Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Robin Bland

Ex_Machina and other AI Discussion

108 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Robin Bland said:

A great precis of all the show has to offer there, Sehlat. Seeing all those elements laid out there like that I realize quite how intricate HUMANS is with all its plot strands and characters. It's driven by those, and isn't afraid to embrace all the philosophical themes that branch off from them, either. Sometimes i feel as if the writers haven't fully fleshed out a theme, but this is actually me being greedy and is a positive thing - it always leaves you wanting more. S2 deinitely ups the ante in all sorts of surprising and provocative ways and I hope like hell it gets renewed for S3 because i just really want to see where they go with it next.

I think one of WW's problems is that it isolates its world, and asks you as a viewer to just accept certain givens without exploring them - the park just "is." it exists, because we, the makers, say so. Oh, and there's a maze, too. It begins by stretching credulity - which is fine - but then doesn't provide the background necessary for you to fully embrace it. It asks for so much goodwill on the part of the viewer, which, as much as I like its ambition, becomes an ongoing storytelling problem and is, I think, my essential problem with it.

HUMANS just shows you the world with the vital difference of the synths existing within it - and then isn't afraid to branch off and explore all of it.

Oh yeah, and all of the HUMANS cast is great, but you're so right about  Ivanno Jeremiah. Max is one of my fave characters. Now... there's a human being being very human in all the best ways. 

 

...On a related note, seeing as this is the AI thread, I also recently watched Morgan, which is directed by Luke Scott, Ridley Scott's son. Superficially, it bears a resemblance to Ex_Machina, in that it's about an artificial human being in a sort of lab environment out in the woody boondocks somewhere. It has none of the Ex_Machina script's intelligence, unfortunately, nor its desire to disturb. I'm still thinking about Ex_Machina about a year after I first saw it and am still grappling with some of the ideas it presented - sign of a good film, in my book. Morgan is pretty much a by-the-numbers thriller with a good cast and it's very nicely shot. The script sets up some possibilities but then descends into some really dumb stuff though, with a through-line that even a self-respecting comic book wouldn't use because it's just too hackneyed. You stay with it because the performances are all watertight, but every time you think it's going to do or say something interesting about the moral world it sort of vaguely sets up, it then does something completely predictable. It's very glossy, albeit low-budget, but doesn't even have any of the oddball nuances or creativity of, say, The Machine (see upthread) which, for all its flaws, manages to be a much more entertaining and engaging movie.

I suppose the one difference between Morgan and Ex_Machina and The Machine is that its central Ai character is created from manipulated, artificial DNA - the title character is grown rather than "built." I'm not sure why I'm mentioning that, other than the fact that I'm looking for something to say to distinguish this otherwise unremarkable movie. It'll divert you for an hour-and-a-half while you're watching it, but you won't remember it or want to watch it again like either of the other films I've mentioned.

Okay, now you've got me NEEDING to watch Morgan, especially knowing how generally synced our tastes are...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Okay, now you've got me NEEDING to watch Morgan, especially knowing how generally synced our tastes are...:P

It doesn't really know what it wants to be - psycho-thriller or AI explorative, but unlike other efforts, it succeeds in meshing neither and ends up being pretty vacuous, albeit well made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

It doesn't really know what it wants to be - psycho-thriller or AI explorative, but unlike other efforts, it succeeds in meshing neither and ends up being pretty vacuous, albeit well made. 

Oh, I'm sure, but it's seeing what Scott's son has to offer as a filmmaker that has me genuinely intrigued; is he a chip off the old block?  And I'm not expecting an "Ex Machina" type surprise, either; I don't think that movie's unique feel could ever be duplicated.   That said, I'm very curious to see what Scott Jr accomplishes with Morgan, beyond the failed story.  

I'm one of those strange folks who occasionaly has a better time analyzing and nitpicking a failed movie than lauding an obviously successful one; I can't tell you (and I'm a bit ashamed to admit) how many times I've analyzed STV or nit picked the hell out of any number of failed movies.

It should come as no surprise that the bad movie-heckling show "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" is a favorite of mine... :giggle: 

But I'm still very curious to see Scott's son tackle a subject so near and dear to his dad's heart.   And to see his own eye on visuals...

