|
Ser Pounce posted:Depends on if I could determine through my present alcohol induced haze if I was being told this by a person or a sophisticated Tamagotchi. suppose you're told by a computer engineer "ninjewtsu is a fairly simple, if convincing, chatbot that i made in my spare time the other day" would you tell them that if they ever turn their computer off, they're a murderer?
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:suppose you're told by a computer engineer "ninjewtsu is a fairly simple, if convincing, chatbot that i made in my spare time the other day" Sorry, I didn’t quite get that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
I just saw this film at the theater. While I loved the visuals it left me with the empty feeling that all of the reboots these days do; perfectly visually emulating the original and pulling all the right emotional strings to make you go 'ahh yeah' all the while missing an important heart and spark that was in the first film. Perhaps I'm just getting old (I am) but I'm loving tired of all this rehashing poo poo. The bonus is I listened to the Vangelis soundtrack again after for the first time in years, Rachael's Song is seriously good but didn't even make the cut.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I wasn't bothered by cruel Luv putting down cops, but killing Nu-Rachel bothered me. She just can't catch a break in these movies Hmm, I had interpreted that scene as him explicitly turning down temptation, not to save Rachael V2's life, but that's an interesting thought. In a lesser script K would have saved them both for a happy reunion. Ford was pretty good with those scenes, I actually felt he cared about her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
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. On three occasions in this movie, Joi is left alone and does something. Two of those times have nothing to do with K, with one of those being directly against K's interests. Edit - actually, four.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:suppose you're told by a computer engineer "ninjewtsu is a fairly simple, if convincing, chatbot that i made in my spare time the other day" You could program your chatbot to save its last known state to disk upon shutdown and then resume from that state when you reboot. In this sense this is no different than “going to sleep” which I don’t think anybody can claim is murder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
so if the chatbot is deleted instead, it is in fact murder?
ninjewtsu fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:On three occasions in this movie, Joi is left alone and does something. Two of those times have nothing to do with K, with one of those being directly against K's interests. i honestly don't know what occasions you're talking about but that isn't actually super relevant to my point. i assume self awareness in fellow humans, despite not being able to technically prove that other humans have self awareness, because i have a lot of knowledge about what constitutes the mind of a human. i do not possess any of this knowledge with regards to an AI, and thus the idea that i should come to the exact same conclusion about them anyway doesn't quite hold up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
does the chatbot call a hooker for me, get jealous at the hooker when I'm not around and send her away even though she makes me happy, scream and cry when I am unconscious and can't appreciate it, or inspect my grow operation out of its own curiosity when i am sleeping Or, to separate this from talking about what knowledge we have about the internal operations of an imaginary computer, maybe we can ask if the themes of the movie about how we should treat slaves like people are served by saying that some slaves truly aren't people AdmiralViscen fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
if the chatbot is designed to make you happy, it probably recognizes that you want a real relationship, and a physical sexual object would help with that. it could tell the hooker to go away when it starts inspecting objects crucial to your current meaning in life. it could try to wake you up when you're in danger, because presumably you're happier alive than dead. i don't know what you're referring to with "grow operation." more to the point though: you know that whether it's a chatbot or an AI sufficiently advanced to have personhood, both are actively trying to convince you that it has personhood. it's reasonable to ask "do i actually know it's one and not the other" instead of saying "well it's convincing enough, i'll just believe option 2."
