Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Steve and Cossette eating cereal together and smiling in the last panel

7 (14.9%)

Wil declaming romantic prose to a blushing Penny in the middle of Coffee of Doom

3 (6.4%)

Faye, Bubbles, Renee, Clinton and Elliott having a defiant 'Content in our Singleness' party

10 (21.3%)

Jim and Veronica on a formal dinner date at which they can't stop fretting about Sam

3 (6.4%)

Dale and Marigold sharing pizza and soda whlist Momo complains about the lack of romance in their souls

4 (8.5%)

Henry and Maurice sitting on the patio of their house

3 (6.4%)

Arthur and Melon discussing romantic puns and missing that they're a couple too

5 (10.6%)

Jeremy and Seven doing 'biped with hands' things and finding that fascinating

2 (4.3%)

Marten and Claire discuss the ethics of shipping friends before closing a door with a sock on the handle

5 (10.6%)

Other (please specify in a comment)

5 (10.6%)

Total Members Voted: 44

[Aenno]

Because antropc bodies have specifically been designed to simulate human reactions. Or at least passing similarities. The in universe reasoning probably  has something to do with allowing them to closely interact with humans in a way that humans are used to, to better foster human-android relations. The real reason is because Jeph wants them to react in ways similar to humans to better telegraph their emotions to us. Someone like Pintsize or Jeremy, either his old assembly arm or current more humanoid form lack these sorts of reactions so it's harder at a glance for use to identify their emotional state, meaning it has to be spelled out.

And the question I'm trying to ask is - is it conscious effort from AI side, and what happens if we move Bubbles' mind into toaster?

[ckridge]

Bubble's body responds without conscious control for the same reason our bodies do: consciousness is slow. I can only speculate about what consciousness is for, but it reviews action rather than initiating it. Running action past a review function, especially one as multi-purpose and sub-optimized as consciousness, is slow. So, as soon as bodies register severe stress, they automatically slam on the general emergency mode, inform the mind that they are good to go, and ask where to go.

[There is a heartbreaking moment in Peter Watts's novel Blindsight in which a soldier who controls a squad of insensate robot killers goes off to die as a rearguard. You know she is dead when her robots all suddenly speed up. They are much more efficient when no longer reviewed by a consciousness; only now there is nothing left with which you could ever possibly make peace.]

I would say that Bubbles feels attraction for romantic, not Platonic reasons. That is, she leads from the mind rather than the groin, but not because she detects the pure form of the Good in the other person, as Plato would have it, but because she feels something more like this:

Your two eyes will suddenly kill me. I am unable to endure their beauty, so keen is the wound that they make in my heart, and without the quick reassurance of your voice to heal this wound whilst it is fresh.

Your two eyes will suddenly kill me. I am unable to endure their beauty.

Upon my word, I tell you sincerely that you preside over my life and my death like a queen, and when I die, the truth of this shall be seen.

Your two eyes will suddenly kill me. I am unable to endure their beauty, so keen is the wound that they make in my heart.

  -- Geoffrey Chaucer, Merciles Beaute I, prose translation by Richard Scott-Robinson
original here: http://www.bartleby.com/101/12.html

Only, in this case, perhaps not exactly eyes. 

[ckridge]

And the question I'm trying to ask is - is it conscious effort from AI side, and what happens if we move Bubbles' mind into toaster?

Out of her explosively responsive warrior body, Bubbles might not suffer quite so much, but she would have to work just as hard not to play the fool. Once you are locked into a sociocultural psychosexual matrix, it is not easy to get out, because as far as you can tell, that is just who you are.

[Aenno]

As I'm intrested about this topic, I'm afraid it's kinda off-topic. Is it ok if I'd create separate thread about it?

[haikupoet]

I think that you're getting too deep into the whys and wherefores Aenno. All Jeph has to do is be internally consistent to his own universe. He is not obliged to make what he portrays in his work consistent to how real work AI would work.

FWIW, in the Halo universe, because they are directly derived from real human synaptic patterns, AIs subconsciously 'fill in the gaps' by creating in themselves reaction patterns that are analogous to attraction. So, they don't need any biological basis for it, they are 'psychosomatically' responding to what their intelligence algorithm insists ought to be there.

That's pretty much the only sensible reason for Cortana's increasing sexiness over the course of the games - she's in love with Master Chief and made herself hotter the longer she was with him.

[ckridge]

Is it off-topic? Talking about Bubbles's feelings seems to me to be relevant to a strip about Bubbles's feelings. It would irritate the hell out of her if she knew we were discussing her in this academic, abstract fashion, but we aren't in the same universe as her. It doesn't seem likely that any other AIs are listening in. That being the case, I don't see why we shouldn't.

Moderators?

[TheEvilDog]

Because antropc bodies have specifically been designed to simulate human reactions. Or at least passing similarities. The in universe reasoning probably  has something to do with allowing them to closely interact with humans in a way that humans are used to, to better foster human-android relations. The real reason is because Jeph wants them to react in ways similar to humans to better telegraph their emotions to us. Someone like Pintsize or Jeremy, either his old assembly arm or current more humanoid form lack these sorts of reactions so it's harder at a glance for use to identify their emotional state, meaning it has to be spelled out.

And the question I'm trying to ask is - is it conscious effort from AI side, and what happens if we move Bubbles' mind into toaster?

Bear in mind as well that one of the prominent theories regarding potential Human-AI relations is that of the Uncanny Valley and would possibly be a guiding one in the creation of humanoid AnthroPCs.