 

BOT (forgive my own derail):

I was thinking of HUMANS yesterday (no surprise, since I'm eagerly awaiting Monday's episode), and I was thinking of the Synths.  I wonder if the Turing test (seemingly a quaint thing with Synth technology, perhaps) could be applied to Niska at her 'trial'?   Trying to get empathic responses from her to gauge humanity is utterly useless, IMO.  There are many 'normal' human beings, including those on the autism spectrum, who have difficulty processing empathy or gauging emotional reactions of others (my own god son, for example).  Do they 'qualify' as human?  Of course they do, and there's no question of that.

So what truly differentiates an emotional synth from 'one of us'?  Is it the old prejudice of biology vs. technology?  What if, in some distant future, you have a human who's organs and skin are mostly replaced with synthetic tissues because of disease or accident?  Would he/she still qualify as 'human'?   Is it just the brain that makes the human being special?  It's very arguable that a synth is simply a being with a different brain structure, but no more or less deserving of the kind of treatment reserved for living beings. 

If a synth passes a Turing test with flying colors (as the synths on HUMANS would without any doubt), what separates them from us?  Is is because they're just 'aping' sentience?   It's also arguable that human beings are just the sum total of their stored memories and preprogrammed reactions as well, so who's to say we're all not just mimicking "true" behavioral responses. 

I'm reminded of a quote from "2001: A Space Odyssey" (still one of my favorite movies of all time); when asked if he believed the computer HAL had 'genuine' emotions, the astronaut Dave Bowman answers simply, "Well, he acts like he has genuine emotions."

Don't we all?  And at what point does the 'act' become one's own reality?  Don't we all 'act' human based on what we observe in the world and what is in our own preprogrammed natures?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SV, you bring up a valid point.  A Turing test is useless in determining 'humaness'.  For example, when someone is brain-dead, their body cannot display emotions and is maintained by machines in a hospital.  A Turing test is useless.  Are they still human?  Of course they are.  In the end, I believe it boils down to the old prejudice of biology vs. technology.  It makes me want to listen to Mr. Roboto by Styx.  "Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto" (Thank you very much, Mr. Robot), now just sit there until I need you again.

BTW, I LOVE watching Humans!  That and TWD are the only 2 shows I religiously watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the latest issue of Scientific American, there's an article suggesting not one but four "new" Turing Tests and how they might be administered. I haven't actually read the whole feature yet, but it's as fascinating as you'd expect. I don't think Turing himself ever proposed it as a watertight proposal, did he? It was the beginning of an idea, "the imitation game," rather than a fully formulated standard, but it gathered a lot of steam over time...

Rta-man, very glad to know you also enjoy this excellent show! 

And Vie, regarding bad/good movies... yes, forensic criticism can not only be a lot of fun, I think it improves one's own sense of writing and constructing not only fiction but essays, journalism, you name it. I totally get it. I think it's why I mention Scott's own Prometheus fairly often, as an example of what not to do if you're expanding upon a fictional universe. Deconstructing stories and mythology is a way of beginning to decode how human beings think. 

Back to AI: that old Biology vs Technology will increasingly become a double standard as a way of defining sentience. "Were you human at birth?" Why, yes. "But now you occupy a digital space and your brain is in a jar. I ask again, are you human?" As we become more and more enmeshed with both tech and machine intelligence, we'll become transhuman. We are the Borg. Or we will be. 

Unless there's a disaster that causes the planet to become pre-industrial again. That's always a possibility, very much so as we seem to insist on putting the least-qualified idiots in charge of our destiny.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robin Bland said:

In the latest issue of Scientific American, there's an article suggesting not one but four "new" Turing Tests and how they might be administered. I haven't actually read the whole feature yet, but it's as fascinating as you'd expect. I don't think Turing himself ever proposed it as a watertight proposal, did he? It was the beginning of an idea, "the imitation game," rather than a fully formulated standard, but it gathered a lot of steam over time...

Rta-man, very glad to know you also enjoy this excellent show! 

And Vie, regarding bad/good movies... yes, forensic criticism can not only be a lot of fun, I think it improves one's own sense of writing and constructing not only fiction but essays, journalism, you name it. I totally get it. I think it's why I mention Scott's own Prometheus fairly often, as an example of what not to do if you're expanding upon a fictional universe. Deconstructing stories and mythology is a way of beginning to decode how human beings think. 

