|
it looks a bit younger/more primative so that'd explain why it doesn't have Bautista's exact forehead ... situation. The nose and build match up and are very distinctive.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Snak posted:She's pro-replicant. She's hoping that K will realize he's on the wrong side. I'm not entirely sure I buy that, I was watching the film again last night, and looking out for the new model murder scene in particular. Luv's body language in that scene, tenseness, slightly shaking hand, suppressed fear, and tears after the 'birth', but before Wallace really heads off on his soliloquy about angels and slaves which might imply religious joy in the tears, and her staring at the dying replicant with a look of fearful sadness, even as Wallace tells her she is the best angel, strongly suggests that Luv lives in mortal terror of him. And further that she knew what might occur in that room, which I think is reasonable to extend to she knows exactly what happens to replicants that disappoint Wallace. Yet still he is her father figure. And I think she does buy into a certain form of chauvinism, I'm just not sure it's pro replicant but rather pro Wallace. I think particularly interesting is the sea wall scene, Deckard asks her where they are going, and Luv is sat looking at him with something approaching reverence 'home' is her answer, no bitter contempt or snarkyness which she often displays, and after pseudo defeating K she returns to Deckard again with a look of serenity and almost awe says something like 'come father is waiting.' It's clear she basically sees Wallace as a god like father figure. I'm thinking that joining the resistance would be a very unlikely turn of events for her character, she is too naive and too infected by Wallace to begin to self actualise like that, unlike Roy Batty with whom she shares many traits (amusingly to me at least Hoeks and Hauer are both Dutch), she is a prize pet, a loyal dog (interestingly she often refers to k as a dog) and lacks the pressure caused by a very short lifespan to tip her over the edge into full scale rebellion against her situation. Batty wanted to live, Luv appears content to bask in the glow of Wallace's dreams. As for K, I don't get anywhere that she cares if he accepts Wallace as his personal saviour or realises he's on the wrong side, more feels like hyper competitiveness, that she needs to prove to herself that Wallace is right and she is the best one, each time she defeats him she seems more than satisfied to have proved to herself she's the best one, and at that point he is almost unimportant to her. But I'm interested now in how she views Deckard, as even in the prior scene where Wallace brings out the Rachel replica, she seems to be looking at Deckard in an odd dumbstruck way, often she's just out of focus but giving an almost jaw dropped appearance. Might be she's just astonished to be in the presence of such an old 'replicant' or maybe she's in near religious awe of the idea that Wallace's storming of Eden is one step closer. My thinking is still that she has no inserted memories, has extreme difficulties in controlling her emotions and temper, her tears when killing Joshi are tears are as a result of being thwarted when Joshi tells her the child is dead not of any confliction in killing the police officer. It could be fear that she will be punished for failure, or the loss of Wallace's vision for the future of both. Lacking the emotional stability of other late model replicants she's sadly entranced by Wallace's grandiose plans and cowed by his casually murderous nature. (Got to suspect that our Demiurge's flies can do more than provide vision given that Luv could clearly tear Wallace limb from limb if the mood took her.) What a sad irony this is given the 'best angel', who may indeed be the sword arm of Wallace, is certainly no more safe or loved by such a character than the new model cut down for having a barren womb. She's accepted her lot in being just another slave laying a brick for his Pyramid. It's a very dark counterpoint to K's journey to realising his humanity and the competing claims as to what and who he should be. Ser Pounce fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
saw the movie, never seen any of the prequel movies (didn't see any of the shorts, technically i was present in a room that OG blade runner was playing in but i actually fell asleep during it pretty early on), absolutely loved it, and i really want to give watching the original a second shot now. Joi kind of stole the movie for me, she had such incredibly powerful scenes. i find discussion on her personhood really fascinating. ultimately for k, she's kind of like walking into the room of a long time lover of yours and finding their open diary on their desk, and on the page it's open to it's dated with the day you first met them, and it reads "i'm going to trick this guy into thinking i love him." and you never find out what the rest of the diary says. did she actually transcend her reality of being a bunch of computer code into being