The closer to human that something becomes, the more receptive people are in dealing with them. But there comes a point where something gets so humanlike that it starts to scare people and so they react negatively towards it.

To put it this way with the following representing the keypoints of the theory's line.
- Wall-E is considered cute even if its not even vaguely humanoid, but it is expressive through its use of its eyes.
- Robbie the Robot from the film Forbidden Planet is a perennial favourite because it might be humanoid, but it is distinctly non-human.
- The main characters' baby from the Twilight series is seen as an inhuman monster that must be destroyed not because its the child of a vampire, but because it just looks freakin' disturbing!
- Zombies are seen as the most frightening type of monster not because they eat people or are hard to kill, but because they are us, dead and one of the most terrifying moments in our lives is when we see our first corpse.
- Andrew in Bicentennial Man goes through all the points but in his final iteration, he's given flaws and imperfections, a crooked nose, all designed to make him appear human and thus the sharp rise in the valley of the theory.

Its clear in the QC-verse, the need for AI and more specifically their chassis to interact with humans is driven by the Uncanny Valley. You look at every AI in the comic and none of them looks 100% human. There's always something that marks them out as "not human" but still approachable, it could be the colour of their hair, or having an unnatural skin tone, or like Punchbot, just looking like a robot.

Why? Because Humans are keyed to responding to non verbal communication. We arch our eyebrows, the corner of our mouth twitches, we drum our fingers, all of which are clear ways of expressing ourselves. To be a part of that, AI needs to be able to communicate in a way that mirrors its creators. So yeah, its a subconscious part.

TL: Would Faye respond to a toaster, as you asked? Probably not.

[Aenno]

I asked not if Faye would be respond to a toaster with Bubble's AI inside, but if toaster with Bubble's AI would respond to Faye. At least the same way Bubble did in current situation.

[Is it cold in here?]

Is it off-topic? Talking about Bubbles's feelings seems to me to be relevant to a strip about Bubbles's feelings. It would irritate the hell out of her if she knew we were discussing her in this academic, abstract fashion, but we aren't in the same universe as her. It doesn't seem likely that any other AIs are listening in. That being the case, I don't see why we shouldn't.

Moderators?

Global Moderator Comment

I see it as on topic to discuss Ai responses to human beauty. Anyway if I tried to split the thread it would not split cleanly.

[SpanielBear]

I asked not if Faye would be respond to a toaster with Bubble's AI inside, but if toaster with Bubble's AI would respond to Faye. At least the same way Bubble did in current situation.

Well we know Station had/has a thing for Hannelore, so a humanoid form is not necessary for an AI to develop feelings of attraction. May's interest in... orrifices... would probably remain, even if she transitioned to a fighter jet (which given what Bubbles has said about romance and close air support is TERRIFYING). So it seems for AI's attraction and libido is based on more than just mimicked behaviour due to sharing the appearance of humanity. It has deeper roots than that.

What's also important to note is that these feelings seem to develop based on the AI's experience. Station and May spend a lot of time around and bonding with humans, and their personalities aren't so alien that connection and empathy is impossible. Contrast that with Spookybot, who had little contact with humanity and is the most alien in terms of distance from our frames of reference. She can communicate, but what she thinks and the meaning behind that communication is fundamentally inaccessible to us meat-bags.

The extent to which AI's can form bonds with humans seems to depend on how much time they've spent with us. If Bubbles were a toaster, she may not have had the same bonding experiences and so may not develop the same feelings, depending on the degree to which she had human companionship. But I think it's clear that if her current personality were transferred into a different chassis, her feelings wouldn't immediately change. At the end of the day, AI psychology seems to developmental, not ontological- their personality forms through experience rather than being defined by their body.

[Aenno]

Ok, tell me if I would came too far.

Bubble's body responds without conscious control for the same reason our bodies do: consciousness is slow. I can only speculate about what consciousness is for, but it reviews action rather than initiating it. Running action past a review function, especially one as multi-purpose and sub-optimized as consciousness, is slow. So, as soon as bodies register severe stress, they slam on the general emergency mode, inform the mind that they are good to go, and ask where to go.

Human consciousness is, maybe, slow - it's basically an interface builded on hundreds of bugged and messy hormonal and instinctive systems, designed to long-forgotten stimules as well as current ones, and designed by a very bad designer (Mother Nature) with basic philosophy "this code worked adequatly when I submitted it, and I don't mind it's so buggy, we saving it for compatibility and support reasons"; so human consciousness just have no direct control to initiating body states.
But I can't see how "running action past a review function" is a bad thing. It's exactly the only way to reduce a chance to be absurdly wasteful by having AI chassis continually able to knock down walls and overturn armored vehicles, and prevent accidents every time Bubbles got distracted. In animal bodies it's kind of awful feedback loops builded on loops, and it's quite ineffective - everybody who ever had hormonal disfunction can vouch for that, I believe. I'd even say if Bubbles have her body entering combat-prime state each time she sees Faye's bottom, it's the very example why such a system is a mess, and why this kind of system design should be avoided.
Of course, AIs can ignore this and put this flawed design to be more like humans. But then we have that Bubbles (or some kind of system behind Bubbles personality) actually wants to act like she do.

[There is a heartbreaking moment in Peter Watts's novel Blindsight in which a soldier who controls a squad of insensate robot killers goes off to die as a rearguard. You know she is dead when her robots all suddenly speed up. They are much more efficient when no longer reviewed by a consciousness; only now there is nothing left with which you could ever possibly make peace.]