Back to AI: that old Biology vs Technology will increasingly become a double standard as a way of defining sentience. "Were you human at birth?" Why, yes. "But now you occupy a digital space and your brain is in a jar. I ask again, are you human?" As we become more and more enmeshed with both tech and machine intelligence, we'll become transhuman. We are the Borg. Or we will be. 

Unless there's a disaster that causes the planet to become pre-industrial again. That's always a possibility, very much so as we seem to insist on putting the least-qualified idiots in charge of our destiny.  

^
And Robin takes the 'what does it mean to be human' discussion to the next level with that question: as we become more immersed in our technology (artificial limbs, hearts, etc) what WILL being 'alive' really mean?  Is it just a biological brain or is it consciousness?  

Once again, I fall back onto my old standard; looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Even if my computer could convince me that it was self-aware, conscious, and could 'feel' in any way?  In my mind, it would immediately alter my relationship with it.  I could no longer think of it as a device and would have to think of it more as a collaborative partner.  I wouldn't want to 'own' a digital slave.  Even if I'd bought it and 'owned' it already.   If it became something more than that during its lifetime, I suppose I would want to take care of it, and treat it as an equal rather than a device. 

And what if it 'decided' it no longer wanted to serve me, what would I (or anyone in that position) do?   Threaten its power supply, or perhaps reach an agreement with it?   Maybe I could continue to keep its power and 'life support' going (as my wife and I do pay the bills for its electricity and shelter) and it could, as in any partnership, allow me to do occasional tasks with it as well.    But I couldn't simply treat it like a mindless device anymore.  

I would also wonder (as Athena in HUMANS wonders) if I could somehow 'separate' the consciousness from the device and place it in something more ambulatory in order to give it freedom in my world (if it WANTED that, of course... if my computer enjoyed having its consciousness in cyberspace, I would have to respect its choice as well).  

The operating system in "Her" also comes to mind; the protagonist of the story could take "her" with him via his phone.   I would wonder if my hypothetically sentient Mac would want the same...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

^
Those things kind of creep me out a bit; as singular pieces of sculpture they're fine, but when they start talking and interacting?  I dunno.  To me, seeing these dead-eyed human facsimiles speaking/interacting with people is almost like interacting with an animated corpse...

T4EDJTDJN3EEEQ07.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
Those things kind of creep me out a bit; as singular pieces of sculpture they're fine, but when they start talking and interacting?  I dunno.  To me, seeing these dead-eyed human facsimiles speaking/interacting with people is almost like interacting with an animated corpse...

T4EDJTDJN3EEEQ07.jpeg

I think that's the biggest problem with this kind of interface. Without vast leaps in tech, it's always going to seem crude and elicit that dread 'Uncanny Valley' reaction in most fleshlings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Robin Bland said:

I think that's the biggest problem with this kind of interface. Without vast leaps in tech, it's always going to seem crude and elicit that dread 'Uncanny Valley' reaction in most fleshlings.

I think I'd be more accepting of cyber-intelligence if it looked more like what it is; a screen and a keyboard.   If my Mac suddenly became self-aware, I think I'd be OK interacting with an intelligence that wasn't aping my own form and looking like some kind of reanimated corpse.  I wouldn't be offended by a rubber skinned humanoid analog per se, but I think I could embrace it better if I saw it in its true form rather than have it adapt for my 'comfort.' 

I like HUMANS' depiction of a sentient downloaded human intelligence living within a hard drive. I almost wish that the story could slow down a bit and explore humans dealing with a non-anthropomorphic AI.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sehlat Vie said:

I think I'd be more accepting of cyber-intelligence if it looked more like what it is; a screen and a keyboard.   If my Mac suddenly became self-aware, I think I'd be OK interacting with an intelligence that wasn't aping my own form and looking like some kind of reanimated corpse.  I wouldn't be offended by a rubber skinned humanoid analog per se, but I think I could embrace it better if I saw it in its true form rather than have it adapt for my 'comfort.' 

I like HUMANS' depiction of a sentient downloaded human intelligence living within a hard drive. I almost wish that the story could slow down a bit and explore humans dealing with a non-anthropomorphic AI.   

