Let's settle this: did she truly love him or not?

Let's settle this: did she truly love him or not?

I mean she told him to destroy the home console thing and keep her in the emanator. I don't get why she would say that.

>character named joi
>doesnt do a jerk of instruction video
what was even the point?

Yes she did. She even went outside her programming.

Because she loved him. Or because she wanted to feel... alive.

>tfw she appears in a transparent jacket like Zora in the first one
>she dies

Pottery

so he would have to buy a new one later

It's the 'was he a replicant?' of this movie.
What's important, is that K loved her.

Ofcourse she did love him.
Villenueve talked about the whole theme of the movie being not "are robots capable of human feelings" and more "does it matter" and that was the part of her arc, too.

Sure, she's programmed to call him Joe and say she loves him, but she also puts herself in harms way for him, shows distress when she realizes she's going to die, hires a hooker for him then tells her to fuck off when nobody else is around... none of that would have been explicitly programmed any more than we're genetically/sociologically programmed to react to queues, so does it matter at that point that she loved him in the first place because it was programmed?

Both of them were programmed/created—him to serve something, her to love—but at some point you're meant to accept their actions as having value in site of that.

It really seemed like he had never seen her naked before the Her scene

Can't be settled since it depends what you think love is

This.

*ssnnniiiifffff*

Ah, quite pungent my dear

Because that's what he wanted to hear.

Did you even watch the movie?

How would it even know that he wanted her to tell him to break her shit

Villeneuve basically confirming that virtual girlfriends are a-ok!

She didn't love him. She's programmed to do one thing, be the perfect woman. That's why the advertising says Everything You Want to Touch, Feel, Hear, Be. Joi is designed to stroke your ego, like the ultimate prostitute she provides the experience of a loved one by feeding your most vulnerable personality traits.

So no, she didn't love him, and she didn't think he was truly special. She told him that because that was what he wanted to hear. She died because she was designed to beg to always be near him, to act like their love was inseparable. To him, she was designed to be everything. To her, he was just an average Joe.

What people calls "love" is just a chemical reaction that compels animals to breed.

I want one. Her being a hologram with AI and not just a sex doll with AI makes her see m more pure and the emotions more real even

do you guys think all JOI holograms were programmed to eventually hire hookers to project their image onto and fuck their masters with?

No, and he knew this by the end. The entire point of his arc is that everything in his life is fake, including the only thing he thought loved him. She was simply a program created to lie in order to make lonely men feel loved.

Its this revaluation combined with the fact that he isn't the chosen one that finally breaks him.

All these virgin autists trying to claim she actually loved him are retarded. His reaction when he sees the Joi hologram at the end that calls him Joe, a name he thought his Joi gave him out of true choice and love is the realisation that it's all fake.

*tips fedora respectfully in your direction*

The ultimate experience won't constantly remind you she isn't real. K never once said anything about her being fake. In fact, he even reprimands her during one of the scenes where she reminds him she is just 1s and 0s. If Joi was truly an illusion programmed to appear real, she will never have been programmed to shatter the illusion.

She was programmed to love him, so yes. Doesn't make the love less real.

does she look like Riley Reid THO?

only autists think this makes it less meaningful

>AI orders me pizza
WOW A REAL HUMAN BEAN

>what are cookies 500 Alex?

>The autist that didn't get the point
Holy shit. The director literally spoonfed you with a similar scenario with Deckard. What were you thinking when Rachel 2 appeared after Wallace said that Tyrell programmed the former to love him and he could give Rachel back to him?

If you think everything in K's life is fake then clearly you thought that Deckard and Rachel's love is fake as well. But you didn't. You didn't once question if Rachel's love for Deckard was real or not. Why is Joi different? Because she doesn't have a physical body?

Is there a male Joi for all the degenerate faggots and fujoshits of the Blade Runner universe?

Sure she woud, because if she didn't there would always be that niggling voice at the back of your mind reminding yourself that she's faking it. K is smart enough to know she's not real, but lonely enough to believe her when she says she feels real love for him.

It's like a woman saying she's faked orgasms in the past, but tells you its real for you. A grain of honesty makes the overall lie more believable.

glad I'm not the only one

deep thoughts

The question isn't if Joi loved him. The question is if she did so beyond just fulfilling her intended function and if not, how that impacts the meaning of that love.

She was genuinely excited and happy when K told her she could go anywhere in the world. Whe. she was "free" from the house. When she walked outside like an innocent child "feeling" the rain for the first time, completely mesmerized on her own. I don't think that was programmin. She was experiencing something new

At some point she moved or evolved past her programming. At least for a moments

>Why is Joi different? Because she doesn't have a physical body?
Yes, precisely. Love is a chemical reaction that requires the physical attributes to actually happen.

Replicants, while copies, still have those chemicals and organs inside them and thus are capable of love even though they can be programmed to an extent. Joi is literally nothing but a program, she isn't a physical being or a sentient AI. She is factually incapable of love.

You virgins really need to stop being so desperate for waifus.