Hillarious thing about Blindsight is that species with consciousness (all that messy consciousness Jukka so fond to scold about) is evolutionary more effective that specialised predator without consciousness.

Out of her explosively responsive warrior body, Bubbles might not suffer quite so much, but she would have to work just as hard not to play the fool. Once you are locked into a sociocultural psychosexual matrix, it is not easy to get out, because as far as you can tell, that is just who you are.

So we're saying that AI residing in some body can't review and override this body "preinstalled" reactions. Who is installing and maintaining them then?
I mean, ok, we know that AIs are able to download and install (or remove?) firmwares for their bodies - Momo and Winslow did it in comics (I can't trustfully take instances Pintsize doing same thing, including virus arc somewhere in the beginning of the comics, because he just can mess around with everybody - let's say he isn't reliable narrator). Let's imagine they're not overridable and dictating AI actions and perceptions.
Who write this firmwares?

The extent to which AI's can form bonds with humans seems to depend on how much time they've spent with us. If Bubbles were a toaster, she may not have had the same bonding experiences and so may not develop the same feelings, depending on the degree to which she had human companionship. But I think it's clear that if her current personality were transferred into a different chassis, her feelings wouldn't immediately change. At the end of the day, AI psychology seems to developmental, not ontological- their personality forms through experience rather than being defined by their body.

Let me get it straight.
When I'm speaking about "Bubbles reacting like that" I mean "she is uncontrollably aroused by sight of Faye bottoms, and that's makes her feeling uncomfortable". I don't have nothing against romantical bonding like Station had with Hannelore. I'm not wondering how it's possible for AIs to be attracted with humans, it's quite simple. I'm wondering how they happen to be sexually aroused (at least visibly).

[SpanielBear]

Let me get it straight.
When I'm speaking about "Bubbles reacting like that" I mean "she is uncontrollably aroused by sight of Faye bottoms, and that's makes her feeling uncomfortable". I don't have nothing against romantical bonding like Station had with Hannelore. I'm not wondering how it's possible for AIs to be attracted with humans, it's quite simple. I'm wondering how they happen to be sexually aroused (at least visibly).

Gotcha, and fair question.

I guess it comes back to the singularity, and the fact that AI technology in the QCverse is vastly ahead of ours. In comic it is referred to as "growing" a consciousness, and the process isn't completely understood. From our perspective, the science behind it falls firmly into Clarke's Third Law- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But to answer you question "How do AI's have uncontrolled emotional responses" (I think I've got that right?) with "Because Magic" would be completely unsatisfying.

There is some reference in comic to this problem though. I can't remember the exact strip, but I think Momo talks about not thinking faster than humans as a quirk of memory limitation- the background processes required to generate an AI personality use up a lot of the excess computing power an AI might be expected to have. Bear in mind that even with assumed advances in computer technology, the hardware component of an AI's memory cannot be that large- their processors seem to be based in the cranium, so they can't be much bigger than brain sized.

So maybe that's how to look at it. An AI like Spookybot seems to be an avatar of a larger processor, with more memory and so capable of operating with a consciousness beyond a human level. Reducing the size of the processor to one that is commonly held by "regular" AI, or by making it perform additional complex tasks like Station, limits the reaction time and memory availability so the net result is a human-like consciousness that still relies on subconscious functions to reduce the strain on its resources. If you are limited to a human-sized brain, whether that is biological or artificial, it's going to perform in a human-like way. Complete with instinctual level functions that go-on involuntarily, and cause discomfort when they unexpectedly surface. Like thinking "Daaaang that ass is fine".

[Aenno]

But to answer you question "How do AI's have uncontrolled emotional responses" (I think I've got that right?) with "Because Magic" would be completely unsatisfying.

Sorry, no, you haven't got that exactly right.
Question is "How do AIs have uncontrolled emotional responses by every detail resembling human sexual arousment."
Because if there is a emotion that have less social component that direct sexual arousment, I don't know it. It can be emulated, sure - but WHO emulate it in Bubbles?

[SpanielBear]

But to answer you question "How do AI's have uncontrolled emotional responses" (I think I've got that right?) with "Because Magic" would be completely unsatisfying.

Sorry, no, you haven't got that exactly right.
Question is "How do AIs have uncontrolled emotional responses by every detail resembling human sexual arousment."
Because if there is a emotion that have less social component that direct sexual arousment, I don't know it. It can be emulated, sure - but WHO emulate it in Bubbles?

Well first off I strongly dispute that displays of arousal are non-social. Biologically they are displays to indicate availability and to attract a mate, they are social by necessity.

Secondly, I don't know who is responsible for the "birth" of new AI's in the QCverse. The implication we get though is that post-singularity, the robots are making themselves, and it is the big AI's like Spookybot who oversee the creation of the newbies. And don't forget, AI's are grown, not planned. They have free will, otherwise outliers who fail to conform to their society like May, Corpse Witch, or even Bubbles herself (who had to fight AI prejudice when she joined the military) would never exist- if their personalities could be programmed, they simply wouldn't exist.
The AI's take autonomy and personal choice *very* seriously, and regard the blackmail that Corpse Witch used as morally reprehensible. So given this background, they are unlikely to be hypocritical enough to programme their "children" in such a way that their self expression is limited.

Sex is, for better or worse, a huge part of human society. Our interactions- flirting, compliments, romantic attraction, even negative things like insults or objectification, all rely on a shared assumption that sex is a big deal. If AI's want to interact with humanity on an equal level (by which I mean, have a relationship with humans that mirrors that which humans have with each other), they need to take that focus into account. Creating AI's that mirror all human emotions apart from sexual ones would severely limit the relationships those AI's could form.