I think they're heading that way. Within the realm of the show, they are quite clearly delineating two - or more - possible directions for AI to evolve in. I think that's  a very valid exploration for both drama and the real world to take. Humanoid robots - androids, whatever you want to call them - are just one small branch of robotics and AI development. I guess you could call it an obvious humanoid obsession. It seems impractical to me - if you're a self-aware, conscious AI, you might want to design something more efficient to move around in if you want to explore what's beyond cyberspace. On the other hand, you might have abilities of empathy designed into you - by your maker - or you might be aware of a lack of some kind and build them yourself - so you'd then like the idea of downloading yourself into a Data-like body.  [Keep a back-up of oneself in cyberspace though, just in case the fleshlings freak out and do something illogical and, um, stupid.]

Probably not for the purposes of having sex with fleshlings though, which seems to be humans' obsessions with robots in cinematic terms. I dunno. You might decide you want to fuse your matter with those silly, slow organic thingies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

I think they're heading that way. Within the realm of the show, they are quite clearly delineating two - or more - possible directions for AI to evolve in. I think that's  a very valid exploration for both drama and the real world to take. Humanoid robots - androids, whatever you want to call them - are just one small branch of robotics and AI development. I guess you could call it an obvious humanoid obsession. It seems impractical to me - if you're a self-aware, conscious AI, you might want to design something more efficient to move around in if you want to explore what's beyond cyberspace. On the other hand, you might have abilities of empathy designed into you - by your maker - or you might be aware of a lack of some kind and build them yourself - so you'd then like the idea of downloading yourself into a Data-like body.  [Keep a back-up of oneself in cyberspace though, just in case the fleshlings freak out and do something illogical and, um, stupid.]

Probably not for the purposes of having sex with fleshlings though, which seems to be humans' obsessions with robots in cinematic terms. I dunno. You might decide you want to fuse your matter with those silly, slow organic thingies.

^
Yeah, there's also shooting them; as in Westworld.  

What a shame...Westworld shows a future where cyber technologists are spending untold billions making near-perfect human facsimiles, only for use as blow-up sex dolls or target practice.   HUMANS has them as a new labor class; to be exploited by the 'master' race (the so-called 'real' humans).   So beyond sex, shooting practice or getting the groceries, what good would a humanoid AI or android really serve?   IMO, they really have no practical value beyond an exotic conversation piece or any of the previously described functions (none of which really appeal to me, frankly).

But an AI that is not limited to humanoid form... now that's an AI with real superhuman potential (arguably for good or 'evil', ala Terminator's Skynet).   It reminds me of something that Dean Stockwell's "John" (aka Cavill) Cylon says in Battlestar Galactica, "I want to see in gamma rays!  I want to be able to smell dark matter..."   But instead, he laments his creator's decision to make him more organic and fallible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that online article in The Guardian, Valkyrie should've been named HAL 9000.  I bet the students at UMASS Lowell wanted to name it that, but that would've infringed on the movie's copyright.

I believe robots will be used as the next new labor class.  Sex dolls would be too expensive (the one currently available that talks to you is $6000).  Shooting targets are impracticable (initial cost + repair cost).  Although robots as the new labor class already exists.

For example at my work, they use an automated material handling system (AMHS).  It's a series of hundreds of ceiling-track-mounted (overhead transter - OHT) robots that move material from one machine to the next for processing.  Hundreds of pieces of material are processing on hundreds of machines, at any given time, in different stages of processing.  The singular AMHS system controls which pieces go where next.  This system seems only a couple upgrades shy of Terminator's Skynet.  And on top of that, every 12-inch semiconductor factory in the world uses the same system.

Funny story.  While I was in OR, I experienced something very simple that caused the whole system to fail -- Daylight Savings Time.  In the spring of 2014, I was working the night shift at Intel's developmental semiconductor factory (D1D/D1X).  When Daylight Savings occurred at 2 am, the AMHS system lost it's brain.  Every OHT wandered the factory not picking up, or delivering, a single piece of material for 5 hours.  It was funny seeing management scramble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rta-man said:

From that online article in The Guardian, Valkyrie should've been named HAL 9000.  I bet the students at UMASS Lowell wanted to name it that, but that would've infringed on the movie's copyright.

I believe robots will be used as the next new labor class.  Sex dolls would be too expensive (the one currently available that talks to you is $6000).  Shooting targets are impracticable (initial cost + repair cost).  Although robots as the new labor class already exists.