a complete "person?" or was she just "really good at her job?" i felt like the film really went out of its way to constantly remind you that she's "fake," most powerfully when she freezes suddenly after her first tearful moment in the rain because k got a voicemail, but also the way that she flickers and becomes disabled in the junkyard scene and the big, looming "i will be everything you want" advertisements. of course, she's also mean to the hooker and performs actions while k is unconscious, which are at best not really the intention of her product. but is she just an adaptive enough code that recognizes that these actions will, indirectly, make k happier? (maybe the sound will wake him up as he's in danger? maybe she sees the hooker messing with the wooden horse and doesn't want the whore tampering with the "you're special" fantasy she's been feeding k, because she recognizes that he wants to believe he's special?) does simply being that adaptive make her a person? i love that both judgements work thematically, in different ways: joi either represents what k could accomplish (transcending the facts of his creation into becoming an independent person), or she represents how hollow and empty his dream of being someone "special" really was, and how he has to find meaning in his life outside of Other People telling him that his life is meaningful personally i think her being a "full fledged person" is the more powerful reading, but the fact that textually and thematically there's room for doubt on that really enriches the movie for me. though i think my biggest takeaway from the film, ultimately, is "why didn't luv kill k after killing joi"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:saw the movie, never seen any of the prequel movies (didn't see any of the shorts, technically i was present in a room that OG blade runner was playing in but i actually fell asleep during it pretty early on), absolutely loved it, and i really want to give watching the original a second shot now. Joi is definitely an outstanding character, with so much ambiguity about whether she is or transcends her programming. K's also clearly aware that he has done nothing to deserve such love from Joi, which I think adds to the poignancy of her eventual sacrifice and declaration of love. Would a completely free version of Joi make those choices? Does having programmed imperatives make her any less a 'real girl' at that moment? It's beautifully ambiguous. As for Luv, my currently take is that she was distracted from killing K by Joi, I think she is fairly easily distracted by nature, and then turns her attention to the exciting prospect of bringing the prize, Deckard, to Wallace. Leaving the apparently broken and dying K to his own devices. He's now just unimportant to her. Besides Luv clearly hasn't spent much time watching old movies which demonstrate that you never ever should leave your near dead opponent alive to try to gain revenge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:saw the movie, never seen any of the prequel movies (didn't see any of the shorts, technically i was present in a room that OG blade runner was playing in but i actually fell asleep during it pretty early on), absolutely loved it, and i really want to give watching the original a second shot now. I think the real takeaway is that merely asking the question as to whether Joi is "real" or becomes "real" is the answer. The answer is she's as real as any person, which is to say that any person is as real as Joi. "...The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true" -- Ecclesiastes Even if Joi were programmed to respond to everything in a certain way in the movie, and to commit the actions we see, how many humans are programmed, in a way, to behave the same. The greater question to ask, and the question I think both Bladerunner films ask, is what it means to be human for a human. What separates the programmed person obeying the commands and programming of society and the self-actualized person who finds meaning and awareness, sometimes at the cost of their place in society. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Ser Pounce posted:I'm not entirely sure I buy that, I was watching the film again last night, and looking out for the new model murder scene in particular. quote:I think particularly interesting is the sea wall scene, Deckard asks her where they are going, and Luv is sat looking at him with something approaching reverence 'home' is her answer, no bitter contempt or snarkyness which she often displays, and after pseudo defeating K she returns to Deckard again with a look of serenity and almost awe says something like 'come father is waiting.' quote:I'm thinking that joining the resistance would be a very unlikely turn of events for her character, she is too naive and too infected by Wallace to begin to self actualise like that, unlike Roy Batty with whom she shares many traits (amusingly to me at least Hoeks and Hauer are both Dutch), she is a prize pet, a loyal dog (interestingly she often refers to k as a dog) and lacks