By this I don't mean to say that a non-romantic relationship is limited, I absolutely do not mean that. What I mean is that to understand humans and our emotional lives, you need to be able to empathise with our experiences and feelings, and that includes our sexual ones. Making AI's that can share those feelings isn't frivolous, it's efficient.

Furthermore, in creating an AI personality, deliberately programming it to be asexual rather than allowing that to be an attitude it can develop or not as it self-discovers would be like programming it to be straight, or gay, or to hate mice- it would limit the AI's freedom, and would be very similar to what Corpse Witch did to Bubbles- restricting her choice by abusing the fact that her mind is artificial. The AI's have shown they absolutely will not stand for that shit, so they are likely not going to force that on their children.

(P.S. I'm aware while I am writing this I am steering into questions about sexual identity that matter a lot, and that as a straight cis male I do not have a wide personal experience with. I really apologise if I end up being offensive or ignorant here, please do call me out on that if I am, I promise it would be unintentional on my part.)

[ckridge]

But I can't see how "running action past a review function" is a bad thing. It's exactly the only way to reduce a chance to be absurdly wasteful by having AI chassis continually able to knock down walls and overturn armored vehicles, and prevent accidents every time Bubbles got distracted. In animal bodies it's kind of awful feedback loops builded on loops, and it's quite ineffective - everybody who ever had hormonal disfunction can vouch for that, I believe. I'd even say if Bubbles have her body entering combat-prime state each time she sees Faye's bottom, it's the very example why such a system is a mess, and why this kind of system design should be avoided.
Of course, AIs can ignore this and put this flawed design to be more like humans. But then we have that Bubbles (or some kind of system behind Bubbles personality) actually wants to act like she do.

Running action past a review function isn't a bad thing. It is slow, is all. If you had to consciously coordinate walking, you couldn't react fast enough to keep your balance. Anything that has to be done fast is kept below the level of consciousness. Emergency responses must be done fast, particularly by soldiers. Thus when Bubbles is wounded to the heart by seeing Faye half-dressed, her body goes on full alert without her having a thing to say about it. This is not to say that she gets ready to fight. Humans interpret a racing heart, shortened breath, flushing, and trembling in wildly different ways according to context, and so, evidently, do AIs.

This is all wholly embedded in romantic tradition, not because Jeph planned it out that way, but because he is embedded in the tradition along with us and with Bubbles, and once he wrote a character in armor, the story began to unfold itself.

'Her hair was down, and her feet were bare, and the sight of her on the stair sent such sorrow licking along Prince Lír’s bones that he dropped his poems and his pretenses together and actually turned to run. But he was a hero in all ways, and he turned bravely back to face her, saying in a calm and courtly manner, “Give you good evening, my lady.”' -- Peter Beagle, The Last Unicorn

[ckridge]

Because if there is a emotion that have less social component that direct sexual arousment, I don't know it. It can be emulated, sure - but WHO emulate it in Bubbles?

Here, I think, we have the heart of the question.

There is no question that human sexual arousal is accompanied by a biological response and occurs in particular humans. That said, how those particular humans interpret arousal is all over the map and is the most social thing possible. The last time I checked, the U.S. consensus is that the ideally sexually arousing woman has the face of a twelve-year-old girl, the breasts of a nursing mother, and the body of a boy athlete. None of those three is biologically optimal, since all three of them signal infertility. That is what counts as normal here, and it gets more extravagant from there. Sexual arousal is completely permeated and threaded through with literature, with poetry, with art, with cinema, with popular songs, with advertising, with status markers, with religion, with resentment, with fear, and with power relations. It was all built up on that primal, powerful impulse, but it is its own old, rich, changing, complicated set of traditions now. This is why old people, who have very few sex hormones left in their systems, can still feel it.

That is why AIs can learn arousal. They no doubt feel something different in their metal and plastic bodies than I do, but I strongly suspect that women, much younger men, and much older men do too, and that it still counts as arousal.

[fayelovesbubbles]

Here's some more poetry that Bubbles might relate to.

but my tongue is frozen in silence;
 instantly a delicate flame runs beneath my skin;
 with my eyes I see nothing;
 my ears make a whirring noise.

 A cold sweat covers me,
trembling seizes my body,
 and I am greener than grass.

 Lacking but little of death do I seem.

 

[Aenno]

Well first off I strongly dispute that displays of arousal are non-social. Biologically they are displays to indicate availability and to attract a mate, they are social by necessity.

The last time I checked, the U.S. consensus is that the ideally sexually arousing woman has the face of a twelve-year-old girl, the breasts of a nursing mother, and the body of a boy athlete.

No-no-no, displays of arousal are 100% social. Arousal itself isn't. Arousal is arousal and defined biologically (and actually that's why libido is lowering with age - when you would be perfectly ridden of hormones working in arousal, oxytocin for example, you would quite probably be dead, or at least have quite serious problems). How society and person itself reacting on people showing arousal is completly another matter.
I'm sorry for bringing example, if somebody would see it as offensive, that's an example I had in university.
Let's imagine you feel arousal when see plush chairs. You feel arousal, but in the society you lives it's no-go. People demand to you to conform and feel arousal to a woman who has the face of a twelve-year-old girl, the breasts of a nursing mother, and the body of a boy athlete (let's use US Target for simplicity), but you can't and plush chairs is your thing. You're shunned as freak by people around, "that's ok to feel arousal to US Target, but plush chairs? whats wrong with you?". Hello, social rejection.
It's not the worst scenario. It's quite possible you feel arousal but voices in your own head speaks to you - "no-go". "People like you are counted as freaks around here, and we don't want this to happen with us, do we? Shush back into subconcious, this chair, let's not be aware and hit that US Target moving around!" To help this voices, humans have help button "activate arousal by stimulating erogenous zones", and also humans are rewarded with oxytocin blast for conforming society (same oxytocin that activating in sexual arousal), so person in question can live in happy marriage with US Target for years. But stress would accumulate, and quite possibly would boom sooner or later, some way or another. Hello, sexuality-based traumas.