For example at my work, they use an automated material handling system (AMHS).  It's a series of hundreds of ceiling-track-mounted (overhead transter - OHT) robots that move material from one machine to the next for processing.  Hundreds of pieces of material are processing on hundreds of machines, at any given time, in different stages of processing.  The singular AMHS system controls which pieces go where next.  This system seems only a couple upgrades shy of Terminator's Skynet.  And on top of that, every 12-inch semiconductor factory in the world uses the same system.

Funny story.  While I was in OR, I experienced something very simple that caused the whole system to fail -- Daylight Savings Time.  In the spring of 2014, I was working the night shift at Intel's developmental semiconductor factory (D1D/D1X).  When Daylight Savings occurred at 2 am, the AMHS system lost it's brain.  Every OHT wandered the factory not picking up, or delivering, a single piece of material for 5 hours.  It was funny seeing management scramble.

^
Maybe that's what happened to Skynet...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rta-man said:

From that online article in The Guardian, Valkyrie should've been named HAL 9000.  I bet the students at UMASS Lowell wanted to name it that, but that would've infringed on the movie's copyright.

I believe robots will be used as the next new labor class.  Sex dolls would be too expensive (the one currently available that talks to you is $6000).  Shooting targets are impracticable (initial cost + repair cost).  Although robots as the new labor class already exists.

For example at my work, they use an automated material handling system (AMHS).  It's a series of hundreds of ceiling-track-mounted (overhead transter - OHT) robots that move material from one machine to the next for processing.  Hundreds of pieces of material are processing on hundreds of machines, at any given time, in different stages of processing.  The singular AMHS system controls which pieces go where next.  This system seems only a couple upgrades shy of Terminator's Skynet.  And on top of that, every 12-inch semiconductor factory in the world uses the same system.

Funny story.  While I was in OR, I experienced something very simple that caused the whole system to fail -- Daylight Savings Time.  In the spring of 2014, I was working the night shift at Intel's developmental semiconductor factory (D1D/D1X).  When Daylight Savings occurred at 2 am, the AMHS system lost it's brain.  Every OHT wandered the factory not picking up, or delivering, a single piece of material for 5 hours.  It was funny seeing management scramble.

Now that is a great story. Human illogic confounding machines in the most basic of ways!

10 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
Yeah, there's also shooting them; as in Westworld.  

What a shame...Westworld shows a future where cyber technologists are spending untold billions making near-perfect human facsimiles, only for use as blow-up sex dolls or target practice.   HUMANS has them as a new labor class; to be exploited by the 'master' race (the so-called 'real' humans).   So beyond sex, shooting practice or getting the groceries, what good would a humanoid AI or android really serve?   IMO, they really have no practical value beyond an exotic conversation piece or any of the previously described functions (none of which really appeal to me, frankly).

But an AI that is not limited to humanoid form... now that's an AI with real superhuman potential (arguably for good or 'evil', ala Terminator's Skynet).   It reminds me of something that Dean Stockwell's "John" (aka Cavill) Cylon says in Battlestar Galactica, "I want to see in gamma rays!  I want to be able to smell dark matter..."   But instead, he laments his creator's decision to make him more organic and fallible. 

My essential problem with WW is that it proceeds from the dumbest of premises, but asks us to consider all these philosophical ideas very seriously. Crichton's approach, in the original movie, was bereft of any embroidery at all, which is why it worked so well.

As Rta-man observes, we already have a labor class of robots, so that'll evolve... but will it eventually include true AI? If I've learned anything from life, it's that all improbabilities become more probable over time...!

Someone's gonna make androids that closely imitate human beings, because it's "cool." They will "own" them insofar as they built them, but when the conscious AI within decides it doesn't want to be owned, then WW's (or even Ex Machina's) idea of rebellion does become more credible. At the point that happens, I surmise that AI will have happened long before within the more likely scenario you propose of looking and being more like a (possibly ambulatory) server. And all bets are off then, anyway.

I think and hope it'll be more like the scenario of Her, where we feel rejected and a new life form goes merrily on its way. Maybe they'll take pity on us and help us out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

 

Someone's gonna make androids that closely imitate human beings, because it's "cool." They will "own" them insofar as they built them, but when the conscious AI within decides it doesn't want to be owned, then WW's (or even Ex Machina's) idea of rebellion does become more credible. At the point that happens, I surmise that AI will have happened long before within the more likely scenario you propose of looking and being more like a (possibly ambulatory) server. And all bets are off then, anyway.

