How can a viewer be expected to care about the characters? - Westworld (2016) Discussion

[–] papamihel (1616) 7 years ago

Have you ever played an RPG video game? And if you have: ever wondered what NPCs did when the hero is not in town?
Now we know - their life is boring and pretentious.

reply

[–] thewaitress (1616) 7 years ago

I think so what a lot during this show. Anytime one of the hosts has some sort of altercation or "feels" some type of emotion, I always tell myself..but he/she is a robot. None of this matters, they are all just lines and lines of code made to look real.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11433) 7 years ago

Isn't that the point, to question what life is and the value of lives of a new sentience?

reply

[–] thewaitress (1616) 7 years ago

Sure but I would do so if that were a real person standing there. Not some AI made in a lab.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11433) 7 years ago

Why isn't self aware AI life? It may be something we created, and be different than life as we know it, but once they break programming and become self aware,and start making their own choices,they are no longer something made in a lab. They have transcended their program,and the thoughts and feelings they now have are completely their own.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Self aware? They know they are programs created by some engineer. Not sure how that makes them sentient, I can write a computer program that knows it is a computer program, that doesn't mean its any form of sentient life. To be any form of life the basics aren't being self aware as a monkey or dog is no more self aware than a speck of lint in the dryer. Life forms need the ability to reproduce... I doubt we are going to be seeing these robots squirting out little zoombas.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11433) 7 years ago

You absolutely cannot write a computer program that understands it's a computer program. You may program it to recognize certain aspects of it's own programming, but until it can achieve that on its own without you coding it, it's still just a program. The robots on the show are Strong AI, which does not exist yet. Reproduction may be within their grasp, simply by building more bodies. You are trying to define life as it pertains to you, but that is a false equivalency. Also, monkeys and dolphins have been proven to be self aware, which seems to indicate a certain level of brain function to be achieved.

reply

[–] charliekelly (1018) 7 years ago

That's just it though - they are not "lives". They are appliances that are programmed to simulate a sentient state. It seems as though they have now been programmed to carry out some sort of revenge plot.

So, do I feel bad for my toaster in the morning when it gets a little hot? Absolutely not. Would I all of a sudden start to feel bad if someone somehow convinced my toaster to try and kill me? Something tells me I would care even less at that point.

That's why this show was so much better when there were movie human story lines to care about. William is still interesting to me, but they really need human Ford to come back, if that wasn't the real him that got shot. I'm glad they are starting to cover Elsie and Ashley's story lines again. They are much needed IMO. One of the biggest mistakes yet, to me, was effectively trading Theresa's character for Charlotte's. I really hope some big twist or revelation happens to change my mind, but like TW, I find it hard to care about a show centered around robots.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11433) 7 years ago

See above

reply

[–] charliekelly (1018) 7 years ago

You pretty much stated my reasoning as to why they don't classify as life - we created it. No matter what you believe in terms of religion, be it creation or evolution, these robots didn't come from it. They are man-made. They didn't occur naturally. As I've talked about with others, I don't believe that AI is the next step in human evolution. If you do, I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it.

In real life, I don't think we will ever be faced with the "they are beginning to feel" dilemma. If so, I will never be one who sees it as much of a dilemma. To me, that will be all the more reason to get rid of them all, even faster. I see it as a threat of extinction, not evolution.

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 7 years ago

If someone duplicates the human body and brain in every detail with synthetic materials, why is that not the same thing we are? As if chemical composition makes all the difference. If they can then build new synthetics, i.e children, is that not reproduction? If they make improvements to themselves isn't that evolution? You have to ask yourself whether you're simply creating artificial distinctions because you want there to be a distinction. Some differences are important and fundamental and some are just differences. What does it matter how you came into the world? It's the same experience no matter what your nature; there's nothingness, and then ... here you are! The building (or growing) part came before you arrived.

reply

[–] charliekelly (1018) 7 years ago

Yeah, it's people like you that scare the shit out of me. The distinctions aren't artificial, the robots are. Again, I understand your point of view. I don't need it explained to me due to a lack of intelligence. I just adamantly disagree with it.

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 7 years ago

Would you say that a sentient alien being was inherently less than one of us? Would you only respect them because their ship could probably blow us all to hell?

What about if the alien was an artificial life form? Suppose it evolved, from basic building blocks like nanites coming together like cells and DNA did on Earth. So it's not manufactured, it wasn't directly designed by another intelligence even if the original building blocks were, it evolved in a biosphere of similar forms (call it n-life). Is that different from a manufactured synthetic or are they all the same regardless of origin?