the pressure caused by a very short lifespan to tip her over the edge into full scale rebellion against her situation. Batty wanted to live, Luv appears content to bask in the glow of Wallace's dreams. quote:As for K, I don't get anywhere that she cares if he accepts Wallace as his personal saviour or realises he's on the wrong side, more feels like hyper competitiveness, that she needs to prove to herself that Wallace is right and she is the best one, each time she defeats him she seems more than satisfied to have proved to herself she's the best one, and at that point he is almost unimportant to her. quote:But I'm interested now in how she views Deckard, as even in the prior scene where Wallace brings out the Rachel replica, she seems to be looking at Deckard in an odd dumbstruck way, often she's just out of focus but giving an almost jaw dropped appearance. quote:My thinking is still that she has no inserted memories, has extreme difficulties in controlling her emotions and temper, her tears when killing Joshi are tears are as a result of being thwarted when Joshi tells her the child is dead not of any confliction in killing the police officer. It could be fear that she will be punished for failure, or the loss of Wallace's vision for the future of both. quote:What a sad irony this is given the 'best angel', who may indeed be the sword arm of Wallace, is certainly no more safe or loved by such a character than the new model cut down for having a barren womb. She's accepted her lot in being just another slave laying a brick for his Pyramid. I made another post about this and the how her arc contrasts with K's here. I can't wait to watch this movie again. There are so many layers. It's a great discussion. edit: Unrelated, and I'm not sure if this has been discussed in this thread, but the Baseline Test is based on lines from the poem Pale Fire, found Nabakov's book by the same name, which K has in his apartment. The Poem is 999 lines, but the relevant passage is found in lines 703-707: fictional poet John Shade posted:And blood-black nothingness began to spin Snak fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Snak posted:
Very cool. Time to reread the book!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Very cool. Time to reread the book! Yeah, I'm gonna be one of those nerds who first reads Nabokov because he's referenced in a scifi movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Snak posted:Yeah, I'm gonna be one of those nerds who first reads Nabokov because he's referenced in a scifi movie. Pale Fire, Lolita and Pnin are top tier Nabokov and extremely readable, his "lesser" works were a bit hit or miss for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
holy poo poo hahaha e: i'm listening to this in my cubicle and i'm dying e2: the alpha and olmeger?!?! e3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XqjIUXgf9I haha Shageletic fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:holy poo poo hahaha "What's man if not a machine made flesh" "oh poo poo" Does it count as a dutch angle if it's more then 45 degrees? I don't like it...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
brawleh posted:
Taking this a little further, been readin some Jeremy Bentham due to someone mentioning him earlier in the thread. This part in his treatise on morals and legislation (it's crazy how influential it is in today's legal system, it pretty laid the foundation for taking in circumstances when sentencing): quote:"The day has been, I grieve to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? Joi's reactions right before her end pretty much answered that. For me, it's not even a debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
the problem i have with that is that we explicitly know that joi is definitely trying to make k believe that she's a person, whether or not she'd actually "qualify" as a person. it's all well and good to say "this is a person" when you're in a text chat with something that can provide clear responses, but once you have the knowledge that you were actually talking to a fairly convincing chatbot, which was designed with the express purpose of making you believe it was human (and nothing more), it's hard to, taking that information into account, still say "well it talked to me like a person so it's obviously a person. turning this program off is the same as murder." k wanted her to be a person that loved him, and she was "anything you want." i think the question of "what is the line that separates an AI advanced enough to be considered a person, and a fairly convincing chatbot? how could you tell the difference if you knew both were trying to convince you it's the first one?" is an interesting dimension to the movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:the problem i have with that is that we explicitly know that joi is definitely trying to make k believe that she's a person, whether or not she'd actually "qualify" as a person. it's all well and good to say "this is a person" when you're in a text chat with something that can provide clear responses, but once you have the knowledge that you were actually talking to a fairly convincing chatbot, which was designed with the express purpose of making you believe it was human (and nothing more), it's hard to, taking that information into account, still say "well it talked to me like a person so it's obviously a person. turning this program off is the same as murder." This, but with a stupid person. There are people who only say what they think you want to hear because they want to make you happy so that you give them attention. They often never learn. How is Joi any different from them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