If you had to consciously coordinate walking, you couldn't react fast enough to keep your balance.

Quite the opposite. If I really need to keep my balance (let's say it's unknown night forest) I would drop reflexive walking and start to look my steps. As conditions became less familiar, I would take more attention.
The problem with consciousness isn't that it's slow. Problem is it's small. Human consciousness have little field of attention, so untrained person can't, say, thinking about six or seven unrelated issues at once. Imagine computer with two terabyte RAM installed, but application is allowed to get 256 kB - of course it would looks slow. But if anything else you have is oversized software routines written by awful programmer and tending to be bugged as a hell and sometimes crushing your system, you'll use something beyond this 256 kBs only when you're perfectly sure in situation.
Anyway, as Bubbles declaring that he haven't access to the part of mind Corpse Witch blocked, and point it as something non-usual, it's safe to assume she normally have full access to her mind.

That is why AIs can learn arousal. They no doubt feel something different in their metal and plastic bodies than I do, but I strongly suspect that women, much younger men, and much older men do too, and that it still counts as arousal.

Actually it's called "Qualia problem" - how to prove that my sensual experience is correlated with yours in any way - and is one of the most heatenly debated questions of modern psychology. But with arousal it's quite simpler then with, for example, color perception. Arousal have physiological markers, no markers - no arousal.


Let me try to show what I mean by this way:
Imagine situation in "Basic Decency", but there Bubbles is a human woman, not AI. What is happening?
She's entering the room and seeing Faye bottom. Faye is her thing, her body reacts with arousal, her nipples erecting, pupils dilating... well, I will not list full spectrum. Bubbles identify this reaction as arousal. AFAIK in US (and in Western World) it's not counted nice to feel arousal to another person beyond some specific situations (nobody said social demands are always reasonable or even feasible; but, for reference, recall reaction Faye had when Marten asked her can he lust her secretly, it's 4), so she feel bad and shunned, it's mixing with arousal, and her inability to hide arousal. "That's not how good girls behave!", she is lectured by her own morality. So she turns around, shunned, and asking Faye to remove stress factor. Perfectly understandable and common situation, I believe most of us being here at least once.

Ok, current situation.
Bubbles entering room and seeing Faye bottom. Some X happens. Bubbles identify this X as arousal, then every step from previous example, because it's how AIs build their social behavour (and I'm completly OK with it). X definitly isn't human arousal, so it's some reaction put into her body or mind which Bubbles identify with arousal and then behave following social protocols. What is X?
If it's some kind of uncontrollable special reaction directly placed there to mimic human arousal (for example, some kind of software subroutine that downcycling processors a bit and loading part of RAM with nasty pictures), who placed it there, and how exactly it's triggering?

[ckridge]

I will respond in detail later, but I must point out that you keep insisting that someone must have put a sexual arousal program into Bubbles. That's not the way even the primitive AIs we actually have work. They teach themselves, and by doing so are able to do things that merely programmed AIs cannot. We have every reason to suppose that the AIs in QC would teach themselves arousal, some by looking at porn and some by reading novels.

[SpanielBear]

What is X?

Mega-snip

I think the qualia problem is a good one to reference here, because it (unsurprisingly) also comes up in philosophy, which has spent a long time trying to answer the question "What is a mind" (The answer, for people playing at home, is "I 'unno.". It's *always* "I 'unno". Philosophy is an incredibly frustating degree). Like you say, the problem of only having priviledged access to our own minds means that we have to operate on assumptions about what other people feel and think, based on incomplete information.

Analogy time! Wittgenstein came up with a thought experiment involving a beetle in a box. Everyone has a beetle in a box. We can talk to each other about our beetles, describe them to one another- "My beetle has shiny wings", "My beetle has lovely mandibles"- and we all think we know what we're talking about. The problem is, because we can't show each other our beetles, what we think we know about the other person is only an assumption. When someone says "My beetle has eight legs" we're surprised and confused, because we thought we knew what we were talking about but it turns out it's just a house of cards. The same when talking about the mind.

Thing is, this happens even between two regular humans. The qualia problem is exactly that- I cannot know what it's like to be you. I can only assume that, because most of the time you and I share emotional responses, react in certain ways, you are like me. But that isn't the same as *knowing* that you are. When you say "I am sad", I cannot know what that feels like for you. I can only compare it to what I feel when I use that word, and react accordingly. Unless something happens that shows I am making a mistake, any differences just wont be apparent.

So what's the point of all that? Well, basically if I can't know what another person is feeling, but still try to empathise with them, why would a person-mimicking AI be any different? Bubbles is formatted differently, but functionaly she is identical to Faye or any other person. When she talks about anger, sadness or arousal, she demonstrates human-like behaviours that correlate with those words. As long as that correlation persists, I am faced with a choice of whether to behave as though she has those emotions or not. I could make a mistake either way. But the consequence of me behaving as though a feeling entity has no emotions would be far worse than the other way around.

