You ask them this question:darrin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:44 pmYes, 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.)
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.)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.
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.The doctor isn't evil...
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.malcolm125k wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:21 pmThe 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.
"If what you believe is true, what would you expect to see? How should Ping be acting if she is acting like a Thing, not a Person? Are you seeing what you expect?"
If he is of a scientific mindset, then this will produce results, or at the very least a good conversation.
And yes, everyone posting that his morality litmus test is upcoming, then yes it is. How this conversation/realization is framed will influence the outcome. Ashe seems to have thrown away an opportunity in a fit of pique, or at the least, was not equipped to handle something like this.