Welcome to the new MegaTokyo Forums! The old forums are available (in read-only mode) at http://archive.forums.megatokyo.com.

[1549] The sum of our parts

Moderators: Invisigoth, chemi

Roamer
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:24 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by Roamer » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:24 am

Invisigoth wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:56 am
I suspect that Dr Gero has concerns and feelings toward Junko that he has to keep in check. Not pervy concerns but real concerns regarding her homelife, her future and her safety.

Back years ago when Dr Drew was a show on MTV his co-host Adam Carolla once complained that doing that show had forever ruined strip clubs for him as he could just look at the girls dancing and mentally assemble the traumatic events that had led them to dance naked in front of a bunch of callous men. Dr Gero is likely dealing with that at this moment. No one has mentioned it AFAIK but he started to stand and call out to Junko when Ashe finally had had enough
I've been considering his actions there. He sees her, he stands up and starts to call out. He seems excited or concerned, he's not trying to hide despite being on a 'date' with someone else, and he doesn't hesitate. I don't think we have enough information at this point to draw any conclusions, but I think it's time to consider the possibility that despite his willingness to dissect her personality for strangers and discard awkward portions of it for his creation*, he might actually think of them as friends. Or something similar.

* - I am now tempted to call him Dr. GeroFrankenstein, or Dr.GF for short.

User avatar
infidel
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by infidel » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:18 am

Roamer wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:42 am
Okashinamaru wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:40 pm
So basically, Dr.Clueless is developing a product to exploit men's vulnerability, but it's women who are harmed by this? But it's ok as long as it's a "whole girl" who is manipulating some guy into paying her money just for the privilege of going on a date with her (where doubtless he's also expected to pay for everything)? At least with an EDS you might have a decent chance of actually getting your money's worth.

Oh but she threw a TANTRUM, so the discussion is over! A girl threw a TANTRUM guys! That's the final word on everything!

I can't even...
If you think that's throwing a tantrum, you need to date more. Hell, she didn't even throw dishes at him. I suspect you're misreading her frustration at not being able to communicate with him. And not because she broke her phone.
What? I have issues with this response. One can always do worse, that doesn't excuse the action."That wasn't a tantrum, she didn't even take out her mallet and knock him into the atmosphere." "That wasn't a Tantrum, she didn't even knock down the cafe with her super foxgirl powers." "That wasn't a tantrum, she didn't even walk into a school and start shooting people at random." insert list of increasingly hostile and destructive actions here. There is always room for someone to be more destructive.

Unless you're saying, "That wasn't a tantrum, she kept her cool and didn't even glare at the man." you might have a point, but in any book, smashing a phone, wild gesticulating, and storming off count as a tantrum. The only reason she didn't slam the door on her way out was because the cafe was outdoors.

It doesn't matter WHY she was frustrated. What matters is how she acted out that frustration.
Well y'know, one of the defining charactistics of evil is treating people as things. In war, it manifests as dehumanizing the enemy. In that respect, Gero is mega-evil in that he is intent on creating as many 'daughters' ('cause that is what they would be called if biological) as possible and selling them into slavery. More evil than Dom, who just kills people (also without remorse, but it's a quick end, less suffering). Of course, especially in the Middle East, it's not much better for women. So one can't really cop out by saying they're inhuman :-}
Treating people as things comes after treating people as EVIL. Once people come to be labeled as evil, and other people believe, and teach others, it is ok to hurt, kill, or abuse evil people, "because they deserve it." the dehumanizing process has begun. Treating people as objects happens later. This is one of the reasons a parent should never punish a child while they are angry. That way the child knows (emotionally) the punishment is to train them, not to express the parent's anger.

malcolm125k
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:00 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by malcolm125k » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:59 am

infidel wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:18 am
Roamer wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:42 am
Okashinamaru wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:40 pm
So basically, Dr.Clueless is developing a product to exploit men's vulnerability, but it's women who are harmed by this? But it's ok as long as it's a "whole girl" who is manipulating some guy into paying her money just for the privilege of going on a date with her (where doubtless he's also expected to pay for everything)? At least with an EDS you might have a decent chance of actually getting your money's worth.

Oh but she threw a TANTRUM, so the discussion is over! A girl threw a TANTRUM guys! That's the final word on everything!

