She was too pure for this world

>She was too pure for this world
Did she really love K Joe[/spolier] or was it just her programming?

It was her programming to love him...

yes

She really loved him, but it was her programming

She didn't think twice

It's just code

She said it herself she is just 1s and 0s

Isn't all love programmed to some extent? No one chooses to love someone.

not much difference

She expressed awareness of her existence as a mere program on numerous occasions, by all accounts she was alive. She understood her mortality, and risked that to support our main character. We are shown later the mass produced sex object her kind are intended as, and it lacks any of the sophisticated awareness. She has seemingly evolved beyond her intentions.

she didn't love K and he didn't love her, she was following her programming and he was subconsciously trying to reach humanity, hence why he deluded himself into thinking he was the Replicant baby.
The scene with the giant naked purple Joi was the moment he realized it was all artificial and the only way to be human was to accomplish an act of selfless sacrifice, but at the same time he was guided to this realization by the "free" replicant woman boss so it can also be seen as him deluding himself once again and clinging to his last shred of hope to transcend his nature.

Did Deckard love Rachel or was he just programmed to?

There's no difference.

Pic related loved K more
She died loving him

Yes, but people are programmed to love certain traits and behaviours, their love is conditional.
Maybe the experience of someone in love is replicated perfectly in Joi, but it's still aimed and unconditional
more human than human

However, she never acted in her own self-interests. Everything she said and did was for K's benefit.

Her program directive was to make the customer happy.
Her programming told her K was happiest when he was being given validation.
Even sacrificing herself worked towards that end since it made K feel special that someone would sacrifice themselves for him.

It was her programming, but when an AI is programmed to be identical to a human and can experience emotion the same way a human can it doesn't make a difference whether it was her programming or not

an immaterial mass produced AI has by definition no self interest

because that's what people in love do...

imagine for a second you could magically make a cute girl fall in love with you permanently (ignore the morals for a second) yes that would be an artificial constraint but she wouldn't cease to be sentient

that's essentially Joi, except she doesn't have a physical body or age and the constraint was there from the beginning of her life

I had a different read on that scene.

Deckard had lamented loving his daughter despite being a complete unknown to her and it was unfulfilling.

The only confirmed love that K witnessed was from Rachael and Deckard's Voight-Kampf session, between two self-aware beings.

The giant hologram (especially when seen in parallel with Deckard rejecting the Rachael copy) was a rejection of loving things that cannot love you back.
(An "idea" like one's unknown child or an AI holowaifu.)

When confronted with competing directives: kill Deckard or kill Stelline, K decided to operate in the best interest of love.

Programmed to love
Cared and nurtured enough to become something more
Died for the right cause (Love)
Too pure

An actual sentient person would still act in her own self-interest. No matter how ga-ga in love she is, eventually, she would require some reciprocation. You would still have to demonstrate to her that you love her.

Love between sentient beings is a constant exchange.

K's Joi never did. She did whatever she thought would please him most, all the time, without any compromising objective.

she didn't exactly have much agency outside of the confines of holographic storage devices, she is dependent on K wholly, she has a natural reason to keep him happy.

I agree with all of this, you're talking past me
either you're too stupid to understand my relatively simple point or are being deliberately obtuse
I guess it doesn't really matter

>Did she really love K
EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO HEAR

That would imply, then, that she didn't really love him and she was just acting that way to make sure K didn't return her to the store.

How can I get a latina gf Sup Forums? They are the best women

don't be a dick. not him but his comment was well-stated counter with stuff from the movie if you disagree, not ad hominem bs. let's keep the thread pure for joi's sake

no it wouldn't

people are so hung up on the idea that an AI and a robot can love each other it's kinda pathethic

Joi represents something very appealing to a certain kind of Blade Runner fan.

that's the problem
it wasn't a counter at all, in fact I agree with pretty much everything he said

Sure it would.

>she has a natural reason to keep him happy.