because they're humans, and i know enough about humans that, excepting some very, very, very strange edge case, there's undoubtedly more to them than what i'm seeing. their interactions with other people may be different, and i'm sure they have desires that don't necessarily entirely revolve around me. if i left them and didn't see them for a week, they'd perform actions unrelated to me. joi, being a computer program, doesn't have that benefit of the doubt. if joi was left alone, she'd very likely do nothing. her entire existence is entirely dependent on another person. without k, she more or less ceases to be. i can make no assumptions about what goes on "under the hood" with her like i can with a fellow human: i simply don't have that knowledge. to me, it's less that joi can be definitely proven to not be a person, and more that there is room for doubt. a reasonable possibility exists that she isn't "really" a person, even if that can't be proven to certainly be the case, outside of detailed analysis of her computer program. this is not the case for a stupid huamn. while i suppose it MIGHT be TECHNICALLY possible that a human's mind is incomplete in exactly a way that, if i had full knowledge of their mind, i wouldn't consider them a "person," but they are close enough to present a convincing facsimile of a person, that's not really a reasonable possibility for me to consider. in advance: i don't mean to refer to the mentally disabled, but more in the sense that i suppose that if i accept that a conscious human is a "person," and that i don't really think i'd consider a brain-dead human "vegetable" to qualify for "person-hood," then there is a probably-purely-hypothetical middleground that might exist in intellectual debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Humanity is a spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Ser Pounce posted:I'm not entirely sure I buy that, I was watching the film again last night, and looking out for the new model murder scene in particular. This is largely my own thinking, and its very symptomatic of a wide range of enforcer archetypes in totalitarian societies. The mix of fear/admiration/love is a necessary ingredient for survival for a certain class of goose stepper, and the constant struggle to maintain their status versus competitors (mostly imagined, paranoia being always a certain feature in bloody societies) is an absolutely essential adaptive trait. ninjewtsu posted:the problem i have with that is that we explicitly know that joi is definitely trying to make k believe that she's a person, whether or not she'd actually "qualify" as a person. it's all well and good to say "this is a person" when you're in a text chat with something that can provide clear responses, but once you have the knowledge that you were actually talking to a fairly convincing chatbot, which was designed with the express purpose of making you believe it was human (and nothing more), it's hard to, taking that information into account, still say "well it talked to me like a person so it's obviously a person. turning this program off is the same as murder." There's a lot of material out there on what it takes for an entity to be recognized as sentient, but one thing that really gels with me is not whether a thing is, or is not, sentient, but whether under a moral framework, we have an obligation to recognize something as sentient. It's not something that can be quantified, but it is something that is absolutely essential. The expansion of empathy to things similar to ourselves, even if there are marked differences or questions as towards its real mechanics, is a thing that humanity needs to embrace, if we're gonna truly not sink ourselves with our bullshit. Sorry I'm derailing but that's where this conversation is taking me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:I think the real takeaway is that merely asking the question as to whether Joi is "real" or becomes "real" is the answer. The answer is she's as real as any person, which is to say that any person is as real as Joi. This is the ambiguity at the heart of Blade Runner. If you shut the door either way, on any question, it's a lot less interesting. Is Deckard a replicant? Well... Did Joi Really love K or was she just programmed that way? Well... It's fun to argue either way, but I think if you're desperately trying to draw conclusions you're wrong because that's actually