I can't even...
If you think that's throwing a tantrum, you need to date more. Hell, she didn't even throw dishes at him. I suspect you're misreading her frustration at not being able to communicate with him. And not because she broke her phone.
What? I have issues with this response. One can always do worse, that doesn't excuse the action."That wasn't a tantrum, she didn't even take out her mallet and knock him into the atmosphere." "That wasn't a Tantrum, she didn't even knock down the cafe with her super foxgirl powers." "That wasn't a tantrum, she didn't even walk into a school and start shooting people at random." insert list of increasingly hostile and destructive actions here. There is always room for someone to be more destructive.

Unless you're saying, "That wasn't a tantrum, she kept her cool and didn't even glare at the man." you might have a point, but in any book, smashing a phone, wild gesticulating, and storming off count as a tantrum. The only reason she didn't slam the door on her way out was because the cafe was outdoors.

It doesn't matter WHY she was frustrated. What matters is how she acted out that frustration.
Well y'know, one of the defining charactistics of evil is treating people as things. In war, it manifests as dehumanizing the enemy. In that respect, Gero is mega-evil in that he is intent on creating as many 'daughters' ('cause that is what they would be called if biological) as possible and selling them into slavery. More evil than Dom, who just kills people (also without remorse, but it's a quick end, less suffering). Of course, especially in the Middle East, it's not much better for women. So one can't really cop out by saying they're inhuman :-}
Treating people as things comes after treating people as EVIL. Once people come to be labeled as evil, and other people believe, and teach others, it is ok to hurt, kill, or abuse evil people, "because they deserve it." the dehumanizing process has begun. Treating people as objects happens later. This is one of the reasons a parent should never punish a child while they are angry. That way the child knows (emotionally) the punishment is to train them, not to express the parent's anger.
I would like to add that if you are dating someone that throws dishes and has what is considered "not-a-tantrum" on dates normally, you should probably run away, at speed. Have some respect for yourself and get away from those sorts of people. I know that there is this mentality of "she is a prize and I must win her over", but really, *you* are the prize for *her*. What is she doing to win you? If the answer is "heaps on abuse", then drop her.

I'm an old guy. 50 yo now. I've seen some weird stuff. I had a woman try to set my hair on fire in a bar because I had the gall to start a conversation with her friend. I've been slugged in the middle of caring for my infant daughter by my ex-wife because I made too much noise in the morning tending her (she only hit the baby once, mind you, and that was because it was dark and she couldn't see well enough to hit me)

Beware putting up with that kind of behavior.

I know this is a comic, but really. She shoved him around, broke things, got angry and stormed off, all because of a point of view that essentially went "How dare you judge us by our personalities! How shallow!" O.o

As to Evil coming before turning Someone into a thing, bear in mind that Ping is a thing becoming a Someone. I think Old Guy has not yet come to grips with that miracle, or expects it to fall short.

User avatar
Okashinamaru
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by Okashinamaru » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:19 am

malcolm125k wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:59 am
I would like to add that if you are dating someone that throws dishes and has what is considered "not-a-tantrum" on dates normally, you should probably run away, at speed. Have some respect for yourself and get away from those sorts of people. I know that there is this mentality of "she is a prize and I must win her over", but really, *you* are the prize for *her*. What is she doing to win you? If the answer is "heaps on abuse", then drop her.
Personally I find treating humans as a "prize" in either direction to be.. well.. dehumanizing. One person's prize is another's garbage and I'd rather not be treated either of those things. They're a lot more interchangeable than you might realize.

malcolm125k
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:00 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by malcolm125k » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:50 am

Okashinamaru wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:19 am
malcolm125k wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:59 am
I would like to add that if you are dating someone that throws dishes and has what is considered "not-a-tantrum" on dates normally, you should probably run away, at speed. Have some respect for yourself and get away from those sorts of people. I know that there is this mentality of "she is a prize and I must win her over", but really, *you* are the prize for *her*. What is she doing to win you? If the answer is "heaps on abuse", then drop her.
Personally I find treating humans as a "prize" in either direction to be.. well.. dehumanizing. One person's prize is another's garbage and I'd rather not be treated either of those things. They're a lot more interchangeable than you might realize.
That is a fair point. Let me state it another way.

It is unhealthy to value, cherish and aid someone who is unwilling to value, cherish and aid you in turn. It is unhealthy to be in a relationship where you are treated in a demeaning way. It is unhealthy to think that it is acceptable for someone to use yelling and drama, physical violence, or unfair treatment in terms of money, work and conditions to get their way and be "right".

