Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

  • 05 Aug 2020, 04:11
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

That must be stressful. Favorite fruit preserves for toast/sandwiches?

strawberry jam
grape jelly
blackberry jam
peach preserves
apricot jelly
plum jam
orange marmalade
jalapeño jelly
apple butter
lemon curd
other (please specify)
Sven is not a mooch
raspberry jam

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)  (Read 8668 times)

notsocool

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #150 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.
Logged

Mr Intrepid

  • Furry furrier
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 171
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #151 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.
Logged

notsocool

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #152 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.
Logged

Is it cold in here?

  • Administrator
  • Awakened
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21,539
  • He/him/his pronouns
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #153 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.
Logged
"Non-compliance is a social skill"
Quote from: an unnamed minister's sermon
In your face, darkness!  We are the light and we outnumber you!

Wingy

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
  • Is my cape on right?
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #154 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?
Logged
This space intentionally left almost blank.

sitnspin

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,506
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #155 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.
Logged
@syleegrrl

Aenno

  • Balloon animal serial killer
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #156 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, 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.
Logged
Disclamer: English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes - not by meaning but by grammar or orphography - that, with thoroughful rereading, I often found and want to edit, but not always.
If you're offended by my using of your language, fell free to right my wrongs.

sitnspin

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,506
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #157 on: 18 Jan 2020, 08:30 »

Marigold is a freelance web designer, this has been stated repeatedly.
Logged
@syleegrrl

Aenno

  • Balloon animal serial killer
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #158 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.
Logged
Disclamer: English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes - not by meaning but by grammar or orphography - that, with thoroughful rereading, I often found and want to edit, but not always.
If you're offended by my using of your language, fell free to right my wrongs.

Cornelius

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,405
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #159 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.
Logged
Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul – and sings the tunes without the words – and never stops at all.

Aenno

  • Balloon animal serial killer
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #160 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".
Logged
Disclamer: English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes - not by meaning but by grammar or orphography - that, with thoroughful rereading, I often found and want to edit, but not always.
If you're offended by my using of your language, fell free to right my wrongs.

Castlerook

  • Methuselah's mentor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,165
  • Captain Sarcastic
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #161 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.
Logged
Whenever someone says "I'm not book smart but I am street smart.", all I hear is "I'm not real smart, but I am imaginary smart."

Aenno

  • Balloon animal serial killer
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #162 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.
« Last Edit: 18 Jan 2020, 11:00 by Aenno »
Logged
Disclamer: English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes - not by meaning but by grammar or orphography - that, with thoroughful rereading, I often found and want to edit, but not always.
If you're offended by my using of your language, fell free to right my wrongs.

Is it cold in here?

  • Administrator
  • Awakened
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21,539
  • He/him/his pronouns
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #163 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?
Logged
"Non-compliance is a social skill"
Quote from: an unnamed minister's sermon
In your face, darkness!  We are the light and we outnumber you!

hedgie

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,170
  • Can't be buggered at all
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #164 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.
Logged
"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." -- Nietzsche

"Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space, 'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!"  -- The Pythons

Wingy

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
  • Is my cape on right?
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #165 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.
Logged
This space intentionally left almost blank.

Is it cold in here?

  • Administrator
  • Awakened
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21,539
  • He/him/his pronouns
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #166 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.

Logged
"Non-compliance is a social skill"
Quote from: an unnamed minister's sermon
In your face, darkness!  We are the light and we outnumber you!

