JOI & K...She loved him right ?

SPOILERS...

There is one aspect of the film that troubles me. (well there's several ones but i'm only going to talk about this one in particular).

Was Joi's love for K real ?
I KNOW what you guys are going to tell me...NO because near the end of the film we see a gigantic ad, where she calls him "Joe", meaning that it was all fabricated and only gave him the illusion of love etc...She just was designed that way etc...

BUT !....at approx the middle of the film, when both Deckard & K are attacked by Luv's crew...(and you guys know where i'm going with this)...There's a key moment in the film where Joi realizes that her memory is about to get irreversibly destroyed...And right before Luv stomps on Joi (where she says: "We hope you enjoyed our product")...Joi's final words to K: "I lov..." (gets killed)

Right at that moment...It seemed real. Genuine. So, i know it's a fucking hologram, but i'm just talking about the AI itself. Yes it's a Tyrell product, but the AI itself is adaptable to the owner's personality and needs correct? But can it "love" ? or maybe "love" is not the correct word, but do you guys think it was somehow...sincere?

My point is...It felt real. And it also felt real during and after the sex scene.(When a rather pissed Joi asks the hooker to leave).

I think i already know the definitive answer to my question but i think it's fucking depressing when you think about it. In the sense that no matter how "real" her feelings felt, (which was the point..Make belief), it was all bullshit since day 1. But shit! K's existence was fucking sad man...His whole arc is just a collection of disappointments..

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5AHgLVBx0rc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

That's the whole point. Joi is meant to make you question if simulated emotions can be sophisticated enough to be considered real. If she has all the trappings of genuinely loving him, is that love?

However the film strongly hints that the answer is no, K sees that Joi is a corporate product designed to say what he wanted to hear. Consider this: did Joi have any choice in the matter? Is it love if she's literally programmed to do whatever her owner wants?

It's 0's and 1's. Not human.

She loved him but had no choice in the matter. She's a commercial product designed to be the owner's companion and nothing else.

>That's the whole point. Joi is meant to make you question if simulated emotions can be sophisticated enough to be considered real. If she has all the trappings of genuinely loving him, is that love?
>However the film strongly hints that the answer is no

I still felt real though. (yes, it's the whole point)..But there was a point in the film when Joi's AI was more than self aware. It seemed ambiguous to me. As though her AI was becoming sentient..

>Was Joi's love for K real

it's not real love if you don't have a choice

No no no.

Not human. Not love. Just a program.

Idiots.

>did Joi have any choice in the matter? Is it love if she's literally programmed to do whatever her owner wants?
Good question..
She had no choice...But was the AI learning to love him for real ? Do you think there was a possibility that she went "rogue" ?...Maybe it's just wishful thinking. But that scene right before she's about to get stomped on gave me that lasting impression. (even though we're talking about a hologram & Tyrell product)

>it seemed real

Duh thats her job

She never breaks her programming, she was a big, empty, soulless, substanceless automaton and her love was as meaningful as the love of a stuffed toy with a soundchip.

Joi died, just like a real girl and K died, just like a real boy

yes, watch the deleted scene here

youtube.com/watch?v=5AHgLVBx0rc

pea brains will never know that feel of realizing this

Yeah I think she was somewhat sentient but the only way to be sure is if we can actually see a JOI actually grow to resent there owner

There are actually some scenes that feel kinda malicius in hindsight.

Like K showing her the emanator, does she react with joy because now she can go outside or because he bought a product made by Wallace and she is programmed to encourage that?

And buying the prostitute? Do all Jois do that given the chance? Those do profit Wallace as well.

You have to assume self preservation is programmed into JOI, and why would they when they would want to be able to turn her off at will

I don't think there's a definitive answer. My reading of the film is that it was not real love, just illusion. JOI saying what K wanted to hear, as advertised.

It gets more complicated considering that one of the writers personally felt JOI acquired humanity through the movie, so that by the end she was a real person essentially.

There were scenes filmed that would reinforce the writer's vision, but these were cut from the film. That, to me, further indicates that the director moved away from that idea as they began editing.

Like the original BR and its questions, this one is up for grabs.

A physical connection is important in relationships. A virgin wouldn't know about that.

No way they would programm that into her. The last thing you want is a joi guilt-tripping people into not not returning her or something like that.

>Was Joi's love for K real ?
There is no singular universal answer, the film deliberately makes equally strong points for both views on it. This will be discussed to eternity

You sound like you could use some love in your life, user.

>I KNOW what you guys are going to tell me...NO because near the end of the film we see a gigantic ad, where she calls him "Joe", meaning that it was all fabricated and only gave him the illusion of love etc...She just was designed that way etc..
You missed the ad copy that said "Everything you want to see...everything you want to hear."
She was a complex toy but basically an emotional pacifier for a critter that only had memories and emotional needs so that it could be stable and function for and among humans.
K's relationship with Joi opens new vistas of loneliness where the loss is never more real than at the bitter moment you realise that what you lost was an illusion.
You think Deckard was lonely? He was babby tier, K discovers he is absolutely nothing, but makes himself something by acting for a cause.
I give this subtle movie two thumbs-up in a circle.