If you chain a person up in the basement and tell them you'll only feed them if they can come up with a poem for you every day, that doesn't mean they're tapping into their inner artist because they want to, it's because they want to keep eating.

By saying that Joi has a natural reason to keep K happy, and pointing out her considerably lack of agency, you're implying that any love for K Joi appeared to have would actually be driven out of fear that an unhappy K would shut her down.

Dude, I'm agreeing with you. I am adding my point to your own.

Both K and Joi were gaining their humanity by their shared experiences and love, overcoming baselines and default factory settings.
Checkmate

they can't experience love, they were both deluded, Joi by her programming and K by his want for humanity

That doesn't mean that the Joi and K had real love.

He learned from his experience with Joi what real love is and isn't.

His "love" with her following programming and him LARPing being a normal man with a loving wife at home.
He saw what Deckard had for Rachael and his child and realized that's what love actually is, and gravitated towards protecting that thing.

Without his experience with Joi, he never would have had the sense of scale to know which love was worth protecting and which was greeting card-level sentiment.

Read the post m8
Experience, ordeals and love were making them more than just machines, handbooks, becoming poems
That's what being off baseline means. Too human to be a good slave.

you don't understand

Help me to understand then.

yeah but that like... what you saw dude...
Alternatively, he knew love and he lost it
Thne most human thing he could do was dying for the right cause, just like Joi died for love
Then goes on suicide mission to save love that we was able to recognize in Deckard

>this

Can we talk about how this movie mirrored the cultural experience over the last several years?

>>drone that knows he's a drone
>>only salve to his meaningless existence is digital escape that tells him he's special (videogames)
>>real girls hate it
>>thirsty, power hungry feminist with dreams of a "better world" destroys the escape (gamergate)
>>mc realizes that both were empty anyway since they were all a part of the same cultural dissolution force (wallace corp)

wattup, now he's got to rescue his father and fight for a semblance of family values in a world gone mad. its basically a biopic of half the userbase

It's easily the most Sup Forums-is-always-right movie since...shit, ever?

I hate to break it to you Morty, but, love is just a chemical reaction in your brain that compels animals to breed

Basically this. Your actions make you human according to the story. Or as much as you can be. I guess it's more what the being decides, which makes choice the pivot point.

Isn’t this the exact point of the movie? Is something that’s programmed or created ever real enough?

Does it matter what the origin of an emotion is?

Or is it just based on a perspective to yourself and your own beliefs

this film is about gamergate and the white race

J.O.I(JERK-OFF-INSTRUCTION) IS A PRODUCT THAT WILL DISPLAY LOVE FOR YOU(THE CONSUMER) AT 100% NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO
YOU COULD NEVER SPEAK TO HER AND MURDER CHILDREN AND SHE WOULD BE AT YOUR SIDE TELLING YOU WHAT A GOOD JOB YOU ARE DOING

SHE.
IS.
A.
TAMAGOTCHI.

THE HOLOGRAM SCENE ON THE BRIDGE IS K REALIZING HE HAD BEEN DELUDING HIMSELF INTO THINKING THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS GENUINE, WHEN THE ONLY REAL RELATIONSHIP IS BETWEEN DECKARD AND HIS CHILD, SO THAT IS WHAT K DIES DOING, GIVING SOMEBODY THE REAL RELATIONSHIP HE ALMOST HAD WITH WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS HIS FATHER(DECKARD)

>projecting Sup Forums faggotry in everything
Youre just as bad as the gg feminists and the SJWs or the faggot who said this movie was about feminism
Your obsession with shit politics is bad and you should feel bad

WRONG. THAT IS AN INCREDIBLY SURFACE-LEVEL INTERPRETATION AND YOU ARE A SCRUB.

???
but the parables are quite obvious
why does this make you so upset?

I'm sure emptiness is a part of it but I'm sure even the most alpha of fucks would get bored of his wife if he finds out a supermodel wants his dick (Deckard being his father, K wants to be a real human bean.) He was just depressed is all. Depression makes everything look like shit.