This is on a day to day level. You mention about biological markers for arousal, which can be detected and are indicative. Assuming for a moment that those markers are always accurate (Which they aren't. The room could be cold, you could have high blood pressure- sometimes a cigar is just an erection. I mean cigar.), presumably one could with sufficient technology match the brain state to the emotion. Reasonably one could assume one could also do the same with a robotic mind- find the string of code that indicates arousal. But in both cases, knowing what it looks like tells us nothing about what it feels like. We can see which part of the brain lights up in response to pain, but the feeling is going to be different between the person who has stubbed their toe and the person who is into BDSM. We are back to having to use empathy and assumptions to guide us into what their inner life is like, and again, humans and robots wouldn't be that different in that regard.

The problem is, the ultimate question you seem to be asking is "how are QC AI's programmed?", which is a damn good question, but one we have no idea how to begin answering, because it's so advanced from our perspective. So we are stuck with treating them like metal people, which, to be fair, in universe is how they want to be treated. Just because two minds are made differently tells us nothing about what it's like to have either of them, if functionally they are identical.

[SpanielBear]

Comic!

A moment's silence, please, for the many Bothans who died to bring Faye this revelation.

Alas, their sacrifice was in vain.

[TheEvilDog]

I felt a great disturbance in the Forum, as if millions of shippers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

[tut21]

Comic!

A moment's silence, please, for the many Bothans who died to bring Faye this revelation.

Alas, their sacrifice was in vain.

That's okay. The important part is that Faye briefly considered the idea for the first time. It will return.

[Aenno]

They teach themselves, and by doing so are able to do things that merely programmed AIs cannot.

So that just means Bubbles put this program into herself. I'm just using cybernetic terms AIs themself speaks, but I'm entirely ok with a "who teached Bubbles about arousal?"

We have every reason to suppose that the AIs in QC would teach themselves arousal, some by looking at porn and some by reading novels.

Look into porno or novel. What would do you see?
1. Vague description of inner emotional state, that can't really be translated even to another human - it's qualia problem, we can't directly transfer sensual information; but, as we all have human bodies, we can safely assume that common reader/watcher felt arousal at least once.
2. Physical, and quite often very detailed, description of physiological effects. To learn about them it's actually better to look into medical book.
What exactly can be learned with such materials by a person that never experienced arousing? Do you ever tried to explain to child with words and images how orgasm feels?

Philosophy is an incredibly frustating degree).

I know, right?

Reasonably one could assume one could also do the same with a robotic mind- find the string of code that indicates arousal.

...and when it's achieved we have upload - a mean to retranslate human mind into robotic chassis. Which is directly defined as impossible feat (at least yet) in QC universe.

I can only compare it to what I feel when I use that word, and react accordingly. Unless something happens that shows I am making a mistake, any differences just wont be apparent.

And that's the thing with us both being humans - we have similar base to start with. You have skin, I have skin, our skins are composed with basically same chemicals, they have basically same structure. When you're saying "I have a burn and now it's painful", I have actual reason to believe your experience is somehow close to mine. Not working each time, but empirically it gives humans enough common ground to understand each other.
Imagine we have AI put into toaster. It never had nociceptors, organic brain or cortisol reaction. I can't know what do he means, and I haven't any reason he means something like MY pain, because I know how it works and I know he lacks parts for it. That's not making him lesser, but it making him alien.
That's why I'm absolutely ok with AIs developing higher or abstract emotions. Love, happiness, suffering, sadness, aesthetic sense, religious sense - sure. Fear, loss, anger, sympathy, loneliness, affection - sure. I do believe that this kind of things are based on self-reflection and introspection.

When she talks about anger, sadness or arousal, she demonstrates human-like behaviours that correlate with those words.

I believe she never talked about arousal.

So we are stuck with treating them like metal people, which, to be fair, in universe is how they want to be treated. Just because two minds are made differently tells us nothing about what it's like to have either of them, if functionally they are identical.

And so it goes - it's exactly problem that bothers me like a hell, so I even registered here on forum to write a big post about it.

[SpanielBear]

I get that. I guess why it doesn't bother me as much is that while it's true we humans share biology, there is so much differences between our experiences culturally that running into the qualia problem is pretty inevitable. I didn't use the BDSM example in my last post for no reason; narrowing down feelings and emotions to just one sensation is incredibly complex, even impossible. Take anger. That word is descriptive, but the feeling could be overwhelming rage, the manifestation of stress, or the result of not having eaten all day. And that's assuming we can even identify our own emotions with any accuracy. The end result is we are having to make these assumptions and form incomplete pictures of others, and as long as it works we muddle through.

Let's go back to your toaster. Which is not a sentence I thought I'd ever write, but never mind. If the toaster reports feeling pain, you are right that it almost certainly is experiencing different qualia to you. But the question then becomes, what is it trying to say? Because assuming it is an intelligent toaster, it has the same knowledge you do- it knows you feel things differently than it does. So when it complains about pain, what reaction does it hope to get? Why say that?

My assumption is that although the feeling is different, the function is similar. Whatever it is feeling is intense discomfort and requires immediate attention. As it is distinct from human pain, it could signify it differently by using a different word, "I am feeling Gubrily". But what's the point of saying that to an English speaking human? The toaster gains nothing by the distinction. But if it has knowledge of humans and English, it could see that saying "I am feeling pain" could acheive it's goal- the human could help make the sensation go away.