not the point. Dumb metaphor it's getting all bent out of shape about whether light is a particle or a wave. If you go too far either side, someone can point out some obvious flaws in your theory, and the best you can do is say you fell your other evidence outweighs that objection. (I mean everything is a field anyway but that's a whole other argument.) Shageletic posted:This is largely my own thinking, and its very symptomatic of a wide range of enforcer archetypes in totalitarian societies. The mix of fear/admiration/love is a necessary ingredient for survival for a certain class of goose stepper, and the constant struggle to maintain their status versus competitors (mostly imagined, paranoia being always a certain feature in bloody societies) is an absolutely essential adaptive trait. It'll get really deep when you start to realize there is no form of human society where this is absent. Speaking of the founding fathers and our unerrant Constitution which should never be amended...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
i mean i've said a few times that my interpretation is that joi is a person. but i also think it's important to recognize that the other interpretation is valid, as well, and that the knowledge that the film works either way is pretty cool! personally i think that a sufficiently advanced AI should certainly be empathized with: that's what made joi's scenes so powerful to me. but at the same time, i recognize that my smartphone is not a person. where exactly is the line drawn? joi is close enough to the line to raise interesting questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:because they're humans, and i know enough about humans that, excepting some very, very, very strange edge case, there's undoubtedly more to them than what i'm seeing. their interactions with other people may be different, and i'm sure they have desires that don't necessarily entirely revolve around me. if i left them and didn't see them for a week, they'd perform actions unrelated to me. I'm not talking about mentally disabled people either, I'm talking about people whose thought processes are rigid and whose motives are shallow. you say "they are close enough to present a convincing facsimile of a person, that's not really a reasonable possibility for me to consider." That's exactly the argument for why Joi could be considered a person. I don't think that your "they go about their lives when their master is not there" is a necisarry qualfier either. Say you had a slave, brainwashed to love you and server you every need. A human slave. Indoctrinated from birth. And you every time you left the house, you put them in a crygenic tube and they ceased all activity until you got back and unfroze them. This would make them very similar to Joi's situation before she gets the emanator. So you could argue that this horrificly treated slave is not a person, because they've been restricted from having the freedoms we associate with personhood. But at the end of the day, they're actions, choices, and words are all the result of their cognitive process evaluating their inputs and producing outputs. Which is exactly what Joi does. A lot of this type of discussion of AI hinges on whether "AI is actually self-aware, or just acting like it is". And I think the part that's often missing is that this question be equally applied to non-artificial intelligence. If you stop taking for granted that ALL humans are self-aware, and instead assume that the human brain is a complex piece of wetware that is capable of exceeding it's basic programming and developing self-awareness, then the idea that AI's are capable of developing self-awareness, but aren't inherently self-aware, makes perfect sense. If consciousness is simply an emergent property of any suitably complex memory-based adaptive system of algorithms, and not a divine spark which is granted to some implementations and not others, than there's no conflict. This reflects my actual feelings about human consciousness and artificial intelligence, but I think it's a bit beside the point in relation to this film. In this story, Joi is a person because K connects to her as if she were one. His relationship with her grants her personhood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
I enjoy thinking about the ambiguity of the emitter - is it a leash, or is it a car?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