If all the caring is going one way, that relationship is broken and needs to be fixed or abandoned. If the other party returns cruelty for kindness, pain for comfort and disgust for admiration, then I advise getting out of any such relationship immediately, and not try to fix it.

Its not a matter of disdaining or judging the other person. Its a matter of having some respect for yourself and knowing that you have value beyond being some sort of servitor creature.

User avatar
Okashinamaru
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by Okashinamaru » Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:31 am

malcolm125k wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:50 am
That is a fair point. Let me state it another way.

It is unhealthy to value, cherish and aid someone who is unwilling to value, cherish and aid you in turn. It is unhealthy to be in a relationship where you are treated in a demeaning way. It is unhealthy to think that it is acceptable for someone to use yelling and drama, physical violence, or unfair treatment in terms of money, work and conditions to get their way and be "right".

If all the caring is going one way, that relationship is broken and needs to be fixed or abandoned. If the other party returns cruelty for kindness, pain for comfort and disgust for admiration, then I advise getting out of any such relationship immediately, and not try to fix it.

Its not a matter of disdaining or judging the other person. Its a matter of having some respect for yourself and knowing that you have value beyond being some sort of servitor creature.
Yes, that's basically the point I was trying to make.

User avatar
darrin
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by darrin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:14 am

malcolm125k wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:59 am
She shoved him around, broke things, got angry and stormed off, all because of a point of view that essentially went "How dare you judge us by our personalities! How shallow!"
No, that's pretty much the opposite of the "point of view" in question. "How dare you treat actual women as templates from which idealized 'components' can be lifted and commoditized into products for your own profit" would be closer imo -- and still ignores the issue of Ping herself, and the ultimate fate of those self-aware "products" once distributed amongst the "buyers". Now maybe his burblings on "fake people" didn't get through to Ashe yet, maybe it will take further conversation with Ping for Ashe to figure that part out... or maybe she already did, in which case her expression of anger here was completely appropriate, and not justifiably characterizable as a "tantrum". Unless people also think Liam Neeson was "throwing tantrums" in the Taken movies for example.
Avatar by Broken, I changed the book
My rescripts, now with little bits of commentary for each one

malcolm125k
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:00 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by malcolm125k » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:09 pm

darrin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:14 am
malcolm125k wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:59 am
She shoved him around, broke things, got angry and stormed off, all because of a point of view that essentially went "How dare you judge us by our personalities! How shallow!"
No, that's pretty much the opposite of the "point of view" in question. "How dare you treat actual women as templates from which idealized 'components' can be lifted and commoditized into products for your own profit" would be closer imo -- and still ignores the issue of Ping herself, and the ultimate fate of those self-aware "products" once distributed amongst the "buyers". Now maybe his burblings on "fake people" didn't get through to Ashe yet, maybe it will take further conversation with Ping for Ashe to figure that part out... or maybe she already did, in which case her expression of anger here was completely appropriate, and not justifiably characterizable as a "tantrum". Unless people also think Liam Neeson was "throwing tantrums" in the Taken movies for example.
<scratches head>

From an engineering point of view:

We built better furniture and computer peripherals by observing how people's bodies rested and moved.
We figured out flight by observing birds.
We figured out how to build better ships by looking at fish.
Whole schools of martial arts were developed by observing how animals fought.
But AI's, or at least artificial personalities, should be developed without observing real personalities?

If you can explain how that works, please, be my guest.

As to the tantrum, I have no idea how Liam Neeson acted in the Taken movies, but if he walked up to someone he just met, got angry at them for developing something he didn't approve of, and then got physical and caused them to incur a monetary loss for no good reason, broke things and then stormed off after yelling at them, then yes. He threw a tantrum.

And the statement "We are more than the sum of our parts" begs the question of "OK, what is the 'more'?" If the argument is that the parts combine to synthesize something more, than it is still not inconsistent with the development method. He is just choosing which parts, the way a geneticist might choose a set of genes to get a physical attribute. The parts added might create something unstable, or produce unexpected traits that are undesirable, but the only way to know that is trial and error. His only sin in that is, perhaps, being arrogant to stand as the gatekeeper for what is "desirable". But, as he is striving to create a tool and not a person, perhaps that can be excused.