Bubbles has needs which are functionaly emotional, and is operating in a human society where those needs are only going to be met if she can communicate them. The exact qualia she experiences are ultimately irrelevant, as long as the communication works between her and those she associates with. On a wider level, AI's in their programming can make that communication as subtle or as explicit as they like- so they can use their words, or also program in non-verbal communication cues that work just as well. The human language is there, so while they are with us they have no reason not use it.

I don't think you're wrong to find this bothersome. Humanity doesn't have an alien alternative point of reference in this way, and it is fascinating to think about what that relationship would be like. But for myself, I find the short-hand sufficient. The AI's pass the Turing test enough that they don't trigger the uncanny valley for me. But I think that is ultimately subjective.

[Penquin47]

But we don't get to see if she put on pajama bottoms!!!  This is very important information!!!

[Neko_Ali]

Whelp.... It's been a long time since I put this up, but it's clearly needed again. C'mon old friend. You are called to service once again. *lovingly gets down the Clue by Four from it's stand* Ooooohhhh Faaaaayyyye....

[Tova]

Careful, that clue by four may well kill her. 

[fayelovesbubbles]

I can't get past the idea that Bubbles needs a bed and she must be so uncomfortable sitting on the floor like that. Yes, I know, I know, AIs don't need a comfortable bed, but would it really kill them to have one?

Faye: Bubbles, let's get you a bed.

Bubbles: It's okay. I don't need a bed like you do.

Faye: Come on. Why not?

Bubbles: Really, it's okay. I don't need a bed.

Faye. Sigh...

[Tova]

Bubbles is nothing if not pragmatic, and a second bed would take up a lot of floor space. It would probably drive them crazy.

[TheEvilDog]

It might also be a survival mechanism for Bubbles, making herself as small a target as possible when she’s at her most vulnerable, when charging.

Plus I imagine a reinforced bed is pretty expensive.

[fayelovesbubbles]

Bubbles is nothing if not pragmatic, and a second bed would take up a lot of floor space. It would probably drive them crazy.

Bubbles is the type where she could share a bed for a night with someone she's super attracted to and absolutely nothing would happen, because Bubbles is a lady.

Actually in my user picture they're sort of sharing the bed. I'm too lazy to find that comic. Blegh.

I know I sound like a shipper, but it feels nice to see Faye and Bubbles be close to each other, which is why I picked that picture.

[Is it cold in here?]

The problem with consciousness isn't that it's slow.

It took my conscious mind days to add up all the danger signs in that parking lot incident, an incident to which my hindbrain reacted in about a second.

******

BenRG nailed it. The Pugnacious Peach is not oblivious. This is active denial.

[Tova]

Yes, I agree. For whatever reasons. (edit: I mean she's in denial for whatever reasons, not I agree for whatever reasons  )

On a topic that is only superficially related to physical space, I am kind of surprised that Faye and Bubbles get on so well without friction (that we've seen - I think) given that they are pretty well living in each others pockets. They share a house, share a bedroom, and work with each other. I've known couples that end up working in the same company, and they went to some trouble to ensure they were in different projects.

Speaking personally, I do not think it would be good for my relationship for my partner if we were to work with each other. And when we're on holiday, we usually have at least one day or half day where we separate and do our own thing. Even though (or maybe because) by the end, we are really wanting to get back together and share with each other what we've experienced.

Close relationships are a wonderful thing, but people need their space.

[Aenno]

Let's go back to your toaster. Which is not a sentence I thought I'd ever write, but never mind. If the toaster reports feeling pain, you are right that it almost certainly is experiencing different qualia to you. But the question then becomes, what is it trying to say? Because assuming it is an intelligent toaster, it has the same knowledge you do- it knows you feel things differently than it does. So when it complains about pain, what reaction does it hope to get? Why say that?

As I said I never had a problem with a AI developing love, affection, anger, suffering. If toaster would say he is in pain, I'd assume that he is experiencing suffering, and wouldn't try to feed painkillers to him. Actually having AIs around would turn this kind of semantic to actually major thing. It's entirely possible to feel suffering without pain, and affection without arousal. When AI would try to learn what's love is, I really hope they wouldn't use porn or romantic novels only, but would look into Lee works, for example.

Bubbles has needs which are functionaly emotional, and is operating in a human society where those needs are only going to be met if she can communicate them. The exact qualia she experiences are ultimately irrelevant, as long as the communication works between her and those she associates with. On a wider level, AI's in their programming can make that communication as subtle or as explicit as they like- so they can use their words, or also program in non-verbal communication cues that work just as well. The human language is there, so while they are with us they have no reason not use it.

Once again I should point that I haven't problem with any AI developing love or affection. Station and Winslow developed it to Hannelore. Momo has it for Marigold. Pintsize has it for Marten and Faye. May had it about Dale (and about Momo, by the way). I never tried to make assumption about arousal being basis for affection, for instance.
Problem is, Bubbles shows reactions that linked in our culture to arousal (or, if you want, lust). Why functionaly emotional need (let's use term "storge", I believe it fits) would create specific responses our culture uses to block lust?
That's it - human language is here. We have different words for arousal and love, for agape and storge, for pain and suffering, for hope and expectancy; we're messing around with them, trying to rely on context and some kind of shared experience of being physical persons, reading same books, listening one music, all that things. And if toaster AI would want to minimize human being confused, why not using correct term humans have, not a term linked to physical sensation toaster haven't?
The problem would be that humans would need to learn human languages as well.

Actually a lot of things would be easier. Imagine "Return of the Jedi", scene where Solo asking Leia is she loves Luke.
Leia: I storge him, not eros him.
Solo: *happy*
Miscommunication: Avoided. AI: Happy.