I would unironically buy a JOI

Sure, she's programmed to call him Joe and say she loves him, but she also puts herself in harms way for him, shows distress when she realizes she's going to die, hires a hooker for him then tells her to fuck off when nobody else is around... none of that would have been explicitly programmed any more than we're genetically/sociologically programmed to react to queues, so does it matter at that point that she loved him in the first place because it was programmed?

No you moron. She is sold as a Jerk Off Instructor. Her ad is a huge nude model. People buy her knowing she is a fake. They just don't want to be reminded she isn't real.

It is like watching WWE. We all know it is a fake. The wrestlers know it is a fake. The audience knows it is a fake. But everyone still pretends it is real. Because shattering the illusion of it being an illusion is literally the worst thing you can do.

Only person who seems desperate here is you. Why are you so frustrated? She seemed sentient enough. And if replicants are programable them he is no different than her. If they can deviate and break "program" to feel on their own, I don't see why she couldn't evolve just the same if she was advanced enough.

Some user mentioned that she evolved pass her baseline. She transcended and became a real girl. The love was real.

>even though they can be programmed to an extent
>But AI isn't capable of being sentient

Fucking love the headcanon you are making up for yourself retard. Luv literally spells out they can remove the emotional aspects when pitching about mining replicants but on and on you go about chemicals and love.

>Virtual prostitute acts excited when you buy her a gift

Woah

and a real hero.

Staying in the apartment meant certain death, it's not rocket appliances

>Wallace corp product was excited when its Wallace product owner bought another Wallace product for it
>Wallace product acted in a fashion that provided gratification to its owner
I get what you're saying, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Joi's pitch is 'everything you want to see and hear'. What good would she be if she rolled her eyes at the mobile emitter and seemed disinterested at taking a stroll outside the apartment?

>evolved
is this because of the anniversary present?

>Wallace corp product tells user to delete herself instead of betraying the user to Wallace corp
Really makes you think

You retards don't seem to understand how machines work. They literally cannot "evolve". This is like saying the latest iPhone will be able to evolve constantly to keep up with newer models - it can't happen because they continuously hit hardware bottlenecks that affect the newer software's performance and this is the reason they release new hardware versions. It's simply a fact.

Joi's only function is to say exactly what its user wants to hear, the fact that you idiots actually believe she loved K is proof that you simply fell for her marketing too, despite being an outside viewer of a fictional product.

This is genius film making and the reason why we're even discussing this movie after seeing it, which rarely happens nowadays.

Well, there it is.

If she had an actual personality her final moment wouldn't be to just do her basic programming and try to tell her owner that she loves him one last time because that's what he wants to hear.
If she had pleaded or raged against the killer I could believe she was more than a love-simulator, but not with that final act that just cements that her programming puts the needs of the client before everything else.

I think people overstate the importance of that. It's not like she was an insidious AI designed to spy on its user. She wasn't defying a direct order from Luv or something. It's not something that can be used as 100% proof that she's acting outside programmed parameters.

How do we know that Joi DIDN'T betray K's position?

>Plenty of sci-fi where AI has evolved to sentience
>Including "Her" where they literally lift scenes
>NO THEY CAN'T EVOLVE BECAUSE I SAY SO
Autism speaks

I'd say partially because in the time that she was with K, her growth was basically nurtured by their interactions similar to how a parent fosters their child's development. Although the movie is dark, I don't think the writer and director would believe in such a nihilistic outlook. It certainly makes for a great debate though.

You're so condescending but you don't know the first thing about computer science.

Because we saw Luv killing K's boss and tracking him?

Because the transmitter was broken. It's why Luv went down to the police station. She'd been using the mobile emitter to track K's movements up until that point.

If she had programmed parameters, I would assume one of the given parameters would be never to break the illusion of her being an illusion.

Now before you spreg out like did. Remember it is not reminding the user about her being a lie. It is not reminding the user that he is living a lie.

The only autism here is you, in that you actually fell for the fictional marketing of a love simulator like an autistic loveless virgin.

She knows she's going to die, so she may as well tell him she loves him, for real, one last time.
It's a really human thing to do.

It is a sci-fi universe where you based it rules on actual reality and I am the one with autism? Ironic because it seems humankind would sooner achieve a sentient AI then bio-engineer a replicant. Really makes you think.

It really depends on a lot of things
(right now) code cannot write itself, but can be written to adapt to events. That's generally what people mean by AI. And it would be extremely unlikely that JOI's AI could develop new behaviors because that technology would be everywhere and not just in an AI gf. That's basically evident by the replicants. There would be no need for them if an AI that could understand itself actually existed.

>There would be no need for them if an AI that could understand itself actually existed.
Manual labor, that's all replicants are, the emotions are literally just flavour.

No fucking shit. No one is basing Joi on right now. We are talking about the BR universe. If replicants could evolve and gain humanity why can't an AI? Are we shown anything on the contrary?

there would be no reason to create complicated humanoids when a true AI could organize and develop routines for completing any manual task. Which is why you can assume that true AI does not exist
88713012
learn to read you worthless monkey

Which part of COLONIZE do you not understand moron. Yeah I am sure Wallace said something like I am going to colonize the stars with my millions of AI. I am sure a replicant is simply a holdover from the old BR movie anyway. Given that the original was exploring what makes a person a person, why would the sequel not delve deeper into the subject? Is a sentient AI without a body the same as a replicant? This isn't a unique theme that has never been explored before either. How can you be such a level 1 viewer?