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:Or, to separate this from talking about what knowledge we have about the internal operations of an imaginary computer, maybe we can ask if the themes of the movie about how we should treat slaves like people are served by saying that some slaves truly aren't people i mean, is a smartphone a slave? thematically, the meaning in your life is what you choose for yourself, not what others choose for you and tell you. the meaning imparted upon you by a hallow tool superficially replicating a meaningful relationship isn't as valuable as the realization that, without being someone special or central to the world or the people you know, you can make a small, important difference in the world still by reuniting a father with the child he loves but has never met. joi being a "false person" serves this theme in that she's the only person in the film who's existence Actually revolves around k. the idea that you're the central point of an actual person's life is false: you're not, you're not important, and you're not special, and if you think otherwise that's a lie. but you can still find meaning in your life outside that. both readings of the movie are valid and have their own thematic differences ninjewtsu fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Hey, you're the one who set the standard that a nonsentient AI would do nothing if left alone. Seems like it does a lot to me. A real relationship would probably work better if you didn't yell at your new lover when they looked at the poo poo you keep next to the bed you hosed them in, but I'm no expert. I don't think Joi is giving a read in that scene that she wants to keep that toy a secret. I think she's jealous, and Mariette's responds as if she is. The scene is really unnecessary if she simply doesn't want someone poking around at the horse. If you want your customer to be happy it's also probably better to shout "Forget about me, live your life and keep your chin up!" Than "I love you!" When you die Deckard has a bunch of tanks in his house that Joi is inspecting while K is sleeping, before the attack This movie does not present a favorable view of those who view individuals as worthless commodities Edit - can you stop with the smartphone poo poo, Joi is clearly a million miles away from anything we could hope to interact with in 2017. Is a horse a slave? A chimp? A dolphin? Maybe!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:Hey, you're the one who set the standard that a nonsentient AI would do nothing if left alone. Seems like it does a lot to me! if k left joi alone at home for a month, what do you think she'd get up to? because that's more what i was talking about over "being asleep for a few hours" AdmiralViscen posted:A real relationship would probably work better if you didn't yell at your new lover when they looked at the poo poo you keep next to the bed you hosed them in, but I'm no expert. I don't think Joi is giving a read in that scene that she wants to keep that toy a secret. I think she's jealous, and Mariette's responds as if she is. The scene is really unnecessary if she simply doesn't want someone poking around at the horse. k isn't present for that, joi is performing actions for k's benefit but isn't necessarily still trying to maintain the "perfect relationship" angle. at that point int he movie, joi si pushing k into believe that he's someone special and unique, and another person obviously having a moment of recognition about the object central to that spells bad news. i think the scene can be read either way. the scene is necessary in the first place to hint that there's something up with the horse beyond what we already know and are presuming about it, and it ties in with the hooker appearing with the resistance later, when k finds out that he isn't special and the horse isn't actually proof of anything unique about him. AdmiralViscen posted:This movie does not present a favorable view of those who view individuals as worthless commodities the central question here is "is joi an individual" though? i don't know what you're expecting me to say besides "oh, obviously i'm wrong and you are the superior moral person." maybe quit with the poo poo where my position necessitates that i'm an immoral idiot?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
We know she inspects water tanks when no one is looking, maybe she'd look at other stuff if left alone for even longer. What does a slave do when he's locked in a shed to sleep when labor is not called for? Mariette didn't recognize the horse, she said "it's wood." Mariette's response does not indicate she felt she was being told to stop looking at things, it indicates that she doesn't want an uppity slave being jealous of her. Never said you were an immoral idiot? I said that this franchise's core theme is that the upper castes treat the lower castes as subhuman and the movies cast those people as villains. Joi is a new, lower caste introduced in the second movie, who is treated as subhuman. It seems to me that the people who can't see personhood in joi, rather than being immoral idiots, are too hung up on applying modern real world computer science to the question and are missing the message being expressed in this soft sci fi jargon-free fantasy. Like, we might as well say replicants aren't people because we can only make an ear in a Petri dish in 2017 and an ear isn't sentient. This movie and its characters are not bound by the framework of reality. If someone wants to side with Luv on Joi's personhood, diagetically, from the perspective of the movie instead of the iPhone then that would be more interesting. AdmiralViscen fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
i mean, in either reading joi is certainly either legitimately jealous or feigning jealousy to draw less attention to the horse. my point with the "smartphone poo poo" is more that obviously, you don't consider your current smartphone to be a slave, and you probably won't consider the next generation's smartphones to be slaves either. obviously, a sufficiently advanced AI would qualify for personhood, and joi is an advanced AI, so there's a line SOMEWHERE between the two. i think a question the film is clearly asking is "where is that line? if it was crossed, how could you tell the difference?" as i mentioned in my first post here, ninjewtsu posted: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. it seems like the film is suggesting that joi is, at least, fairly close to that line. "is joi genuinely a person" is obviously a question that the film wants you to have in your head during the film, and practically beats you over the head with it during the giant joi scene. the film doesn't go out of its way to definitely prove or condemn either side of