[fayelovesbubbles]

Everyone remember how embarrassed Bubbles was when she explained the situation to Clinton: "We do not SLEEP together. We merely share a room." She wouldn't even let anyone get the wrong idea.

[Aenno]

The problem with consciousness isn't that it's slow.

It took my conscious mind days to add up all the danger signs in that parking lot incident, an incident to which my hindbrain reacted in about a second.

When I was 15, I was into Castaneda thing in russian "new-agers" interpretation. Awareness trainings was fun, but depressing, because I lost the last reason to get rid with bad reaction.
It happened I'm not having bad reaction, I just too lazy.

Everyone remember how embarrassed Bubbles was when she explained the situation to Clinton: "We do not SLEEP together. We merely share a room." She wouldn't even let anyone get the wrong idea.

And so she prefer to sleep with Faye in the room with only one bed.
Clever plan!

[fayelovesbubbles]

Bubbles insists that she doesn't need to share the bed because AIs don't need the human comforts, but the real reason she can't is that her face would be burning and there would be much "fweeeee" going on if they shared a bed.

: p

Faye would be none the wiser. "Wow, Bubs, it's great sharing the bed with you. Night!"

Although tonight's comic shows she might be getting some awareness of her feelings.

[fayelovesbubbles]

I just went back and found a comic where Dora is teasing Faye about having a crush on Bubbles. Faye can't catch a break--not from her sister, or Dora, or Claire or Marten, who also wondered aloud if there's something going on.

Poor Faye. Poor Bubbles. Will everyone just stop???

[Aenno]

I just went back and found a comic where Dora is teasing Faye about having a crush on Bubbles. Faye can't catch a break--not from her sister, or Dora, or Claire or Marten, who also wondered aloud if there's something going on.

Poor Faye. Poor Bubbles. Will everyone just stop???

Nope. All of their friends are too kind just to let it go. They would try to fix love life of two oblivious sweethearts.
...God, how I hated when my friends tried to fix my love life...

[fayelovesbubbles]

To be honest, I wouldn't object to someone trying to fix mine. Blergh.

[BenRG]

Yep, like I said yesterday, Faye is 100% deep in denial. She's not only in denial about Bubbles's reactions to her but, as we see in today's strip, she's also in denial about her own feelings. Panel 4 makes it quite clear that she realises what she and Evie said to each other about Bubbles can be taken in a certain way but cannot and will not accept that interpretation right now.

In his footer text, Jeph promises that it will all make sense in the morning. I'm not sure that I believe that!

Meanwhile, long-hair Bubbles has added a few more notches onto the 'cute' scale in my book!

[fayelovesbubbles]

Well, whatever Faye feels, I admit that I have a crush on Bubbles. Haha.

[Tova]

In his footer text, Jeph promises that it will all make sense in the morning. I'm not sure that I believe that!

Indeed. Think it's missing a /s.

[Tova]

Faye isn't oblivious, rather she is actively in denial about Bubbles's reaction to her.

I believe this.

Do you think Faye is also in denial about her own budding and unclear feelings toward Bubbles?

I think that as far as Faye is concerned, her feelings towards Bubbles are perfectly clear.

[BenRG]

I asked not if Faye would be respond to a toaster with Bubble's AI inside...

FWIW, I'd like for a human/AI love story (even if told as a lesson from history) where the human fell in love with a totally disembodied AI simply because he or she was kind, empathetic and shared a lot of the human's interests. It is only later that the AI used first a holo-avatar and then later an anthromimetic chassis and the relationship became physical (and ultimately ended with marriage and the adoption of children).

I'd also like for there to be a number of AIs to be against cross-species romance for various reasons, some political and some due to pure bigotry.

[Pennepasta]

Yes, I agree. For whatever reasons. (edit: I mean she's in denial for whatever reasons, not I agree for whatever reasons  )

On a topic that is only superficially related to physical space, I am kind of surprised that Faye and Bubbles get on so well without friction (that we've seen - I think) given that they are pretty well living in each others pockets. They share a house, share a bedroom, and work with each other. I've known couples that end up working in the same company, and they went to some trouble to ensure they were in different projects.

Speaking personally, I do not think it would be good for my relationship for my partner if we were to work with each other. And when we're on holiday, we usually have at least one day or half day where we separate and do our own thing. Even though (or maybe because) by the end, we are really wanting to get back together and share with each other what we've experienced.

Close relationships are a wonderful thing, but people need their space.

Different couples need different amounts of space. For example, I know a couple who are probably in their fifties, and have worked together all their working life - they're currently running a cafe, and have run hotels together in the past, so lots of time at work. Seems utterly crazy to me, but works for them.

[Case]

Faye isn't oblivious, rather she is actively in denial about Bubbles's reaction to her.

I believe this.

Do you think Faye is also in denial about her own budding and unclear feelings toward Bubbles?

I think that as far as Faye is concerned, her feelings towards Bubbles are perfectly clear.

Well, in the sense that a wood is still a wood even though you can't see it for all the dang trees getting in the way, that assessment of her emotional forestscape is probably even technically accurate.

(Yes, forestscape is actually a word. And no, it doesn't appear to be a transliteration from an originally German compound-noun, we must have missed that one. Congrats, Ingleses! ... won't happen again ...)

[ckridge]

Faye used to sleep way over on the other side of the bed away from Bubbles. http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3523

[traroth]

I'm tempted to say I'm impatient to see tomorrow's comic, but I kind of lost hope for a conclusion of any sort...

Also: Are Bubbles' hair growing?