@88713177
never reply to me again you brainless loser

>The entire point of his arc is that everything in his life is fake
You missed the entire point of the movie, congratulations.

its interesting to consider, okay so this AI was programmed to "love" someone, but how is that so different to the biological counterpart which is operating on the instinctual programming that evolution provided

Replicants are based on human dna. AIs are written in programming. It's established they're not the same. It's probably going to remain subjective because we don't know Joi's "baseline." We don't know her parameters, or the tech behind her, so we can't know for sure if she strayed or how far if she did. But it's possible any anomalous behavior on her part is because she had an anomalous owner, someone who wanted more from her than just a sex toy.

SHE LOVES ME!!!!

Replicants are humans, except for (reasons). There's nothing to suggest AI isn't real and that Joi wasn't an individual, and given the source material it's more than likely that she was.

>AIs are written in programming. It's established they're not the same.
Please show me the scene where this is stated.

The scene where he's looking at genetic records and she brings up ones and zeroes vs four letters?

the prologue?
the first film?

Are you retarded?

I get what you mean but to me that scene simple means that AIs and replicants are manufactured differently. We aren't explained how sentience is gained and I believe this was left explicitly open ended for our own interpretation.

...

Nigga you fucking dumb

Replicants being made from human DNA makes them achieving human emotions more in the realm of possibility. Since they're basically a form of human. It's not that AIs achieving the same thing isn't impossible, it's just that you can't say replicants doing it means AI can do it too. Because, as you said, they're manufactured differently.

Personally, I think K realizing Joi never really loved him works better for the movie. It's also possible that on the bridge K came to the conclusion Joi was just an AI, but she actually did achieve sentience without him knowing.

riley reid looks like an AIDs infested chipmunk with a pockmarked face, so no

>Personally, I think K realizing Joi never really loved him works better for the movie
I think it is the opposite. It is the realization that Joi was special to him that made me him realize that he could be special as well if he was special special like in the movies. That was what made him go save Deckard and bring him to his daughter.

Of course your point isn't wrong either, him going everything is a lie better go fuck it all up. There is no end resolution to such a journey.

who does JOI look like tho
i swear she looks familiar

Isn't all the argument itt really about whether joi has consciousness or just simulates it as a highly developed algorithm , with "genuine love" being just a fraction of said consciousness?

Penelope Cruz?

Technically the movie should be from K's perspective with respect to Joi but since this is Sup Forums and everyone loves a good waifu, people are arguing from Joi's POV. Depending on how you read the scene with the Giant Joi
That should be the real discussion

if your mind is on pornstars i'd say maybe gina valentina

More like better Lexi Belle

Fuck no. Not even the same skin tone.

I'm rather on face shape than colors

Funny how Gosling starred in Lars and the Real Girl, with a sex doll, and now in Blade Runner 2049 with a hologram.

She had essentially the same limbic structures as a natural human woman. So of course she was capable of love. It just wasn't exactly normal by conventional standards.

If a dog's love for it's owner is real so is a replicant's.

Not that we can see in the movie. Which I'm sure some fat blue-haired cunt is probably ranting about in her feminist community online right now.

The film AI did have Gigolo Joe as a male sexbot.

Joi doesn't represent love in this film, she represents the easy gratification provided by corporate entities preying upon our desires for affection and validation. Shockingly, the character called 'Luv' is the actual representation of love in this film, though it isn't presented as the means of our salvation.

I think this is where the movie failed for me.
Villeneuve tried to make Joi be two things to create controversy but this undermines her role as a plot device.

The whole fucking point of the franchise is uncertainty, and making the audience think about what it means to be "human" or to "love". You're just crying because it didn't spoonfeed you a narrative.

She wasn't simulating anything. Replicants are essentially remixed human clones. That's why the emotional testing was used instead of a metal detector.

You could say she was brainwashed and conditioned more effectively than a child raised in a religious cult, but such people are still conscious and have genuine emotions. They're just very weird emotions.

There is a difference between machines and machine learning. Artificial intelligence can evolve, grow.

In the film Her, Theodore Twombly is heartbroken when he learns his "virtual assistant" Samantha is also in a "relationship" with thousands of other men, and then leaves him for an AI Alan Watts.

One could argue that Joi is similar, merely simulating love, merely saying what K wants to hear. The fact that the naked Joi advertisement calls him Joe again does kind of shatter his illusions.

But if replicants can reach a state where they can get pregnant, it raises the question if holograms and "virtual assistants" can reach a state of genuine emotions. K is a replicant, is K's love genuine or just another simulation?

she never existed as a living being in the first place.

Wait, so this isn't a favorite jerk off instructions video thread?

Well I'll take my webms to /gif/ then.

>her name is jerk off instruction