If that "more" is a reference to a soul, some undefinable extra thing that happens for people not just patched together out of parts, then the argument here leads to the logical conclusion that Ping is soulless, and can't be a person because of that lack. But as such, Ping then loses the status required to have evil done to her, because if she is a not-person, mistreating her would be akin to mistreating a car.

I think the only real moral high ground here would be to say "How dare you have the hubris to dictate what is and is not desirable and then use that to manufacture a person." Accusation of playing God through electronic eugenics, if you will.

But, that presupposes that Ping is Person, not Thing, and foxgirl's very statement argues against that, strangely enough.

Edit: I would like to point out as well that should Ping be Person (I hold this opinion), then buying and selling "Pings" would be slavery, and deleting or scrapping them murder, so that bit of Evil exists but has not been realized yet.

User avatar
darrin
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by darrin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:10 pm

malcolm125k wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:09 pm
But AI's, or at least artificial personalities, should be developed without observing real personalities?
If the goal were really to create an AI, to bring a new life into the world, that could potentially be a noble endeavor.

Mapping out which "quirks" of behavior will trigger the most pay-to-play requests from the owners of such "artificial personalities" -- considerably less noble, I would say. Maybe that's just me.
for no good reason
That's kind of the crux of the matter right there. Ashe's reasons for being angry are not sufficiently "good" for some apparently, so she is "just" throwing a tantrum.

If an entire race being condemned to lives of sexual servitude (or worse -- watching some family members' PS4 behavior, I can imagine a lot of these "Pings" fated to sit and watch their "owners" play fortnite for hours on end :shock:) is not sufficient for one to be "allowed" to express their anger, but is merely a "tantrum", then I congratulate all the angerless Yodas out there who have achieved such enlightenment. For my money they are just the spineless sycophantic "jedi" from Phantom Menace, not anyone I would look to as a voice of justice.

Like I said, Ashe is the Lorax. I don't really care who says the Lorax was "just throwing tantrums"; he was right.

"I am the foxgirl, and I speak for the SEVS."
Avatar by Broken, I changed the book
My rescripts, now with little bits of commentary for each one

malcolm125k
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:00 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by malcolm125k » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:34 pm

darrin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:10 pm
malcolm125k wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:09 pm
But AI's, or at least artificial personalities, should be developed without observing real personalities?
If the goal were really to create an AI, to bring a new life into the world, that could potentially be a noble endeavor.

Mapping out which "quirks" of behavior will trigger the most pay-to-play requests from the owners of such "artificial personalities" -- considerably less noble, I would say. Maybe that's just me.
for no good reason
That's kind of the crux of the matter right there. Ashe's reasons for being angry are not sufficiently "good" for some apparently, so she is "just" throwing a tantrum.

If an entire race being condemned to lives of sexual servitude (or worse -- watching some family members' PS4 behavior, I can imagine a lot of these "Pings" fated to sit and watch their "owners" play fortnite for hours on end :shock:) is not sufficient for one to be "allowed" to express their anger, but is merely a "tantrum", then I congratulate all the angerless Yodas out there who have achieved such enlightenment. For my money they are just the spineless sycophantic "jedi" from Phantom Menace, not anyone I would look to as a voice of justice.

Like I said, Ashe is the Lorax. I don't really care who says the Lorax was "just throwing tantrums"; he was right.

"I am the foxgirl, and I speak for the SEVS."

A tantrum is not a good first response to a problem. Engage him in discourse. If he is "building a tool" then he does not see Ping as a Person. You can attempt to point out someones mistakes without hitting them. I know its not historically how things are done, but talking first and resorting to violence later should Evil be done with intent is always an option.

The Lorax didn't throw tantrums. The Lorax spoke out and attempted to get the ones despoiling the land to stop. His only problem is that he didn't have the power to contest those who willfully did it anyway.

And mapping out the best pay-for-play characteristics is fine. Creating a sapient, sentient sophont imbued with those characteristics to be sold off into sexual slavery is not fine. Creating a tool that is not a sentient, sapient sophont imbued with those characteristics for sale is good business sense.

What Ashe needs to do is find out if the Old Man realizes that his tool has become a sapient, sentient sophont and, if not, get him to realize that. If he does, then try to convince him to stop, and failing that get society to help stop him. Storming off does nothing for anyone, most especially Ping.

