Isn't Joi just a disembodied replicant? She exceeded her parameters and became more than she was programmed to be...

Isn't Joi just a disembodied replicant? She exceeded her parameters and became more than she was programmed to be. There was definitely sentience there. Didn't the replicants themselves go through a similar phase?

Other urls found in this thread:

latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-blade-runner-screenwriters-20171009-htmlstory.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

*He fell in love with what's marketed as a fucktoy hologram
*Joi's advertisements literally say "Everything you want to hear."

I loved Joi as a character and how she was essentially sentient... but I'm about 90% sure she's that way because K was going through a mental breakdown and trying to make sense of it all.

She's too perfect...she's playing the role he wants of her.

Is it any different than falling in love with a prostitute or her falling in love with you? Isn't that possible? Besides, Joi had a mind of her own. Remember when her and K disagreed about whether or not to erase her from the home console? She threatened to do it herself if he didn't.

If there's actually a debate intended by the film makers they're drawing from what's been done for the last 20 years, and the film is cliche and unoriginal.

If they wanted her to be a fantasy for the protagonist to get over then it's actually breaking new ground for the A.I. trope.

It's an illusion. She doesn't have a mind of her own, it's a purely logical and reasonable argument and K is fully aware of that.

She's playing up the drama, at no point in the movie does she do anything outside of what K wants to hear or see.

Even the sex scene is K's own wish fulfillment, he was attracted to Marriette, but he's in love with Joi and Joi arranged for it all to happen... just as K would want because that's literally her sole purpose.

>"Everything you want to see/hear."
He wanted her to be real just like he wanted to be a real human as well. Is it even possible to determine whether or not she was truly sentient or just fulfilling his wishes? IMO I thought the point was that the distinction doesn't matter.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the replicants are made and programmed, if they approximate human behavior then they are functionally human.

I've been thinking that possibly Joi didn't arrange for it to happen. After all, we know that the resistance cell wanted to keep tabs on him. Perhaps they altered Joi's programming to get her to invite the hooker over so K could have a tracking device placed on him.

>Even the sex scene is K's own wish fulfillment, he was attracted to Marriette, but he's in love with Joi and Joi arranged for it all to happen.
This is what makes me think she was an AI that really cared for him. Since i think she was hacked by the Replicant resistance to keep track of K, And one of the changes that happened in the hack must have given her sentience.

there was the "I've been inside you" line from Marriette directed at Joi

>1. The resistance has no screen presence prior to Marriette being told to tail K.
>2. They're never shown to have the capabilities to reprogram or alter Joi to any degree
>3. At what point would they have reprogrammed Joi?

I get it, I do. It's extremely convenient how everything happens exactly as they want it to... but there's no evidence presented at all that it occurred that way and is anything more than "right place, right time" along with it thematically introducing fewer characters by Marriette being their surrogate and later revealed as a resistance member.

Needless reaching, they already wrote Joi into the cafeteria scene. Anything more is just fan fiction because it's not a hole that needs to be filled.

Agreed, I keep seeing that theory pop up but there's no evidence for it and no need for it. It's not an problem that needs solving.

>Movie concerned with how artificial people are still essentially human
>lmao she's just an ai

Literally retards.

I'm sure they could have bugged him any number of other ways. This opportunity just arose.

>grown humans and data
>remotely comparable
You're the retard. There were holograms all over this film to hammer home the fact that she was an entertainment product and you still didn't get it.

>She exceeded her parameters and became more than she was programmed to be.


did you watch the movie? Because thats 100% false

Joi is designed to be whatever you want to see/hear. It obviously learns about you and your interests and acts accordingly.

If it wasn't programmed this way, nobody would buy it.

Just like there are replicants all over to hammer in the fact that they are soulless slaves. Eat shit, retard.

>Isn't Joi just a disembodied replicant? She exceeded her parameters and became more than she was programmed to be.
No she didn't

Do you honestly think Villeneuve would have bothered with such an overdone theme if he wasn't taking a firmer stand, or is this just the first film you've seen with AI in it?

>Replicants treat AI like humans treat replicants
should we not sympathize with replicants?

>K goes against his programming
>Joi doesnt

is it really that hard to see?

Joi went against her programming when she became highly distressed when K was knocked out. She detected that K was unconscious and therefore knew that K could not see or hear her yet she still exhibited strong emotion on her face but she truly felt that way.

>Isn't Joi just a disembodied replicant
not at all, the way I see it; Joi is pretty much a commodified AI (which I doubt was sentient btw), whereas replicants are purpose-built beings with a human base, which makes them much closer to human beings than Joi will ever be, although sadly still artificial. This is also why Mariette said what she said to Joi after the 3some.