I don't think the answer is absolutely that Joi isn't capable of love. It's important not to overlook how essential the scene with Deckard and wallace is (even if Leto is a piece of shit actor) because it complicates the theme of love– Is there really any difference between a simulation programmed to love, and a human whose biology and the chemical composition of their brain dictates how and who they love? There isn't any notion of free will in either case, so why should we distinguish between them?

Its also highly plausible that Wallace's god complex drove him to create as "authentic" a product as possible, both in his replicants and in his holograms, to such a great extent that both were able to deny their regular programming.

>people choose who they love

His attitude to replicants, evidenced by the way he opened a new one up just to make a point, contradicts this. His minion was the same when she stomped the Joi out of K's life. It's a product, an appliance.
These attitudes should trouble us, since we are on the brink of dealing with objects that might be subjects before we even know ourselves.

I don't think Joi was actually a person, i.e. she wasn't actually self-aware and didn't have qualia (unlike replicants, which are basically non-human persons).

There's no reason why her programmers would have made her any more complex than she needs to be. She's just complex enough to pass the Turing test, but that's it. Passing the Turing test however is not necessarily sufficient complexity for self-awareness. The reason she seems so convincing is specifically because she's designed to be whatever the customer wants her to be.

Think about how many people are out there believing in things that should be very unconvincing, like cancer patients thinking that they can cure their illness with baking soda or people becoming religious when they near death, because they are basically promised that they can escape death, and that's what they desperately want to hear. People can believe in some very unconvincing things when they're desperate enough. And K was in a very desperate place in his life, having no one out there that loved him and having no real meaning for his life, since he was just a tool. But Joi not only told him that he's special and convinced him that he's basically the chosen one, she also convinced him that there's someone that loves him. But in the end both were just illusions.

She definitely fed his insecurities, trying to provide him comfort and solace while making him feel special. She definitely worked better as a talking point for future AI, how even if you program an artificial Waifu (like the mini projector projects in Japan) it's simply hollow emotions with no true feedback.

To expand on this, the main difference between replicants and Joi is that while both are intelligently designed, Joi is designed from the ground up. Replicants are still DNA-based life forms with flesh and blood, and were designed based on the human template. This is to say, replicants are basically just humans with a bunch of modifications. This is why they have sufficiently complex mental faculties to be self-aware and experience emotion. In fact, this is a major flaw because it causes replicants to go rogue and become dangerous. You'd rather have replicants that have minds just complex enough to obey orders, but nothing more.

On the other hand, an artificial intelligence that's completely digital would have been designed completely from the ground up, since there's nothing in nature that you can just directly copy and slap your own modifications on top of it. So it makes sense that such AIs would only be designed to be just complex enough to pass the Turing test, but no more since having an AI that's self-aware would be a major liability, just as in the case of replicants.

>Consider this: did Joi have any choice in the matter? Is it love if she's literally programmed to do whatever her owner wants?
your mother didn't have a choice either, she was programmed hormonally to love you. is her love fake then?
even romantic love is hormonally programmed as a response to seing desirable traits in possible mates. does that mean that no love is sincere?

I guess the difference in that case would be how you are loved and to the degree. Not all love the same and the way they act shapes you where Joi was shaped by the owner.

If Joi wasn't sentient then deleting her backups and breaking her wifi makes zero sense, she should have immediately sold out K to Wallace

Joi isn't programmed to love or to feel love because she isn't sophisticated enough to do that. Joi is programmed to simulate love and whatever you desire to hear or see. In the same way Google adverts do.

Your mother on the other hand can break that conditioning and, more importantly, is sapient. She has real thoughts and she is aware of them. She can think about her own thinking. And she really does feel.

How do you know Joi is telling the truth, and not simply what K wants to hear.
Remember that the snapping alerted Luv to K going off the grid.

K deserves everything he got for falling in love with proprietary software instead of just downloading GNU/Waifu which the owner is free to study, modify and re-distribute (for NTR purposes) as he pleases.

but you connot either prove of disprove whether JOI is sentient

No person on the planet would be able to fall for K. He'd never find a real person that sees him as something more than a skinjob, or a murderer.
Joi was the closest thing to genuine love he could have gotten, she understood him and wanted him to be happy.

So maybe she was just an ordinary program designed for companionship. But for K, and to an extent the audience, she helped him feel more human.

>All these kids who think romantic love is even real

Get back to me when you're 30

>she
She is not a person. "Love" depicted was just a projection. Both literal and metaphysical. You're a desperate retard who missed the point.

if she had no choice as a wallace product why did she deliberately, knowingly and willingly encourage K to disable her software's ability to track him

Yeah, and humans are just electric signals buzzing around your synapses and neurons. This argument will always be stupid because we take for granted that we're somehow greater than the sum of our parts, but we can't accept that to be true for AI as well.