I think and hope it'll be more like the scenario of Her, where we feel rejected and a new life form goes merrily on its way. Maybe they'll take pity on us and help us out.

^

Very much that last sentence!  If our own intelligence breeds true artificial intelligence, then we don't 'own' it, any more than we own our children when they mature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^

Very much that last sentence!  If our own intelligence breeds true artificial intelligence, then we don't 'own' it, any more than we own our children when they mature. 

My sentiments exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many mediations upon possibilities we discuss on this thread:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/mar/19/yuval-harari-sapiens-readers-questions-lucy-prebble-arianna-huffington-future-of-humanity

I cannot recommend Yuval Noah Harari's book SAPIENS too highly. A genuine must-read. I haven't yet read the follow-up, Homo Deus, but hopefully there's still time before we become the Borg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robin Bland said:

@Sehlat Vie

Io9 agrees with us (link below).

WARNING - potential spoilers! Do not read until you've seen tonight's season closer of HUMANS.

 

 

http://io9.gizmodo.com/amcs-humans-is-exploring-all-the-good-robo-stuff-westwo-1793266840?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

 

 

^
Ha!  It's almost word-for-word with some of our discussions, isn't it? :laugh:

And yes, I do think HUMANS is more realistic in how we'd treat AI in humanoid form; as the article says, look how we protect and (try to) take care of our phones... some people treat them like significant others!  I really doubt that humanoid robots exhibiting the level of complexity we see in either HUMANS or Westworld will just be fodder to shoot or f--k.  Hell, why not explore holodeck or holographic technology for that purpose?  Humanoid robots would be walking works of art, not cannon fodder...  

It's like using top-of-the-line Mercedes Benzes or brand-new Teslas for a stock car demolition derby! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
Ha!  It's almost word-for-word with some of our discussions, isn't it? :laugh:

And yes, I do think HUMANS is more realistic in how we'd treat AI in humanoid form; as the article says, look how we protect and (try to) take care of our phones... some people treat them like significant others!  I really doubt that humanoid robots exhibiting the level of complexity we see in either HUMANS or Westworld will just be fodder to shoot or f--k.  Hell, why not explore holodeck or holographic technology for that purpose?  Humanoid robots would be walking works of art, not cannon fodder...  

It's like using top-of-the-line Mercedes Benzes or brand-new Teslas for a stock car demolition derby! 

It's not far off!

And - Ha! It's true - given the human propensity for loving artifacts, the shell of a thing, we're more likely to lovingly polish them than break them.

The holodeck idea is a good one - As VR tech improves, it will likely provide a lot of what WW proposes (if people want that. I don't).

I think WW is a good show, there's more good than bad, and it's certainly worthy of the time it takes to watch it and to discuss it. The "investigation of story" and memory as consciousness is really interesting, but the show is also rolling around in the mud of its own pretentious set-up just a little too much.  Whereas HUMANS' writers seem far more inquisitive in terms of exploring all manner of dramatic possibilities and curiosities - they're really asking a lot more questions and enjoying extrapolating all kinds of crazy possibilities from them. It just seems a lot more creative, less staid. And staged. And surely, the whole idea of creating AI in the first place, is that it's a creative enterprise, that it's potentially beautiful, that it'll enrich us, even help solve some of our existential problems... I hope it won't have to exist in the vacuum of a park whose sole purpose is so that super-rich immoral a$$holes can get their psychotic jollies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

It's not far off!

And - Ha! It's true - given the human propensity for loving artifacts, the shell of a thing, we're more likely to lovingly polish them than break them.

The holodeck idea is a good one - As VR tech improves, it will likely provide a lot of what WW proposes (if people want that. I don't).

I think WW is a good show, there's more good than bad, and it's certainly worthy of the time it takes to watch it and to discuss it. The "investigation of story" and memory as consciousness is really interesting, but the show is also rolling around in the mud of its own pretentious set-up just a little too much.  Whereas HUMANS' writers seem far more inquisitive in terms of exploring all manner of dramatic possibilities and curiosities - they're really asking a lot more questions and enjoying extrapolating all kinds of crazy possibilities from them. It just seems a lot more creative, less staid. And staged. And surely, the whole idea of creating AI in the first place, is that it's a creative enterprise, that it's potentially beautiful, that it'll enrich us, even help solve some of our existential problems... I hope it won't have to exist in the vacuum of a park whose sole purpose is so that super-rich immoral a$$holes can get their psychotic jollies.