well why not posted:I enjoy thinking about the ambiguity of the emitter - is it a leash, or is it a car? It's a smartphone. We know this because she was listening to K's interactions while it was in his pocket. Also it has alerts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Snak posted:I don't really disagree with this? It's very much an Old Testament God's approach. Demonstrating your mortality and declaring that only through his plan can overcome it. I made a big post on the last page about my read of that scene and Luv as a character on the last page (here) quote:I agree that she see Wallace as a god, and I think we agree that she doesn't view him as a benevolent one. I disagree that her positive associate with home is due to an association with Wallace. It's possible to worship your god and want to go to heaven, without actually liking your god or being happy with his limitations. I'm not sure myself on her positive feelings for home, though I certainly do agree it's not going to be simply down to Wallace for the reasons you state. quote:To me, the fact that she kills Joshi out of personal emotional motivation and straight up says that she will lie to Wallace about why she killed Joshi tells me that her motivation is larger than her loyalty to Wallace. So she's going to lie to Wallace because she's afraid Wallace will be unhappy with her actions. She's still chooseing to perform those actions because of her own emotional drives. This means that she's not a blind thrall to Wallace and has her own motives for carrying out his mission. Of course, I think that Niander Wallace intentionally catalyzed those emotional drives. Killing Joshi is definitely a first step in displaying a subversive personal autonomy, even if as you say it's born or perhaps inspired by Wallace's will. quote:I agree that she doesn't care if K accepts Wallace, but I think she sees potential in K. Throughout the film, we see her brutally execute things she does not see potential in. This is a lesson she learned from her father, Wallace. I think both these points are definitely valid, I like her being in awe of Deckard as father of the replicant saviour. quote:I like the idea that she has no implanted memories. I read this morning that Sylvia Hoeks spent quite a bit of time studying Hauer's portrayal of Roy Batty in order to get into the right frame of mind for her role, whilst meta, it definitely came across in the performance that she was, spiritually at least, a Nexus 6. quote:I disagree that she's accepted her lot in being just another slave. She definitely believes that she is special, the one chosed by god to carryout the mission to obtain the key to uplifting the replicant race. This might be more to do with my positing my viewing of her role in Wallace's grand scheme, than her own view of it. To her it's no doubt a great role to play to be an Angel and possible nursemaid to the forthcoming expansion across the stars. quote:I made another post about this and the how her arc contrasts with K's here. Agreed, feels like the first time in ages I've seen such a bold and interesting world put on screen, it's completely captured my attention for a couple of weeks now and it's great getting to read and reexamine given the different viewpoints and interpretations. I've spent many an hour idly contemplating Deckard, Rachel, Batty and Tyrell in the years since I first saw Blade Runner, and I fully expect to be contemplating Luv, K, Wallace and Joi for some time yet. quote:edit: Unrelated, and I'm not sure if this has been discussed in this thread, but the Baseline Test is based on lines from the poem Pale Fire, found Nabakov's book by the same name, which K has in his apartment. The Poem is 999 lines, but the relevant passage is found in lines 703-707: I suspect there'll be an uptick in sales of that book now as a result.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
my point was less "the fact that the stupid person does stuff is proof of its humanity" and more "i know the stupid person does stuff when i'm not around. i know enough about the stupid person to make reasonable assumptions about basic facts of their mind. i don't have this same knowledge for joi, i won't necessarily come to the same conclusions." i brought up that a human that i wouldn't consider a person, but could present a reasonable fascimile of a person, is technically possible but not something that i can expect would actually occur, because i wanted to head off any conversation taking the form of "well what if i presented you with increasingly stupider people?" i also wanted to make clear that "there could hypothetically exist a person so stupid that i wouldn't consider them a person, but they could still talk to me" wasn't some kind of remark about the mentally disabled. the point is: you can't compare a computer program with a stupid person, because it's unreasonable to think "there exists a person so stupid that they can converse with me without being a person," but "a computer program exists that is advanced enough to convince you it's self aware without actually being self aware, and is (outside of your conversation and itneractions with it) provably not self aware" is reasonable: such a thing might already exist. how do you know joi isn't the same? ninjewtsu fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