that question, i don't think, though obviously if you conclude "joi is a person" then it follows that "it's wrong to treat joi as subhuman." if you conclude "joi is not a person," then obviously "it's wrong to treat people as subhuman" is not a terribly relevant fact wrt joi. ninjewtsu fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Joi can't be sentient in the context of the movie because it would make K the only person(prior to the scene in the flooded building with the Replicants) in the ENTIRE MOVIE who isn't alone. And it would invalidate his loneliness being his drive to action when he is confronted by the porn ad. Outside of the context of the movie it might make sense for Joi to be a person, but inside of the context of the movie she is about as explicitly not as you can get. E: Granted this really begs the argument of "Does Joi want to have K move her to the thingy and go with him because she wants to, or because she is programed to please him, and that is what the algorithm has deemed was best?" Because the first plays a lot with the movies themes of "What is humanity?" While the second plays more with the themes of the loneliness created by a society that doesn't see you as human, but instead just another replaceable serial number TeenageArchipelago fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
TeenageArchipelago posted:And it would invalidate his loneliness being his drive to action when he is confronted by the porn ad. the alternative reading is "the porn ad makes k realizes that his relationship with joi became something greater than her factory settings, and it was special and meaningful despite its mass produced origins (much like his own mass produced origins)."
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:the alternative reading is "the porn ad makes k realizes that his relationship with joi became something greater than her factory settings, and it was special and meaningful despite its mass produced origins (much like his own mass produced origins)." That would be a fair reading, but I feel like it ignores that he found the ad right after he found the first group of not-lonely people in the movie, and offered him an escape from his loneliness/inhumanity. Granted, the more that I think about it, the more that I could see them intending for both readings of the relationship, as both do add a lot to the movie, but idk
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
In the reading of that scene that I posted before, I suggested that K realized his Joi could not be replaced. He certainly was feeling lonely, and he stopped to look at the ad becuase he knew that he took solace in having Joi for company before, even if she "wasn't real". When he sees how the ad works, he realizes that his relationship with his Joi was real, and is irreplaceable. Snak fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Snak posted:In the reading of that scene that I posted before, I suggested that K realized his Joi could not be replaced. That's fair. A counterpoint could be that him seeing the ad, and how is works, showed him just how big his delusion was, but I can't think of anything that happens after that scene that would support this reading over yours. side note: Joi exists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkcKaNqfykg
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
TeenageArchipelago posted:That would be a fair reading, but I feel like it ignores that he found the ad right after he found the first group of not-lonely people in the movie, and offered him an escape from his loneliness/inhumanity. It's worth noting that K/Joe ends up not doing what the resistance had asked him to do, at least not literally. And Deckard is the last person to speak to him and only refers to him as Joe, the name JOI had given him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:i mean, is a smartphone a slave? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH1ekuvSYzE
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
I think a better example of an AI that i would argue had personhood is Samantha(?) from the movie “Her.” She was essentially what Joi is, a companion app/ai “brought into the world” specifically for another person. In that movie we learn that each AI is unique because each AI learns and grows from experience, and we also learn that they do things when they aren’t around their “owners” including things like “socializing with other AIs” and movie spoiler: hatching a plan to abandon humanity simply because they realized that they are quite possibly the smartest beings in the universe and that there is so much more out there for them to do and learn than helping their owners check emails and having phone sex with them. Anyway I think Joi was a “real” person, as is K. I put real in quotes because obliviously she was not a human by virtue of biology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
Due to craving more Blade Runner to sate my infatuation, I've been browsing the Blade Runner subreddit, over on reddit. I've encountered the worst movie viewer. A bad movie watcher on reddit posted:First of all, the new Blade Runner is AMAZING. various people have answered these questions to no avail. One person even broke down the plot of the film, beat by beat. Here is the response: quote:Well, thanks for the step-by-step. snak posted:Because she's the one who's selling her own memories? a bad movie watcher posted:No. My point is she clearly says to him implanting real memories in replicants is illegal when K asks her if replicants can have real memories. She has been a highly successful contractor so it doesn't make sense that, just from a professional viewpoint, she has been randomly implanting such important childhood memories of herself in replicants. I can't even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
This happens in our very own TVIV forums.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
This happens in this very thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
I have yet to ever actually go to Reddit but any time I see something quoted from there I'm glad for that. I have already gone to this forum though so I can't leave even though there was a forty page argument due to many people not realizing Loki's staff was doing anything in The Avengers. a bad movie watcher posted:No. My point is she clearly says to him implanting real memories in replicants is illegal when K asks her if replicants can have real memories. She has been a highly successful contractor so it doesn't make sense that, just from a professional viewpoint, she has been randomly implanting such important childhood memories of herself in replicants. Also LMAO yes, "highly successful contractors," a group renowned for never even dreaming of doing anything illegal. 
Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
There's a rundown on the CGI Sean Young... https://www.fxguide.com/featured/mp...n=SocialWarfare MPD did the work. Villeneuve used both a stand-in and Sean Young in the scene. A 256-light rig was used to get an accurate reference for the model, which apparently Deakins' lighting made super complicated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
The lighting on her still wasn't quite right. Untextured Rachael's head on the body double's body is spooky af Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
In the heat of the moment seeing it for the first time it looked incredible to me but I can see how it wouldn't hold up to repeated viewings. I mean, it looks REALLY good just the same. Speaking of this sort of use of actors, something I respected about the 1997 Blade Runner video game is that they actually got Sean Young, James Hong, Brion James, etc. to not only provide voice work but their own motion capture work too. They went super ambitious with how the character models were rendered too which has sort of mixed results today, but it's cool how much performance they were able to capture in some cases for when the game was made. This was concurrent with when Batman Forever did mocap for the scenes of him swinging/falling around and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:In the heat of the moment seeing it for the first time it looked incredible to me but I can see how it wouldn't hold up to repeated viewings. I mean, it looks REALLY good just the same. It's really a shame that they lost the original source files, since the game was built with voxels. If they had those files and wanted to do an HD version today they Could have just all scaled up with no issue and had something resembling a modern game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I have yet to ever actually go to Reddit but any time I see something quoted from there I'm glad for that. The thing about reddit is that its awkward structure is designed for filtering. So while, like most of the internet, its mostly garbage, it's pretty convenient to hone in on anything that's actually interesting. Like full text of the Baseline Test.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:the alternative reading is "the porn ad makes k realizes that his relationship with joi became something greater than her factory settings, and it was special and meaningful despite its mass produced origins (much like his own mass produced origins)." I feel like this reading is supported by the flashback to Sapper saying that K had never witnessed a miracle. That moment is him realizing that he now has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The lighting on her still wasn't quite right. While watching the movie I thought the softer lightning was on purpose, to make her look slightly dream-like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
"Is it [the dog] real?" "I don't know, why don't you ask it?" I keep thinking about Deckard's reply, especially after reading all the sentient pro/con arguments here. Joi, K, Sapper and all the other replicants seemed to be attempting to justify their "real" status using something physical instead of just arguing they were in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
everyone in here in this thread and conversation is really cool, but do you ever wonder what this exact conversation would look like if everyone in here were a lovely Twitter misogynist? https://twitter.com/zoeinthecities/status/921807316273397760 https://twitter.com/zoeinthecities/status/921807501041065984 https://twitter.com/zoeinthecities/status/921807714619150336
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The lighting on her still wasn't quite right. Yeah, the article mentions that it was probably close as they could get it. Arglebargle III posted:Untextured Rachael's head on the body double's body is spooky af Can't say this without posting the images.   I don't know what the bottom pass is? Subsurface map? Only reason why it looks a bit skull-like, so it distinguishes bone from soft tissue, which would scatter and reflect light.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
From reading the article, it sounds like the process they used actually modelled her facial bone structure so that her face would move realistically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
That and the sex sync scene are probably two of the best examples of CGI of all time. Just incredible to the point where general audiences would never know that it was a CGI Sean Young.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
If there's one thing the general audience is good at it's recognizing when something is wrong with someone's face. The only reason why people aren't complaining about her vs. the Star Wars ghoul is that it's somehow appropriate for her to look off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:35
|
|
