|
MrAristocrates posted:Hah, S.A.D.I.S.T. Also, wasn't Nick Fury in the current cinematic universe the guy who enjoyed inventing the acronyms or was that someone else? I'm wondering if the reveal will be Samuel Jackson as director.
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
Yeah, every superhero movie feels like more of the same and has been forever. At least AoS maintains the illusion of something different for me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
This episode reminded me of Futurama, when Fry-bot ran off with Leela-bot. Good times.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:So like...the way that Aida behaved in this episode kinda soundly refutes the notion that the Framework denizens -- or even other LMDs like the robot May -- are "real" people, right? They emulate emotions and understand emotions on an intellectual level. But if you put them in a flesh-and-blood body with actual biological processes and nerves and neurons and hormones and chemicals, they're going to be completely overwhelmed to the point of insanity. Whatever computer brain Aida had before is not like our brains. Not sure that's implied. The Framework is based on our reality and is a recreation of it down to the smallest details as the characters point out, to the point of being unbelievable that it was achieved at all. So it stands to reason that the humans in there are simulations of real people based on their actual brain structures. A complete simulation of our world like that is far beyond our current capability but it's not theoretically impossible within our own universe (even a very fast one). A complete simulation that allows you to take in consideration the actual conditions of the real world is a bit more fantastic and would require knowledge of the original state or seed of the universe, the "universal wavefunction". Since the Darkhold teaches you secrets of this universe and beyond, that's a good fantasy excuse to being able to do it. Aida didn't manually run every atom in the world, not even google street view guys suffer that much. She probably just simulated everything from the seed. This would mean that the people in the simulation have simulated brains similar to those of a real person. Which makes sense, because they don't act like Aida, they act like real humans, and Aida goes very uncanny valley at times, having to be explained by fitz and radcliffe about human feelings constantly. Even the ones they scanned to put in like Radcliffe are pretty much real human brain scans. Aida is not like the other simulations, she is an AI developed by a human, and has an intelligence that looks like ours but it's not. She is closer to the Chinese Room Experiment, but not entirely so - she's intelligent enough to understand her emotions aren't real, and she wants to feel them. Now whether the people being simulated, even after all that, actually have feelings and emotions, is up to the writers since this is a pretty deep philosophical debate. Radcliffe in-universe believed so, and that's why Aida killed him in the first place. Jemma seems reluctant about it and calls them just simulations. So just like in the real world where people don't know if these entities would have qualia or not, the scientists in AoS also have polarized views. A good example of this debate is the China brain. Elentor fucked around with this message at 22:22 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Aida was taught over the entire season on how to look and act more humane. The other entities in the Framework are brain scans or human-like neural networks. Even if you argue that they're not conscious, there's a difference between Aida and the rest of them. That's why Aida wanted a human body with a human brain and that's why Radcliffe believed being simulated is enough for the mind to thrive. Aida and the rest of the framework are not the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:Totally agree, though I’d go as far as to say the series ends when Sylar catches Claire and they have an awkward chat as he picks over her brain. The completely anticlimactic non-event after a full season of build up followed by his “welp, see ya!” was just perfect and if it cut to black right there I’d have been good. What followed was something I can only describe as a descending shepard tone of badness.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
I'm not even gonna touch time paradoxes here but I'm not 100% sold on Quake blowing up the planet. That seems like the sort of plot device meant to distract us from something else and the guy who told us is very unreliable since that's just him "piecing things together". Either way I'm very curious to find out about how Fitz is going to save everyone else, again.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:Jemma how are you still this stupid after so many seasons. Daisy too. Keep stirring poo poo up before you even get a grasp of the situation lol Jemma knows she's one of the most powerful entities in the MCU, combining plot armor, TV show scientist powers, also TV shows scientist powers scaled to being in a super-hero universe, being genre-savvy enough to hide them when needed, ability to outsmart/defend herself from field agents, and at this point they all suffer severe survivor's bias + paranoia (like the one that they're in the framework) + delusions that they can get away with whatever because in her own words this isn't new to her and at least this time it's not Cthulhu. Plus they have a message from the other most powerful entity in the MCU, Fitz, that he's fully aware of what's going on and by the end of this season they'll be like Batman, Iron-Man and BBC's Sherlock combined if they could regularly tear holes into space-time to save whomever they see fit. They already act stupid, pull magical scientific solutions out of nowhere and claim it's not magic, and might have blown up the world accidentally - at this point they're at most a few drinks away from being Rick.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
Disney is a bit of a wildcard, but not too wild, it all sounds like very calculated risks that do tend to the conservative side. They'll gladly take a light risk and allow someone to do something wacky and out of the ordinary, but the safest bet is always that they'll trend towards something lighter. With that said Disney has a history of greenlighting things that are far, far darker than the competitors with a lot more frequency than other animated movie studios.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 21:19
|
|