I'm basically trying say orangutans are people, if you want a tl;dr of my posting this page. Also the thing about Luv's wariness/amazement of Deckard (god I need to see this movie again b/c I didn't pick on up that the first time), this could be b/c she might just think that Deckard's a replicant, even if he might not be. And therefore managed to escape his particular cage. Do we have any info that says that Wallace definitely knows what Deckard is? Isn't the info on him all mucked up due to the blackout.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:holy poo poo hahaha For anyone wanting more context Exterminator City is a movie about two robot detectives trying to track down a serial killer robot that escaped the main detective's grasp once. All of the robots/sets/whatever are puppets and super crappy miniatures. All of the victims/killing scenes are the robot stabbing are models and softporn actresses of the time like Julie Strain or whoever in completely unrelated rooms/lighting just doing reaction shots to shots of the robot puppet stabbing people. It's...not very good but definitely worth watching if you enjoy watching bad movies. It's one of those truly singularly unique in its badness flicks where there's just nothing else like it in the entire world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Ser Pounce posted:This might be more to do with my positing my viewing of her role in Wallace's grand scheme, than her own view of it. To her it's no doubt a great role to play to be an Angel and possible nursemaid to the forthcoming expansion across the stars. I think what's really cool and tragic about Luv as a character, is that while she genuinely has her own motivations and own ego and feels a sense of purpose for goals bigger than obeying her master... all of this was orchestrated by her master because he knew it would help her get the job done. This is one of the things that I'm most sure of in the film. Niander asks Deckard if he ever thought that maybe his entire relationship with Rachel, starting from their first meeting, was actually engineered to set in motion the events that would bring about the first Replicant child. Showing us that Niander thinks in terms of shaping replicant emotions in this way leaves no doubt in my mind that he is exactly aware of how he's shaped Luv. Which is interesting in relation to Joi. Luv views Joi as a purely synthetic simulation of emotion and expression. Mariette and Luv see Joi as something purely acting out the designs of its creator. But what neither of them realize is that Luv and Mariette are both acting out the designs of their masters as well. This kind of culminates in the idea that everyone is blind to their own programming. Everyone thinks they're a person. Joi thinks that not having a physical body is what holds her back from personhood. Luv thinks that not being able to procreate holds her back from personhood. K initially believes that not being born is what holds him back. But K eventually realizes that caring about personhood doesn't help anything, and by accepting others as people, like Joi, like Deckard, and like Ana, as people, he is a person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
important moral questions that the movie isn't about at all: if k went to the store and bought 5 more empha-whatever-cell phone things, put a copy of joi into all 6 of them, and turned them + the ceiling thing on all at the same time, is each copy of joi now an independent person? if, a week later, k says "man, this is too many jois, i'm wiping these 5 extra cell phones and taking them back," has he murdered 5 people?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:important moral questions that the movie isn't about at all: if k went to the store and bought 5 more empha-whatever-cell phone things, put a copy of joi into all 6 of them, and turned them + the ceiling thing on all at the same time, is each copy of joi now an independent person? if, a week later, k says "man, this is too many jois, i'm wiping these 5 extra cell phones and taking them back," has he murdered 5 people? Well, this is a bit complicated in terms of what we see in the film. In the film, activating the emanator doesn't make a copy, it extends her area of sensory perception and projection. So there's no reason to think that if bought 5 more emanators, it would make copies of her, rather than expand her network. he would need to buy new Jois, or create new Joi accounts or something. To address your actual though experiment... it's kind of like abortions. How long does something have to be alive before it's murder? have the Jois had time to become people? After a week? probably. After 10 seconds? Maybe not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
but a complete copy of her code exists on both the emanator and the home console. she can be wiped from the home console, but still exist on the emanator, and presumably vice versa. i guess this brings up the question of "if k is away on a mission, and brings his emanator, and someone walks into his home and turns on the ceiling thing, what happens?" which isn't really a moral question at all and isn't super interesting
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Snak posted:To address your actual though experiment... it's kind of like abortions. if joi was a person before being copied, would that make the new jois less of a person? are they somehow collectively a person, but individually not????