JimC

  • Cthulhu f'tagn
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Alice liked fluffy toys...
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #167 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.
Logged

Tova

  • Preventing third impact
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6,013
  • Defender of the Terrible Denizens of QC
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #168 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?
Logged
Sometimes Hail Marys are the best Marys we've got.

notsocool

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #169 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.
« Last Edit: 18 Jan 2020, 16:56 by notsocool »
Logged

Tova

  • Preventing third impact
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6,013
  • Defender of the Terrible Denizens of QC
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #170 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:
  • 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.
Logged
Sometimes Hail Marys are the best Marys we've got.

notsocool

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #171 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.
« Last Edit: 18 Jan 2020, 19:31 by notsocool »
Logged

Tova

  • Preventing third impact
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6,013
  • Defender of the Terrible Denizens of QC
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #172 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.
Logged
Sometimes Hail Marys are the best Marys we've got.

notsocool

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #173 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!
Logged

Tova

  • Preventing third impact
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6,013
  • Defender of the Terrible Denizens of QC
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #174 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.
Logged
Sometimes Hail Marys are the best Marys we've got.

notsocool

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #175 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?
« Last Edit: 19 Jan 2020, 00:34 by notsocool »
Logged

Tova

  • Preventing third impact
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6,013
  • Defender of the Terrible Denizens of QC
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #176 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.
« Last Edit: 19 Jan 2020, 00:35 by Tova »
Logged
Sometimes Hail Marys are the best Marys we've got.

notsocool

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #177 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!
Logged

Tova

  • Preventing third impact
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6,013
  • Defender of the Terrible Denizens of QC
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #178 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.
Logged
Sometimes Hail Marys are the best Marys we've got.

Gyrre

  • Only pretending to work
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,047
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #179 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.
Logged
Quote
a real-ass gaddam sword
Quote
"Broken swords and dragon bones scattered on the way back home."

Too stubborn to die, just like the rest of my family.

Cornelius

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,405
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #180 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.
Logged
Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul – and sings the tunes without the words – and never stops at all.

jwhouk

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,676
  • The Valley of the Sun
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #181 on: 19 Jan 2020, 08:04 »

Would a genderfluid synthetic have multiple bodies and switch between them to fit their current identity?

Ask Yay.
Logged
"Character is what you are in the Dark." - D.L. Moody
There is no joke that can be made online without someone being offended by it.
Life's too short to be ashamed of how you were born.
8645

Is it cold in here?

  • Administrator
  • Awakened
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21,539
  • He/him/his pronouns
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #182 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.
Logged
"Non-compliance is a social skill"
Quote from: an unnamed minister's sermon
In your face, darkness!  We are the light and we outnumber you!

Is it cold in here?

  • Administrator
  • Awakened
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21,539
  • He/him/his pronouns
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #183 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.
« Last Edit: 19 Jan 2020, 16:59 by Is it cold in here? »
Logged
"Non-compliance is a social skill"
Quote from: an unnamed minister's sermon
In your face, darkness!  We are the light and we outnumber you!

Tova

  • Preventing third impact
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6,013
  • Defender of the Terrible Denizens of QC
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #184 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?
Logged
Sometimes Hail Marys are the best Marys we've got.

Castlerook

  • Methuselah's mentor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,165
  • Captain Sarcastic
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #185 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, 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.
« Last Edit: 19 Jan 2020, 16:06 by Castlerook »
Logged
Whenever someone says "I'm not book smart but I am street smart.", all I hear is "I'm not real smart, but I am imaginary smart."

pecoros7

  • Pneumatic ratchet pants
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 302
  • They/them or she/her. Very much done.
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #186 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.
Logged

Tova

  • Preventing third impact
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6,013
  • Defender of the Terrible Denizens of QC
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #187 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.
Logged
Sometimes Hail Marys are the best Marys we've got.

Wingy

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
  • Is my cape on right?
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #188 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
Logged
This space intentionally left almost blank.

JimC

  • Cthulhu f'tagn
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Alice liked fluffy toys...
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #189 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.
Logged

Tova

  • Preventing third impact
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6,013
  • Defender of the Terrible Denizens of QC
Re: WCDT 4176-4180 (13th - 17th, January 2020)
« Reply #190 on: 23 Jan 2020, 02:06 »

Yes of course. Which is why I was grateful I got an answer that went beyond “no.”
Logged
Sometimes Hail Marys are the best Marys we've got.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up