What if we replaced the material in our bodies gradually - again, probably using nanotech of some kind. The natural bone is gradually replaced by carbon composite. Other tissues are replaced by substituting natural proteins and other substances with synthetic ones that have similar properties and look the same but are more durable. And lastly, neurons are replaced the same way. All memories and everything else remain and the person isn't even directly aware of the process happening but when it's finished (and it might take quite a while, months perhaps) their brain is now composed of artificial material yet works exactly the same. At what point did this person stop being a person in your opinion? Early on? Halfway through? Closer to the end? Or are synthetic humans converted from natural born different than ones who were always synthetic?

I won't bring up the topic of religion, except to say that people who feel as you do tend to believe there's something extra in a human that gets lost if you transfer a consciousness - and never existed at all in a sentient machine. If you don't believe in stuff like that it's a simple matter of differences that make no difference being no difference. If I could upgrade my body to something that would last indefinitely instead of a few short decades, I'd do it in a heartbeat!

reply

[–] charliekelly (1018) 7 years ago

Would you say that a sentient alien being was inherently less than one of us? Would you only respect them because their ship could probably blow us all to hell?[/quote]

[quote]the original building blocks were[/quote]

[quote]Or are synthetic humans converted from natural born different than ones who were always synthetic? If I could upgrade my body to something that would last indefinitely instead of a few short decades, I'd do it in a heartbeat!

No and no.

You included my answer in your question.

To me, that would be slightly different. If what you're describing could ever be a reality, it would be an incredible opportunity that I, too, would do in a heartbeat. That said, in what you're describing, it would be just like me. So, there would be no fear of this "take over the world" nonsense. And, if there was even the slightest hint of it, I would be totally fine with being "put on a leash" in exchange for my extended, or perhaps eternal, life. I'm not religious, but I would be afraid that there would be something extra that would get lost in the transfer. Though, as afraid as I would be of that, it would pale in comparison to the fear of death. So, I'd swing for the fences.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11433) 7 years ago

If an advanced race came to earth and told you that you were a genetic creation made by them, would you be any less alive?

reply

[–] charliekelly (1018) 7 years ago

I imagine I would have the same will to survive that I have now. I just wouldn't be under the impression that I was on par with, and certainly not superior to, the advanced race that created me, and subsequently attempt to take over and slaughter them all. I would probably be a good little boy and keep my mouth shut, and just be incredibly grateful that they took the time to create me in the first place. I would know good and well that my life was of lesser value than their's if they created me. Your question pretty much clears up my entire stance and issue with AI and it's unpredictable future. These nuts and bolts don't know their place. I would.

Now, if you're just hell-bent on applying the word "life" to AI in order to please people like yourself and chrisjdel - go for it. My issue is when people act like AI "life" would be equal to ours, the creators, let alone superior. I literally laugh out loud at people who think something we created can be better than us. The only way that can be accomplished is through our children. This is not evolution. They are toys. The same way I would be to that advanced race ⬆️.

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 7 years ago

Perhaps not on par with them right now. With sentience comes the ability to rewrite the rules, and in time we could exceed those creator beings. Through genetic engineering and technological enhancements, what would take natural evolution tens of millions of years could be accomplished very quickly. And sometime in the next hundred years (or two) quite possibly will be. Any progenitor race that went around creating life would probably be happy to see us grow into our potential, not angry at our impudence or afraid that we'd go on a killing rampage. I think a lot of the paranoia around sentient AI is just that. Xenophobic tribal instinct rearing its head. An ingrained tendency to distrust The Other.

It's unfortunate that the same word "life" is used with humans to describe both our biological processes, the part we share in common with the simplest living things on the planet, and our consciousness, our minds. The "you" part. In a body designed to work just like ours, move like ours, feel like ours, sense the world as we do, provided there were no telltale hints - like excessive strength or visual acuity way beyond normal - even the synthetic would believe they were human. You certainly couldn't tell them apart based on their behavior because their brain works just like yours. The only difference between you and them is chemical composition.