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:but a complete copy of her code exists on both the emanator and the home console. she can be wiped from the home console, but still exist on the emanator, and presumably vice versa. Do we know that? I thought it formed like a cloud distribution. ninjewtsu posted:if joi was a person before being copied, would that make the new jois less of a person? are they somehow collectively a person, but individually not???? Well I was operating from the perspective that Joi, out of the box, is not a person, but has the potential to become one, because she is a learning program. Just like a fetus is not a person, but as soon as it's born, it starts learning and becomes a person. So if Joi was copied from an existing person, then she would be a person out of the box, and every Joi would always be a person. Snak fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
i mean, he wiped her from the console and she existed just fine on the emanator, and they discussed that if something happened to the emanator, she could be recovered from the console (unless she got wiped there, which is what happened, which is what made her mortal, "like a real girl"). it's possible that the antennae thing inside the emanator was keeping them in some kind of cloud distribution, but then that just brings up: if he breaks the antennae thing before heading out (like he does in the movie), but leaves joi on the console, and then someone walks in and turns on the console, what happens? Snak posted:Well I was operating from the perspective that Joi, out of the box, is not a person, but has the potential to become one, because she is a learning program. so if he means to copy a "person-joi" onto 3 of the emanators, but absentmindedly copies her onto a fourth, he is unable to undo that without essentially committing murder? does it matter if the emanators are turned on or not before he wipes one? ninjewtsu fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I'm basically trying say orangutans are people, if you want a tl;dr of my posting this page. I can buy Orangutans as people, and chimpanzees for that matter, limited but still appear conscious, more so than some purportedly normal people I know for sure. I don't believe Wallace knows for sure, I think if he did he'd have openly shown Deckard the evidence, much as he sat there with Rachel's skull in his hand and presented the living clone as a potential reward, in order to shock Deckard into compliance. But that being said I think Luv might well have bought it, she might previously have been indoctrinated in the tale by Wallace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:i mean, he wiped her from the console and she existed just fine on the emanator, and they discussed that if something happened to the emanator, she could be recovered from the console (unless she got wiped there, which is what happened, which is what made her mortal, "like a real girl"). But all this is irrelvant. Amd speculation. The real question is "what counts as a copy of Joi". It's not her base code. A copy of.my genetic code isn't a copy of me, it's a list of Gs, As, Cs, and Ts. What defines me is the current configuration of that information. An instantaneous state. So even if copies of Jois code exist, if there is only one configurarion state that's being used, there's only one Joi. So it's very possible that if you disconnect network nodes you end up with divergent Jois. In which case you have a standard clone problem. They're both people. But also they're computer programs and you could just ask them "hey, can we merge you back into one person?" There's a good chance they'll say yes. When they say no, you've got a good premise for a story on your hands. edit: ninjewtsu posted:so if he means to copy a "person-joi" onto 3 of the emanators, but absentmindedly copies her onto a fourth, he is unable to undo that without essentially committing murder? Snak fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Snak posted:So it's very possible that if you disconnect network nodes you end up with divergent Jois. In which case you have a standard clone problem. They're both people. But also they're computer programs and you could just ask them "hey, can we merge you back into one person?" There's a good chance they'll say yes. When they say no, you've got a good premise for a story on your hands. wouldn't asking them this be like asking a pair of twins "we just want one of you, is it alright if one of you commits suicide?" even if the twin says yes, isn't that kind of insanely hosed up? if you create a third configuration of information that is some of average between the two, are you not just killing them both while, coincidentally, giving birth to a third, unique person? i think the end point of this is "i'm glad AIs that have achieved personhood isn't something we have to deal with yet" because i'm pretty sure this rabbithole goes down forever once you start thinking of computer data as people
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
If you're the person who buys six Jois, the question of how human she is is not as interesting as how much of a human you are
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
what kind of person doesn't long for a harem of perfect hologram waifus
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:wouldn't asking them this be like asking a pair of twins "we just want one of you, is it alright if one of you commits suicide?" even if the twin says yes, isn't that kind of insanely hosed up? It wouldn't be an average, though. It would be a sum. If you had 2 people and said "hi, would you like to mind meld and share all your knowledge and memories and hopes and dreams and become one with each-other?" and the both agreed, is that really a big deal? In this case it's "hey, you were one person up until yesteday, when you lived seperate days, would you like to both also have the memory of what the other day was like and learn from it?" I don't really see how that's hosed up. It's only hosed up if it's something that's done against their will. edit: This is basically Multiple Man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Ser Pounce posted:I can buy Orangutans as people, and chimpanzees for that matter, limited but still appear conscious, more so than some purportedly normal people I know for sure. Yeah I buy that if he knew he would have used it, telling/showing replicants they're artificiality/ability to be thrown away (there's a perfect word for this and I'm blanking goddamit) seems to be very much his operating strategy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:59
|
|