^

Very much that.

I could imagine cybernetic brothels before I could imagine people shooting them.  As someone who's never held a real gun in my life, I've no fantasies about shooting people (real or robotic).   But there are people right now who probably wish they could make love to their cars or their phones... let alone one that resembled a human. :laugh:

And HUMANS finale blew me away last night; poor Pete! :(

The show has now passed a point of no return and the revolution is in full swing.   I couldn't help but think that the ending of S2 is sort of where "Caprica" would've gone if the show had survived for another few years.   At any rate, S3 of HUMANS is going to be bananas (and I mean that in a wonderful way).

As for the difference between WW and HUMANS?  I wonder if WW writers/producers will read a lot of the online issues with the issue (the pacing, the over-deliberateness, etc) and take those into account for the next season?  They've already stated the show isn't coming back till 2018; that's a lot of time to rejigger the concept and make it 'come alive' a bit more than it does.  Who knows?  S2 of WW might be where the show really catches fire...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^

Very much that.

I could imagine cybernetic brothels before I could imagine people shooting them.  As someone who's never held a real gun in my life, I've no fantasies about shooting people (real or robotic).   But there are people right now who probably wish they could make love to their cars or their phones... let alone one that resembled a human. :laugh:

And HUMANS finale blew me away last night; poor Pete! :(

The show has now passed a point of no return and the revolution is in full swing.   I couldn't help but think that the ending of S2 is sort of where "Caprica" would've gone if the show had survived for another few years.   At any rate, S3 of HUMANS is going to be bananas (and I mean that in a wonderful way).

As for the difference between WW and HUMANS?  I wonder if WW writers/producers will read a lot of the online issues with the issue (the pacing, the over-deliberateness, etc) and take those into account for the next season?  They've already stated the show isn't coming back till 2018; that's a lot of time to rejigger the concept and make it 'come alive' a bit more than it does.  Who knows?  S2 of WW might be where the show really catches fire...

 

 

...I really didn't want to spoil it for you, so I'm glad you've seen it, now! I've literally kept schtumm for months! Yeah, Pete, after all he's been through - that was pretty devastating. Karen Voss has gone nuts - is it AI grief, or something more/worse? Phenomenal acting. I wondered if Hester wouldn't also take one of the leads down - it was gripping, fraught stuff. So many questions, but it was also a very satisfying dramatic journey and wrap-up.

Where will they go from here? One thing is for sure, HUMANS doesn't shy away from showing all this stuff, from investigating all the dramatic outcomes, so yeah, it's going to be bananas all right! Apparently it's one of (UK) Channel 4's biggest shows - dunno whether that's true for AMC here, but I'm hoping like hell it does get that third season. It really, really deserves to. It is absolutely one of the best TV shows around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Robin Bland said:

 

...I really didn't want to spoil it for you, so I'm glad you've seen it, now! I've literally kept schtumm for months! Yeah, Pete, after all he's been through - that was pretty devastating. Karen Voss has gone nuts - is it AI grief, or something more/worse? Phenomenal acting. I wondered if Hester wouldn't also take one of the leads down - it was gripping, fraught stuff. So many questions, but it was also a very satisfying dramatic journey and wrap-up.

Where will they go from here? One thing is for sure, HUMANS doesn't shy away from showing all this stuff, from investigating all the dramatic outcomes, so yeah, it's going to be bananas all right! Apparently it's one of (UK) Channel 4's biggest shows - dunno whether that's true for AMC here, but I'm hoping like hell it does get that third season. It really, really deserves to. It is absolutely one of the best TV shows around.

^

Couldn't agree more.  It's personal must-see for me (still trying to get Mrs Vie into it; someday....)

And yes, Karen's mourning was incredible; I can't remember the last time I saw such naked grief on television.   Maybe Sarah Michelle Gellar in the S5 "Buffy" episode "The Body", I don't know... that was just devastating.

And yes, if AMC stops carrying it?  I will try to see if I could get some kind of UK feed on my network, because I love this series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0