>She exceeded her parameters and became more than she was programmed to be
not likely, I don't think she ever went beyond her purpose and selling preposition (mostly communicated in the Joi ads) throughout the movie. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I liked this movie better when it was called Armitage the III

Joi went against her programming when she became highly distressed when K was knocked out. She detected that K was unconscious and therefore knew that K could not see or hear her yet she still exhibited strong emotion on her face because she truly felt that way.

Wouldn't Wallace put in a failsafes for his software aiding and abetting people in crimes? Especially actions against the interests of his company?

I think she went against her programming when she told K to break the antenna in her emanator.

None of that indicates sentience. She was just programmed that way.

Imagine if Google were the owners of Wallace's company. They would have been wiretapping him the moment he was put on the case. Especially after Luv realized he owned one of their products.

i wish i had dat poster for my room

>Movie concerned with how artificial people are still essentially human
>lmao she's just an ai

Literally retarded

I disagree, that behaviour still suggests that she's acting according to her programming. although...

>I think she went against her programming when she told K to break the antenna in her emanator.
that does make it sound plausible

Fucking brainlets, she's not capable of feeling anything. They're programmed to try to wake up their owner in an emergency. The whole fucking point for her to exist was character development for K. Very first scene with her made it really obvious that she's not sentinent on any level yet the movie managed to make you develop adorement for their relationship, until it had the very un-dramatic (on purpose) 'death' scene of Joi. Because you aren't SUPPOSED to feel strongly about her or them, but about K. You just got lost in delusion, just like K

that IS her programming dude.

Going against her programming would mean she would tell him something he doesnt wanna hear, show any signs of neglecting him or egotistical motives.

She doesnt, through the entire movie she is his perfect companion only caring for him. Thats what makes her a machine.

That scene with her giant hologram is the visual representation of their relationship, something seemingly big and sensual but ultimately empty and void of substance.

her “realness” is questioned from the start

note that in the rain scene whenever a light passes over her she disappears?

>you're only human if you go against another person's wishes
K really seemed to have wanted to leave a backup file at home. She told him she would delete it herself but she was giving in the chance to do it.

What part of Wallace's character made you think he cares about crime? It's not even possible for Joi to aid and abet a crime anyway.

why would she be programmed to do things even when K is not watching and more importantly why did the movie's creator intentionally show us that she will still experience severe distress in the absence of K?

>not the more obvious moment when she literally froze up while K had an incoming call
bruh

K wanted to take her with him without feeling guilty about it and the AI recognized this

But in a future-less future, there’s nowhere for the story to go, and it doesn’t; the farther the movie spins off from its inversions of the original, the more we discover that it has no real ideas, and makes increasingly less and less sense even on its own terms

>experience severe distress
lmao

read

Come on. You're reaching now. He didn't even think about it until she brought it up and she told him to go a step further by snapping the antenna. Besides, to what extent or humans "programmed" and how is an AI any different than a replicant consciousness?

why do you word your post like it's fact when it's actually just your opinion?

> Screenwriter Hampton Fancher explained that, “[K] is a handbook. He follows the rules. He’s a machine in a way. But the image was this: A handbook turns into a poem through his experiences and his ordeal and love. And the same thing with the digital woman.”

There are several ways an AI could be useful in assisting someone in a crime.

For instance, it is probably illegal to modify your Joi. It would void the warranty at the very least. I don't think Wallace would want their software to tell end users to do that.

>reaching
Detecting stress level is very fucking basic shit, even our AIs can do it. She detected that he was stressed about leaving her behind. I don't think you understand it very well; she's been programmed to suggest solutions a person like K would want to hear. Breaking the antenna wasn't any different than the windows clipper suggesting you to save back-up files

Breaking the antenna and deleting the data were things he needed, it was her job to provide, which is just what she was going to do.

lol
if he actually did say
>And the same thing with the digital woman

then every brainlet in this thread and all past threads has been erternally btfo and you should have showed up with this quote sooner

Because it is fact, the movie isn't ambiguous at all

Because replicants have bio-chemistry and are subject to the same strains of physics and time that humans are. An AI will always only be what it's written to be.

K didn't modify her, he just deleted her backups. It's obviously up to the user what they do with their product, no moment in the film proves otherwise.

no no no
JOI means
Jack Off Instructions

>two chobits fall in love with each other
>both following their programming
Is it true love or not, Sup Forums?

yeah it stopped being ambiguous now. but you weren't right.

Because he's not a pussy who thinks you have to type "IMO" before every discussion point.

They think they're clever because they took an AI related course or some shit.