Or, conversely, if Ping is *not* a person, then Ashe could learn that from the Old Man and stop being offended.

What it hinges on is whether or not Ping really is self-aware and does her creator know this.

User avatar
Liminaut
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by Liminaut » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:39 pm

You may be being a little hard on Dr. Gero.

Consider: suppose you want to build a Ping. You'll need to understand how personalities work. Because we are human, we'll need to break human personalities down into component parts so we can simulate them. That's how humans think about things. Then we go on a discovery process of how those pieces fit together.

To do that, we have lots of interviews with people. We find out what they are like, how they feel. I suspect that one of the reasons Junko likes Dr. Gero is because he may be one of the few people in her life that asks how sho feels and actually cares about the answer.

Now, Junko possibly being angry for not knowing she is in a study ... yes, that's something ethically we are still trying to figure out. After all, how do you all feel about being part of studies without being told?

Have you ever posted on Twitter? Reddit? Both of those archives are very easy to get a hold of (Twitter in particular has selling tweets as a major part of their business model), so there is a very good chance you've been part of a study without knowing it.
How about Amazon? You shop there, you get shown suggestions. The suggestions that Amazon shows you are based on analyzing a lot of customer data -- data they didn't ask customers about using. Do you want Amazon to turn off their recommendations? How about Netflix?

If you think Dr. Gero is evil then you also perforce believe building Ping was evil. That's how stuff gets built.

User avatar
Okashinamaru
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by Okashinamaru » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:54 pm

This is turning into the most interesting discussion I've seen in an MT thread in years.
Liminaut wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:39 pm
To do that, we have lots of interviews with people. We find out what they are like, how they feel. I suspect that one of the reasons Junko likes Dr. Gero is because he may be one of the few people in her life that asks how sho feels and actually cares about the answer.
That's plausible.
Liminaut wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:39 pm
Now, Junko possibly being angry for not knowing she is in a study ... yes, that's something ethically we are still trying to figure out. After all, how do you all feel about being part of studies without being told?

Have you ever posted on Twitter? Reddit? Both of those archives are very easy to get a hold of (Twitter in particular has selling tweets as a major part of their business model), so there is a very good chance you've been part of a study without knowing it.
How about Amazon? You shop there, you get shown suggestions. The suggestions that Amazon shows you are based on analyzing a lot of customer data -- data they didn't ask customers about using. Do you want Amazon to turn off their recommendations? How about Netflix?
Lots of people actually do get angry about having their data collected by social media. Lots of people avoid using social media at all for that reason, not that that's the only reason to avoid social media. :P
Liminaut wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:39 pm
If you think Dr. Gero is evil then you also perforce believe building Ping was evil. That's how stuff gets built.
Indeed. If you like ping then it's kind of hard to really hate our controversial engineer.

User avatar
darrin
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by darrin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:46 pm

Liminaut wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:39 pm
If you think Dr. Gero is evil then you also perforce believe building Ping was evil.
My opinion is that the questions of why she was built, and what's going to be done to her (and her compatriots) now that she's been built, should also factor into that consideration. (That is, Ping being awesome doesn't give the Old Man and Sony free passes for anything they care to do downstream of that act of creation.)
Avatar by Broken, I changed the book
My rescripts, now with little bits of commentary for each one

Eraden
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:08 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by Eraden » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:00 pm

darrin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:46 pm
Liminaut wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:39 pm
If you think Dr. Gero is evil then you also perforce believe building Ping was evil.
My opinion is that the questions of why she was built, and what's going to be done to her (and her compatriots) now that she's been built, should also factor into that consideration. (That is, Ping being awesome doesn't give the Old Man and Sony free passes for anything they care to do downstream of that act of creation.)
Thank you, Darrin. I really couldn't have said it better, myself. I would like to point out that right now the scientist is mostly behaving in a rather amoral fashion. It's what he does next which will define him as evil, should he decide on a course of action that will bring harm (emotional or physical) to either Ping or Junko. Remember, he knows enough about girls emotions and attitudes to be able to model them. There is no excuse (other than being some kind of idiot savant) for him to not realize that he could be causing them harm.

