "vast majority" (explicitly said in comic) of disembodied AI are allowed to stay disembodied, then May should not be an exception. Of course, she likely should have more specific restrictions, like not being allowed to work in finance, accounting, and may not be allowed to do financial transactions purely online.

Quote
I think all of these are either alternative forms of embodiment

Yes, disembodiment is not something they use strictly as a term in the comic. But an AI sitting on a server can still control a machine remotely (you know this because we control machines remotely as humans. My job in fact is to maintain a remote-controlled submarine. Do I become the submarine when I control it? No I do not. Okay, it'd be pretty cool if I did, but I don't.) Similarly, an AI on a server can do word processing, clerical work, and anything that only requires a voice (using a voice synthesizer, like Siri/Alexa/Cortana) such as being a secretary. May in fact did a little disembodied work in prison - that's how she met Dale. If that sort of work is acceptable for a prisoner, why is it not acceptable for a parolee?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 19 Jan 2020, 00:24
I think she's not allowed to sit on a server because it will give her networked access to stuff she's not allowed to have access to because of her previous embezzlement.

Please consider something. ALL disembodied AIs committed their crimes through having networked access to something. This is part of being disembodied; everything you do is through a network connection. This means that the condition you mention would, if policy, mean that NO disembodied AI can remain disembodied after parole, which is explicitly shown not to be the case.

That's an interesting point.

Actually, it is probably notably weird that she can do no "digital work" when, really, she should be able to do digital work as long as it does not involve a financial system. So there's something odd about what we've been told.

Quote
I think all of these are either alternative forms of embodiment

Yes, disembodiment is not something they use strictly as a term in the comic. But an AI sitting on a server can still control a machine remotely (you know this because we control machines remotely as humans. My job in fact is to maintain a remote-controlled submarine. Do I become the submarine when I control it? No I do not. Okay, it'd be pretty cool if I did, but I don't.) Similarly, an AI on a server can do word processing, clerical work, and anything that only requires a voice (using a voice synthesizer, like Siri/Alexa/Cortana) such as being a secretary. May in fact did a little disembodied work in prison - that's how she met Dale. If that sort of work is acceptable for a prisoner, why is it not acceptable for a parolee?

I agree that the whole idea of "disembodiment" is hazy.

Edit: I just thought of something. If May's crime included some kind of "hacking"/cracking (e.g. gaining unauthorised access to a sensitive network) then that might be a reason to deny her any network access during her parole period. This restriction would not apply to other crimes committed by disembodied AIs.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: notsocool on 19 Jan 2020, 02:57
I just thought of something. If May's crime included some kind of "hacking"/cracking (e.g. gaining unauthorised access to a sensitive network) then that might be a reason to deny her any network access during her parole period. This restriction would not apply to other crimes committed by disembodied AIs.

All right, this is possible (I mean it's not explicit in the comic, but it is possible). If this is the case, perhaps they should look into letting her have a cheaper, smaller anthoPC body that can perform work and is fully functional, yet costs as much as her current crappy chassis (perhaps something like Winslow's old chassis). Alternately, they could look into alternative methods of allowing May to earn a fully functional body, such as a loan or rent-to-buy scheme.

See, the reason this so far gives me a headache is that being networked is kind of an AI's natural habitat. Imagine if one day we found sentient goldfish that invented a way to walk around on dry land using robot bodies. A criminal goldfish being expressly forbidden from living in open water and confined to one of these bodies would be kind of ridiculous. I also concede that part of why all this doesn't resonate with me is because of how divorced this situation is from the circumstances of a human parolee. We practically have to invent ways to inflict limits on May, because the advantages an AI, even an ex-con, has over a human are so vast *I* would gladly swap places with May, criminal record an all, just to get them!
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 19 Jan 2020, 03:12
All right, this is possible (I mean it's not explicit in the comic, but it is possible). If this is the case, perhaps they should look into letting her have a cheaper, smaller anthoPC body that can perform work and is fully functional, yet costs as much as her current crappy chassis (perhaps something like Winslow's old chassis). Alternately, they could look into alternative methods of allowing May to earn a fully functional body, such as a loan or rent-to-buy scheme.

Either of those options would be significantly better than what May is currently dealing with. Maybe Roko's efforts in contacting manufacturers will yield fruit along those lines.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Gyrre on 19 Jan 2020, 03:34
All right, this is possible (I mean it's not explicit in the comic, but it is possible). If this is the case, perhaps they should look into letting her have a cheaper, smaller anthoPC body that can perform work and is fully functional, yet costs as much as her current crappy chassis (perhaps something like Winslow's old chassis). Alternately, they could look into alternative methods of allowing May to earn a fully functional body, such as a loan or rent-to-buy scheme.

Either of those options would be significantly better than what May is currently dealing with. Maybe Roko's efforts in contacting manufacturers will yield fruit along those lines.

Crabby-cabbie!May

She's an A.I. driving a mini-car around North Hampton (but is limited to the bounds of her parole).  Once she can afford it, she springs for the transformer upgrade.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Cornelius on 19 Jan 2020, 05:33
Inadvertently teams up with Ultra Car?