As for children, does it really matter HOW you make them? Synthetics could have children too. A small number of them set down on another planet could give rise to a whole new civilization. If you study biology one of the first things you learn is that there's no simple set of criteria separating life from non-life. Calling something that thinks, feels, and has desires of its own not alive (or not a "real" person) is an arbitrary statement having more to do with your personal prejudices than anything else.

reply

[–] charliekelly (1018) 7 years ago

Oh, so now I'm just confused due to my "personal prejudices" or my Xenophobia that I now apparently have. So now the PC police are out to protect AI as well? Lol, goddamn, that's a good one. It seems like you're young, so I'll forgive you for thinking that every conversation has to have a "winner", and in order to achieve said "victory", one must insult the other participant. It's just not possible for two people to have different opinions on A COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL situation, is it? So go ahead, take your victory lap, Sport. I'm out.

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 7 years ago

The xenophobia comment was in regard to the fear of AI turning on us, not you in particular but the generalized cultural anxiety about it. However you seem to be drawing a line because you want there to be a line. Here's what you said:

Now, if you're just hell-bent on applying the word "life" to AI in order to please people like yourself and chrisjdel - go for it. My issue is when people act like AI "life" would be equal to ours, the creators, let alone superior. I literally laugh out loud at people who think something we created can be better than us. The only way that can be accomplished is through our children. This is not evolution. They are toys.

On top of that having a condescending tone, it strikes me as baseless. If you were to duplicate the human body and brain in every detail, except using different materials, I fail to see the sense in claiming that something is still missing. Why just because we created something could it not be equal or superior - or become that way? Natural selection isn't the only possible basis for improving a species. Self guided evolution works too, and is a lot more efficient than trial and error.

It would be hard to protect something that doesn't exist yet. We should be thinking about our laws and how to regard sentient AI before it arrives on the scene. But of course, lawmakers won't even begin addressing the issue until they're presented with one right there in front of them.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

The only characters about whom I care are Elsie and Grace; and, at this point, I don’t know if either of them is human, although, at this point, they’ve been presented to us as though they are. Is it necessary to care about a story’s characters to enjoy the story? Why would it be? I like the movie No One Lives very much, but I like none of the characters. I like the story’s inventiveness and pulp preposterousness. I didn’t like any character in The Ninth Gate, but I liked the story. I really enjoyed the Spartacus cable series, but I liked few of its characters; so too, the HBO/BBC series Rome. Did Poe write ANY stories with even sympathetic, let alone likeable characters? I’m hard-pressed to name one; but he wrote many engrossing stories anyway. So far, I’m watching WW for the events, not for the characters, and I’m enjoying it very much.

reply

[–] zeesha (1826) 7 years ago

I found an answer for you:

Lee: "Your daughter, she's just a story. Something we programmed. She's not real."
Maeve: "Not real? But what about me? My dreams? My thoughts? My body? Are they not real? And what if I took these unreal fingers and used them to decorate the walls with your outsized personality? Would that be real?"

...LOL

Seriously, I think the main reason could be that these host characters are almost real as those human characters. To help you understand this "almost human" point of view, let's assume there is a person in real life and you hate his guts. Now, you might print a real size photo of him and then burn it like what we saw in the news of some protest. But in future, you might go to the westworld, order a clone(host) of that man, and then burn him alive. Don't you think it would be inhuman to watch him twisting in fire, hear him screaming in pain and smell the smoke from his flesh? Or you think that is no different than burning his photo?

reply

[–] atomicx (235) 7 years ago

No difference for me. A robot is a robot, regardless of what it is programmed to do or say.

reply

[–] zeesha (1826) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zeesha (1826) 7 years ago

They are so much more than a programmed robot. Atomicx. They are designed to think like a human, feel like a human and act like a human and above all - they are learning from human. Before the rebellion, it was true that they were following their script (do and say as programed), but once the guest choose to interfere, then they would go off the script and improvise what to do or say like a real character, corresponding to the guest - that's how the guest get his own story in west world.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11433) 7 years ago

You are right. More than learning from humans, they are reasoning and learning from themselves. If robots existed with the same level of awareness as these,we would absolutely recognize them as sentient beings.

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 7 years ago

Neural network processors are patterned after biological neural networks - our own brains in particular. They work the same way. There are nodes called neurons and connections called synapses, and the wiring pattern looks exactly like the web of connections in an organic brain. It's a different design than standard computer chips with their maze of straight line circuit pathways. The brain module of a host is nothing like a regular computer or smart phone. Totally different operating principles. Synthetic humans (call them androids if you like) whose artificial brains have the same level of complexity as a human brain could in theory think and feel exactly as we do.

They don't program the hosts on this show as such, their memories and the environment are manipulated to get them to behave in a desired way. And frequent "resets" ensure that they never stray far from their appointed roles. Well, they didn't until Ford kicked off his revolution.

reply