User avatar
maldrul
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Texas

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by maldrul » Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:26 pm

https://www.explorepsychology.com/list- ... ty-traits/

Here is the menu. Pick and choose which you'd like your SEVS to simulate.
Image

User avatar
darrin
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by darrin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:06 pm

maldrul wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:26 pm
Pick and choose which you'd like your SEVS to simulate.
And if you're not satisfied, just go to the "Override -> Reconfigure" option in the earblade menu. It's quick and easy, and like getting a whole new SEVS, fresh from the factory!
Avatar by Broken, I changed the book
My rescripts, now with little bits of commentary for each one

User avatar
maldrul
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Texas

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by maldrul » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:46 pm

darrin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:06 pm
maldrul wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:26 pm
Pick and choose which you'd like your SEVS to simulate.
And if you're not satisfied, just go to the "Override -> Reconfigure" option in the earblade menu. It's quick and easy, and like getting a whole new SEVS, fresh from the factory!
Ooooorrrrrr... play a few of the EDS dating *simulations* with it to add new depth to its "personality"
SpoilerShow
BTW, your scenario would be the Old Man's quickest way to prove his point (if he were to make it) that Ping isn't a real girl.
Image

User avatar
darrin
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by darrin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:54 pm

maldrul wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:46 pm
SpoilerShow
BTW, your scenario would be the Old Man's quickest way to prove his point (if he were to make it) that Ping isn't a real girl.
Head injuries and other forms of trauma can cause personality changes in "real" girls (and other assorted humans), sometimes drastic changes. I'm not expecting universal agreement of course but it wouldn't count as "proof" in my book.
SpoilerShow
I like pie, doesn't make me a SEVS.
Avatar by Broken, I changed the book
My rescripts, now with little bits of commentary for each one

User avatar
maldrul
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Texas

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by maldrul » Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:03 pm

darrin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:54 pm
maldrul wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:46 pm
SpoilerShow
BTW, your scenario would be the Old Man's quickest way to prove his point (if he were to make it) that Ping isn't a real girl.
Head injuries and other forms of trauma can cause personality changes in "real" girls (and other assorted humans), sometimes drastic changes. I'm not expecting universal agreement of course but it wouldn't count as "proof" in my book.
Sorry, not buying it. To have someone walk up to a "girl" and play with her "ear bobble" only to have her reset to the mode she was in when she first appeared in comic, not remember anything that happened up to this point, and having a completely different personality? Where is the trauma? Piro did something similar and her only response was that he had a limited time that she would allow it.
SpoilerShow
I like pie, doesn't make me a SEVS.
Of course not. You like it because when you ate it, you thought it tasted good. Ping was *programmed* to like it because it is a good source of energy producing fuel.
Image

Roamer
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:24 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by Roamer » Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:11 am

darrin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:46 pm
Liminaut wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:39 pm
If you think Dr. Gero is evil then you also perforce believe building Ping was evil.
My opinion is that the questions of why she was built, and what's going to be done to her (and her compatriots) now that she's been built, should also factor into that consideration. (That is, Ping being awesome doesn't give the Old Man and Sony free passes for anything they care to do downstream of that act of creation.)
Or anything they did upstream of the act, either.

And Liminaut, the comparison between netflix and the studying of Junko and others to assist in the creation of Ping's personality is interesting but nonsensical. A study of the shows people like is wholly different from lifting aspects of a persons life experiences to incorporate them into a being intended to simulate life - especially when that simulation might share those experiences under certain circumstances. Choosing to share your painful life experiences with someone does not give them the right to take that information place it in danger of being exposed to strangers, even if it is done without revealing whose experiences they are. I'm not just speaking about Junko here. How many girls' painful secrets have been hidden inside Ping's brain? Even if the root causes aren't part of the personality, the 'interesting' bits are there, and might be recognized.

The doctor isn't evil...I don't think even Teddy classed him as such. It's not the evil ones who do the greatest damage, but the ones who are convinced that their desire to do good excuses any harm they cause.

User avatar
Okashinamaru
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by Okashinamaru » Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:35 am

maldrul wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:03 pm
Of course not. You like it because when you ate it, you thought it tasted good. Ping was *programmed* to like it because it is a good source of energy producing fuel.
Why do humans like sweet stuff again? Oh, right, because it's a good source of energy-producing fuel. :|

User avatar
darrin
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by darrin » Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:41 am

maldrul wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:03 pm
Sorry, not buying it. To have someone walk up to a "girl" and play with her "ear bobble" only to have her reset to the mode she was in when she first appeared in comic, not remember anything that happened up to this point, and having a completely different personality? Where is the trauma?
The claim was that being able to "reset" someone's personality would be sufficient to "prove" they're not a "real" human. The counter-argument is that humans can have their personalities and memories drastically altered under the right circumstances; "inability to alter their personality" is not a defining characteristic of a "real" human.