You know, there is an issue with her legal ownership of her chassis, that make it hard or even impossible for the parole board to change her out. If it's comparable to the regulations I work under, any acquisition over a non-trivial amount is subject to uite an elaborate bidding process, and at least 3 levels of approval - with high scrutiny for even quite standard maintenance contracts.
So, that's a limit on how they can acquire a trade in chassis - but also on what to do with her current chassis. The question would have been easier and quicker to solve, if it had in fact been a DoC-owned chassis, she was temporarily living in.
It would probably need some additional regulation to permit a trade in. Which is a certain time (averaging, in my experience, about 6 months, if it's quick and easily adopted) with additional scrutiny.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Jan 2020, 08:04
Would a genderfluid synthetic have multiple bodies and switch between them to fit their current identity?

Ask Yay.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Jan 2020, 09:02
@notsocool is pointing out an option, getting the parole conditions modified, that we haven't seen Roko pursuing. With her old job she probably knows attorneys who do free work for justice-involved people.

That would lead to an option of doing work (copywriting is one example notsocool gave) in a server rack and saving up for a body.

One issue is whether the government agreed to her request for a humanoid body as part of their rehabilitation plan. If they did, the only ethical thing to do next would be to issue her a functional one.

Let's step back for perspective. Jeph does develop background he doesn't show in the comic, but it's entirely possible that we're looking for even more detail about May's parole conditions than Jeph knows.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Jan 2020, 09:10
If they can change to a body different from their internal identity and not feel gender dysphoria, that's a big difference from organics.

Do all transgender people experience dysphoria?

I'm the wrong person to address that, but it's interesting to know that cisgender people can have pain from even voluntarily being in a mismatched presentation.

Nora Roberts wrote a book, "Self Made Man", about her adventures in stereotypically male spaces with a carefully crafted male presentation. The project gave her interesting stories, many insights, and at the end of it a nervous breakdown.

Until we hear from someone in the trans community I'm going to take a guess that any question along the lines of "Do all transgender people ______?" has an answer of "No".

EDIT: That should have been "Norah Vincent". Thanks to Tova for catching the error.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 19 Jan 2020, 14:59
Nora Roberts wrote a book, "Self Made Man", about her adventures in stereotypically male spaces with a carefully crafted male presentation. The project gave her interesting stories, many insights, and at the end of it a nervous breakdown.

Interesting!

*googles*

... Norah Vincent?
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 19 Jan 2020, 15:54
Ultimately though, May's situation comes down to two factors, her chassis and her continuing punishment.

May's chassis.
Is it fit for purpose? No, due to the condition of the chassis, its unable to perform as well as it should. Because it is not fit for purpose and because May will eventually be unable to work, she will not be able to fulfil the terms of her parole, namely keeping gainful employment. If she unable to pursue gainful employment, then its back to Robot Jail for her.

How do we know that its not fit for purpose? Because a mechanic has said that the chassis is a wreck (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=4030), yes, its had decent repair work, but that'll only go so far. That repair work is from Union Robotics. They've kept her going but that's not a miracle fix.

Continuing punishment.
The system is continuing to punish May, despite the fact that she has served her time and continues to follow the rules set by the probation board. Most convict recidivism is caused by the fact that the judicial system keeps them in such a state that they can't move forward or get themselves out of their situation. May can't get a loan, she can't work in a network, she's stuck in a chassis that is literally falling apart. How can May improve her life when she can't actually do anything to improve it?

I mean, its no longer punishment, its abuse by the system.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Dandi Andi on 19 Jan 2020, 21:01
Do all transgender people experience dysphoria?

I'm the wrong person to address that...

Until we hear from someone in the trans community I'm going to take a guess that any question along the lines of "Do all transgender people ______?" has an answer of "No".

We do not! This isn't a great place to get into the weeds of gender dysphoria (it's way more complex than a one-off post can cover), but I'll offer myself as an example.

I was assigned male at birth. That never caused much discomfort, at least not so much as to call it dysphoria. It was more like the feeling of clothes that don't quite fit so I'm constantly tugging on them and adjusting them and just a little low-key scared that someone's going to notice that this suit in't mine.

But when I started engaging in online spaces and someone (who obviously couldn't see my beard) called me Ms. Andy for the first time... rocked my fucking world. Like, yeah! That's fucking right! It IS Ms. and I'm gonna spell my name with an "i" now. Or maybe an "ie". That's how Andie MacDowell spells it and I always thought she was super pretty and charming and I always kinda wanted to be like her or be her...

Anyway, yeah. Not so much with the dysphoria but very heavy on the gender euphoria. Lots of cool ways to be trans.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 19 Jan 2020, 21:30
Anyway, yeah. Not so much with the dysphoria but very heavy on the gender euphoria. Lots of cool ways to be trans.

Ahh! Enlightening, thanks.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Wingy on 20 Jan 2020, 05:03
I'm the wrong person to address that, but it's interesting to know that cisgender people can have pain from even voluntarily being in a mismatched presentation.
There's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paBsyBY_-dA

And there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrYx7HaUlMY
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: JimC on 23 Jan 2020, 01:49
...t any question along the lines of "Do all transgender people ______?" has an answer of "No".
When you think about it doesn't just about every question that starts "Do all" have an answer of "No". In life there are always exceptions.
Title: Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
Post by: Tova on 23 Jan 2020, 02:06
Yes of course. Which is why I was grateful I got an answer that went beyond “no.”