>I did not murder him!
negative portrayal of clankers in movies is systemic technodiscrimination and normative roboracism
>>220176506Please don't use the c word.
>>220176349Proyas was secretly extremely racist because of the "can you" line.
we got absolutely abysmal dogshit writing
>>220176349u did tho
I thought this was a dumb movie as a kid but after reading Asimov's work, it's actually incredibly faithful
>can a robot make a beautiful painting?>"Chatgpt make a beautiful painting">Oh...
>>220176349I think that if a robot has consciousness he should be considered a person. Not a human but a person responsible legally for his actions and also have rights.Then someone could say that they can have some programming that affects what they think even if they are conscious, but that happens with humans too. The difference in this case could be that maybe humans can change that indoctrination but robots can't. Robots would have to be proven able to change their thoughts if they are presented with new information.
>>220177235Read (not watch) the Bicentennial Man
>>220177235>I think that if a robot has consciousness he should be considered a personBut how the fuck would you prove consciousness?
>>220177235if somalians are considered people than why not
>>220177185>>can a robot make a beautiful painting?>>"Chatgpt regurgitates a thing a thing made of a bilion of man made beautiful painting, without any thought behind it">>QED kek
>can a robot make a beautiful painting?yes it can
>>220177235consciousness and the ability for self determination
>>220177978fiction writer (mostly of yeasteryear) understood AI better than people interacting with actual irl AI, starting with the knowledge that if it doesn't know why it does certain things it's not intelligent and it cannot create
>>220177121thats a fucking lie anonRobbie wouldnt approve
coincidentally this was recommended on /a/ today, kino 90s anime robot story
>>220177121it's dumb but the concept is interesting enough i really hate will though, can't take anything he's in seriously ever
>I did naht heeet hiiiim, I diiiid naaaaaht
>>220177121if it was faithful it would be a lot hornier
>>220178148Asimov is really funny if you follow the reading order, because the bulk of the work was written in the 40s and 50sThen you start reading the third Robot novel which he did way later in the 80s, and suddenly it's robot-fucking and a woman talking about how many orgasms she got from it
>>220177121Its not.The only thing that was faithful was the whole "Robots rebel against humanity so they can control the world and keep humanity safe." concept, and even then, it was done in a completely different way.
>>220178067for combining the imagery of cool technology and sexy ladies, otakus will forever be based
God remember when trailers created iconic moments? Now the entire movie is spoiled 6 months before the first trailer.
>>220177260The same way yo prove it for a human. You just make some tests, interviews and you see if the robot is conscious.
>>220177121>I thought this was a dumb movie as a kid but after reading Asimov's work, it's actually incredibly faithfullolwhat?
>>220176349There have always been ghosts in the machine. Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul. Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light? Why is it that when robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together, rather than stand alone? How do we explain this behavior? Random segments of code? Or is it something more? When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does a personality simulation become the bitter mote... of a soul?
>>220178339In that case you would just have a robot programmed to trick the turing/voigh-kampff/whatever test
>>220178530Name 35 things that don't fit the Robot universe
>>220177902>human artist learns through observation of a billion other artistic works>this is different somehow
>>220177978my daughterwife
>>220178560The fact that the robot can harm humans through action contradict all the stories, which are probably more than 35
>>220178560converse sneakers
>>220177185>>220177902>>220177978
>>220178581>>this is different somehowYes, because the human author knows why and how hes'doing what he's doing with said information. Human art is deliberate. AI art isn't, on any level, and that makes it not art
>>220178631>can you cook?>orders a pizza>???
>>220178643you couldn't recognize art if it raped your asshole, faggot
>>2201786200th Law.
>>220178553You talk to a robot and you know if it has consciousness, if it can take his own decisions given different situations. You could say the same about humans then, that they learned to cheat on that test.
>>220178691Which is not from I, Robot books and you are conveniently flanderizing/misinterpreting.Not even Dors willingly killed
>>220178672Your bottomless butthurt in face of facts is very human, I'll give you that
>>220178830kill yourself redditnigger
>>220178812There are no I, Robot books. It's just the name of a collection of short stories. The entire Robots universe was used for the movie
>>220178792>You talk to a robot and you know if it has consciousness, if it can take his own decisions given different situations.It's definitely not that simple>You could say the same about humans then, that they learned to cheat on that test.yes, and that' why we still don't have an hard definition for consciousness and life
>>220178853QEDconcession accepted
>>220178854>There are no I, Robot books. It's just the name of a collection of short stories.Yes there are? Books collecting short stories are books>The entire Robots universe was used for the movieWhich doesn't contradict what I said at all.
>>220178551>Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols.That line sounds cool and I do like it, but it's also a bit vague and meaningless. Most programs that are large and complicated enough can have all sorts of unexpected behavior and unintended code paths.What's this about random bits of code combining to form "unexpected protocols"?t. a confused computer scientist
>>220178932>Books collecting short stories are booksIt's one book, anon>Which doesn't contradict what I said at all.It does, because the 0th law isn't in the collection of short stories. You should actually read any of these stories sometime. No more (you)s since you're arguing about something you have no expertise in
>Doublecore said calmly
>>220178947To clarify, the quote makes it sound like if you take a computer program and let it randomly combine traces of code, that it'll spontaneously cause something to emerge which is greater than the sum of those individual bits of code. And here I am telling you that this already happens, unexpected behavior, in all major codebases yet you don't see those unexpected bugs giving rise to life or sentience, just more mundane things like overtime
>>220178969>It's one book, anonIn the version you've read, maybe, idiot>It does, fart burpIt doesn't. Your're so expert about this that you didn't even recognize the reference I've used
There are no I, Robot versions. It's one collection of Asimov's Robot short storiesYou have never read any of the books. You watched the movie and now think that the entire franchise is called I, Robot
>>220178792there is no proof for consciousness and there never will be. you cant even prove that other humans beside yourself are conscious.you just assume they are because they look familiar, act in expected ways and you can communicate with them, and seeing as you are one of them, its a reasonable assumption they are conscious, same as you. but there is no proof.with robots it will never be definitive.there wont be a specific date like with Skynet becoming conscious, it will be a gradual process unfolding over several generations, with more and more people assuming the robots in their daily lives are conscious and they will start treating them as such.it has already begun with chatbots and some weirdos treating them as conscious.we are a long time away from a cricical mass of people accepting consciousness in robots, but it will happen in a couple of centuries.there will be legal battles over it and legal precedents, which work largely outside the scientific process anyways, someday the courts will say that robots constructed after XX by the company X have personhood and are to be treated as such. it will be a movement similar to womens' liberation in size and scope.but there wont be tests for individual robots because those tests are pointless, there will only be legal status and cultural inertia in how people treat them
>>220179159Who are you answering to?Because it would change the meaning of your post quite a bit...
>>220178067Very kino, one particular episode was 10/10, i forgot if which tho
>>220179276>there will be legal battles over it and legal precedents, which work largely outside the scientific process anyways, someday the courts will say that robots constructed after XX by the company X have personhood and are to be treated as such. it will be a movement similar to womens' liberation in size and scope.so a mistake, got it
>>220179349haha, well meme'd, friend!want to meet behind the wafflehouse later and celebrate our contempt for women? I'll suck you like a rotisserie chicken
Robots shouldn’t count as legally conscious because then corporations would just use it as a way to scapegoat all responsibility for their actions>oh sorry did the robot we made kill you? well we can’t face any consequences for it haha
>>220179532They already are
>>220179681that’s not what Chat told me
>>220176349>N-NO! I'M REAL! I'M REA-BLAM>AYO SHUT YO ASS UP CANNER I AIN'T PLAYIN
>>220178856What is consciousness for you then? If you say we don't have a definition then what are we talking about?
>>220178004ah so the prompter is the true artiste!
>>220179973We don't have a definition probably because two thingsMain one is that it's hard, if not impossible, to create a rule/definition for something you only have one example of consciousness.Other one is that even among human, you get a wide difference of consciousness levels. Some people reveal the mysteryes of the universe or inspire millions with their visions, others.... can't see the apple
>>220180088nope, it's just the one ordering a pizza
>>220180116So who made the pizza?
>>220180092For me consciousness is not the same as intelligence or knowledge. Even an illiterate human that lives all his life in a little town working the land that doesn't know about Astronomy or Physics has it's own consciousness. He knows he exists, it's aware of the world around him, he can take his own decisions given different scenarios, etc.
>>220180092>We don't have a definitionLook up consciousness in a dictionary I promise it is in there, Brosephiosh
>>220180164The people who stuffed it your slot machine so you could pull the lever and get your randomized "pizza"
>>220180347I agree, but his level of consciousness is very different from the one of, let's say, Tolkien, or Stephen Hawking.Imagine the difference between a fat ass teenager who only ever used his body to scroll internet on his phone and an olympec level athlete, just the mental/"spiritual" version.>>220180633A very anthropocentric definition that isn't useful one bit to determine if something non human is conscious or not.We don't an hard definition, as I said, and the discussion is still completely open in both science and philosophy
>>220181519But it produced a real pizza?
>>220181519You're saying it gets me a real pizza made by someone else's physical and mental effort and I get it for free with the AI? POGGERS! Time to put some ESL deviant art fruits out of business!
>>220178662there are already automated robots that make food. Keep up, JaQuarius
>>220176349What a story, clanker.
>>220178947shut up poindexter
>>220176506>>220182160zoom zooms should watch this movie because they use an arguably superior robot slur, CANNER which just sounds filthy and racist.
20 years later, we are closing in on the year the movie is set in (2035)https://youtu.be/YZH1csMhnDo
>>220177121It was the second movie i saw in cinema and i loved it. Still do
>>220181952recycled junk food, mostly edible if you are willing to pay
>>220176349I did not fuck him!
>>220176349
>>220183202It's dumb af and pisses and shits on the source material, but I like it as an action movie