Of course the process is not as clean or painless in our case as in Ping's, and currently is subsequent to an "accident" as opposed to pressing a button. If that's enough for you not to "buy" what she is so be it. Those kind of "implementation" details are generally considered the less important ones though; in that Star Trek episode I keep linking the Guinan scene from, Riker also "pushes a button" on Data to shut him down. It's not the knockdown argument it looks at first though, because obviously "cannot be rendered unconscious" is not a defining characteristic of "real" humans.

To borrow the software engineering terminology, you are arguing mechanism when (imo at least) we need to be discussing policy.
Okashinamaru wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:35 am
maldrul wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:03 pm
Of course not. You like [pie] because when you ate it, you thought it tasted good. Ping was *programmed* to like it because it is a good source of energy producing fuel.
Why do humans like sweet stuff again? Oh, right, because it's a good source of energy-producing fuel. :|
Thank you for sparing me having to write a bunch of dumb stuff about evolutionary development. :D

Yes yes, the mechanism of how she 'likes" pie is very different from how it came about that I like pie, and I'm sure the way my taste buds (and the part of my brain that's looking at them) work is quite different from whatever system transfers info from Ping's mouth to her CPU. The policy of "liking" things because the machine in question (she or I) is designed to like things that provide particular benefits, that's what we have in common.

I will just add that I can easily decide at 11:30 at night that I'm not gonna get dressed, go out, and drive around till I find a place that is still open and sells pie. I can with much greater difficulty decide that I am not gonna have another piece of the pie already sitting in the kitchen.

I can not decide that I no longer like the way pie tastes, or decide that the way the pie tastes will not trigger any desires to behave in certain ways in response.
Avatar by Broken, I changed the book
My rescripts, now with little bits of commentary for each one

malcolm125k
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:00 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by malcolm125k » Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:21 pm

darrin wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:41 am
maldrul wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:03 pm
Sorry, not buying it. To have someone walk up to a "girl" and play with her "ear bobble" only to have her reset to the mode she was in when she first appeared in comic, not remember anything that happened up to this point, and having a completely different personality? Where is the trauma?
The claim was that being able to "reset" someone's personality would be sufficient to "prove" they're not a "real" human. The counter-argument is that humans can have their personalities and memories drastically altered under the right circumstances; "inability to alter their personality" is not a defining characteristic of a "real" human.

Of course the process is not as clean or painless in our case as in Ping's, and currently is subsequent to an "accident" as opposed to pressing a button. If that's enough for you not to "buy" what she is so be it. Those kind of "implementation" details are generally considered the less important ones though; in that Star Trek episode I keep linking the Guinan scene from, Riker also "pushes a button" on Data to shut him down. It's not the knockdown argument it looks at first though, because obviously "cannot be rendered unconscious" is not a defining characteristic of "real" humans.

To borrow the software engineering terminology, you are arguing mechanism when (imo at least) we need to be discussing policy.
Okashinamaru wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:35 am
maldrul wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:03 pm
Of course not. You like [pie] because when you ate it, you thought it tasted good. Ping was *programmed* to like it because it is a good source of energy producing fuel.
Why do humans like sweet stuff again? Oh, right, because it's a good source of energy-producing fuel. :|
Thank you for sparing me having to write a bunch of dumb stuff about evolutionary development. :D

Yes yes, the mechanism of how she 'likes" pie is very different from how it came about that I like pie, and I'm sure the way my taste buds (and the part of my brain that's looking at them) work is quite different from whatever system transfers info from Ping's mouth to her CPU. The policy of "liking" things because the machine in question (she or I) is designed to like things that provide particular benefits, that's what we have in common.

I will just add that I can easily decide at 11:30 at night that I'm not gonna get dressed, go out, and drive around till I find a place that is still open and sells pie. I can with much greater difficulty decide that I am not gonna have another piece of the pie already sitting in the kitchen.

I can not decide that I no longer like the way pie tastes, or decide that the way the pie tastes will not trigger any desires to behave in certain ways in response.
RE: Wiping personalities/having new ones/coding in hardwired responses

Amnesia. Multiple personality disorder. Radical change in personality due to physical trauma. Afflictions that cause involuntary reactions (Tourettes).