Not that guy but latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-blade-runner-screenwriters-20171009-htmlstory.html

>when Sup Forums reveals itself for the brainlet hive it is

gay fanfiction

He broke the antenna in the emanator

If this AI is programmed just to love and serve, with no backend failsafes, then that isn't a good argument against sentience. Replicants are also engineered with a purpose and personality.

AI courses do address the possibility of Strong AI though so no they haven't even done that much. They just can't perceive how a computer could possibly feel emotion and it's this fact they base all their arguments off.

But people don't understand that Blade Runner isn't even based in our reality. The original was set in 2019

It's his emanator he can break it if he wants. Wallace corp. didn't lease it to him.

science fiction genres attempt to create a world that is feasable given our current knowledge of science. This is why Star Wars is not considered science fiction since no science so far gives any indication that 'the force' could be real.

in order for Joi to perform her function she needs to be able to read K like nothing else can, so my thinking is that she read that 'snap the antenna' is exactly what K needed to hear and said it. Notice that she lacks concern for her current self here which is a clear lack of self-preservation which suggests non-sentience (or maybe self sacrifice, but I think former is more likely)

>to what extent or humans "programmed" and how is an AI any different than a replicant consciousness?
said but I would add that replicants are also created with built-in fake memories (hugely one-upping AI in human-likeness). Fuckin cmon how can you even see AI as anything similar.

>She exceeded her parameters and became more than she was programmed to be. There was definitely sentience there.
The main question poised by joi's existence is do you even need a body to be sentient... After all, emotion is essentially just biological data that is processed and interpreted by the brain. If you think about it, humans are nothing more then biological programs whose decision making algorithms (or psychology) is able to adapt and change when learning or experiencing new information... we're all just data, so should joi's lack of a physical body make her any less alive then a replicant or human?

He's talking about the short story he that was the basis of the movie though.He isn't giving a definitive answer regarding the movie. You know other writers and directors might have had different visions.

To me it's obvious that Joi evolves with K once he finds out he's a real boy, and I don't think the scene with the giant joi means what OP think it means. But hey it's still open to interpretation

If Joi was sentinent why did K say 'you don't need to tell me that' when she said she loved him?

Nice poster

it becomes far fetched though to accept OP's statement as truth once the established cannon in previous iterations of the story goes against what OP is saying.

If Joi was sentinent why didn't she have a fucking huge identity crisis? Why would Wallace ever make Jois even remotely sentinent? That's just an unpredictable risk for no reason

It just doesn't make any sense

just think of a typical situation concerning two real people. it's basically him just saying i'm not so upset right now that i need your emotional support to that extent.

I get what you're saying but I think most people (maybe including you) equate the nature of Joi's (AI) sentience to that of a replicant or human when in reality I think it would be vastly different

Extremely out of character for K. Nobody uses it like that to begin with, you only pretty much say it if you're being cheeky (think han solos "I know"), or if your gf is a program

>i'm not so upset right now that i need your emotional support to that extent
He's saying "I know you love me".

>your gf is a program
that's exactly it I think. K's not stupid, he knows what Joi actually is but he's so caught up in how realistic she is (he literally remarked on this to Luv at one point) which is a very human quality (think anime body pillow husbando/waifufags lmao)

>Why would Wallace ever make Jois even remotely sentinent?

He wouldn't. Just as no replicants were designed to be able to rebel. Them breaking their design implies sentience.

any doubt replicants and humans have about AI is the same as the doubts humans have about replicants. They are just doubts. After getting to know the replicants better humans realize that replicants are the same as humans.
Likewise, once replicants and humans get to know AI better they will realize they are the same as humans.

Having DNA and being a bunch of 1s and 0s are different. You don't accidentally program sentinence

our brain's neurons operate on high and low signals (same as 1's and 0's). Anyway, why are you trying to against the established cannon regarding Joi and AI?

Then every single AI movie is inherently flawed.

>cannon

Most AI movies are about sentinent AI going rogue, not it accidentally becoming sentinent

The sentience is a natural byproduct of them being human in every regard except their origin. AI shares none of their qualities.

No shit, it's science fiction.

You seem like a good Joe, user

>Having DNA and being a bunch of 1s and 0s are different.
It's actually not at all. 4 chemicals than can only bond with one of the other 3, making 2 base pairs. Guanine with cytosine and adenine with thymine. It's information stored chemically in binary.

This. And if society had enough information on human genetics that they are bioengineering people, they could select for genes that would pretty much guarantee subservience.

>THE SAME
oversimplification. the huge difference gap between human (+ replicants) & an ai would make for two very different type of sentience and intelligence.

>you postulate
for all you know once a neuronal structure obtains certain characteristics it always diverges to a particular type of sentience

>as you postulate in reply
it's the most reasonable position as far as we know though, no? don't see why we should jump into conclusions (unless I'm wrong in which case do educate)