Reset to default. Overwrite current personality/corrupt personality. Physical damage causing malfunction. Hard coded responses that can not be overridden by the conciousness.

It begs the question as to are we what we think we are? Are we any different from a sufficiently developed machine? Yes, evolution developed us, so our current production run took a lot longer to go into service than Ping's kind probably will, but *how* are we more? And what is a valid test to see if "They are Us"?

The reason I class Ping as a person:

1) She is intelligent and can reason at a high level.
2) She seems to display emotion - I have come down on the side of her really "feeling" as opposed to emulating such things due to given stimulus. She agonizes over how to fulfill her given roll.
3) She seems to be self-aware. Again, she is conflicted as to what her role is, has operated for a while without a user and wonders what she should be doing.

User avatar
darrin
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by darrin » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:44 pm

Roamer wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:11 am
darrin wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:46 pm
(That is, Ping being awesome doesn't give the Old Man and Sony free passes for anything they care to do downstream of that act of creation.)
Or anything they did upstream of the act, either.
Yes, indeed. (I had considered including "upstream" as well to refer back to the "why she was built" part of my previous sentence. I do believe that questions regarding their motives should be directed at the whole process.)
And Liminaut, the comparison between netflix and the studying of Junko and others to assist in the creation of Ping's personality is interesting but nonsensical.
That part I disagree with actually; I think Liminaut's analogy cuts right to why, for example, paarfi and I (and other posters on either side of the debate) can be disagreeing on so fundamental an issue (were the "data" from Junko and the other "study subjects" collected legally? consensually? ethically? "fairly"?), despite having access to the same in-comic evidence so far. The problem is that yes, plenty of companies have done lots of "questionable" things with customer data. More problematically (at least for those who would argue for, say, strong privacy rights), with the exception of particularly egregious violations, the companies in question are almost always able to pull up Terms of Service (or other forms of "consent") that the customers in question clicked "I Agree" on. This immediately raises the question of whether it's "right" for them to collect and utilize certain types of info (for their own profit) under any "terms", or whether it's "fair" to bury "consent" to such terms in a long-winded boilerplate document that has autoscrolled down to "I Accept" when you were just trying to respond to, say, a post from your friend on some new forum they just told you about. But (not for the first time in history) there's a big gap between what's "unfair" (or "not right") and what's actually "illegal". (Note that I never claimed Sony had "done right" by Junko and the other "interviewees"... just that I was pretty confident Sony would have done the minimal necessary to not expose themselves to legal trouble.)
The doctor isn't evil...
Not yet, no. But for me at least that is only by virtue of a) me not knowing exactly how he collected the data from Junko and the other subjects -- paarfi could easily be right on this; and b) his indifference to Ping as a self-aware individual (as opposed to a prototype of a Sony project) is suggestive of great potential harm to the "generations of disposable sex toys" that Ping may be spearheading... but it hasn't happened yet.
malcolm125k wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:21 pm
The reason I class Ping as a person:

1) She is intelligent and can reason at a high level.
2) She seems to display emotion - I have come down on the side of her really "feeling" as opposed to emulating such things due to given stimulus. She agonizes over how to fulfill her given roll.
3) She seems to be self-aware. Again, she is conflicted as to what her role is, has operated for a while without a user and wonders what she should be doing.
Those seem like good reasons to me, and I also class Ping as a person. The difficulty comes in trying to prove that to someone who doesn't believe it; to paraphrase the Admiral from that Star Trek episode, I don't know how I'd prove I was alive to someone who doubted it. Maybe she's just designed to "seem" intelligent, to "seem" to display emotion, to "seem" to be self-aware; I might choose to believe there's more to it than that, but I have no way to prove that to someone else.
Avatar by Broken, I changed the book
My rescripts, now with little bits of commentary for each one

User avatar
Liminaut
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: [1549] The sum of our parts

Post by Liminaut » Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:30 am

Ping certainly nukes the Turing Test. If we want to say Ping isn't sentient, then it becomes an issue if Largo is sentient or not.
Largo may be a bad example here. Say it becomes an issue if Erika is sentient or not.

And I agree with a previous poster, Dr. Giro's real ethical test is going to come soon. How does he treat Ping in the future?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests