If not AI then what do you contribute her decision to in aiding K with escaping from the police?And I wonder if an entity like Joi could ever be sentient with enough A.I.
Her function is wish fulfillment, not law enforcement. If she was sapient she might do something that K didn't like but she judged would be better in some other way besides his immediate needs.If not AI then what do you attribute her decision to in aiding K with escaping from the police?
But she did do something he didn't like, self harm for his benefit. It wasn't his wish that she make a decision on her own to aid him nor was it his wish that she put herself in a losing situation to aid him. Scenes like her enjoyment of the rain would seem to indicate that she was capable of self-awareness.Her function is wish fulfillment, not law enforcement. If she was sapient she might do something that K didn't like but she judged would be better in some other way besides his immediate needs.
"Seem to" being the important part. She might appear to enjoy rain because that assists in making her appear "real" to fulfill her role as a companion. And she arguably did no self harm if she doesn't really exist. She is just providing one final kindness at what was going to be their last interaction one way or another. Why wouldn't she do that for K? What does she truly have to lose as a non-person?But she did do something he didn't like, self harm for his benefit. It wasn't his wish that she make a decision on her own to aid him nor was it his wish that she put herself in a losing situation to aid him. Scenes like her enjoyment of the rain would seem to indicate that she was capable of self-awareness.
Joi is the product of a hologram projector, and that projector must have enough output to ignite a cigarette. So it didn't happen physically.She and K were interrupted during a kiss by a phone call from his boss, she was real enough to be able to light K's smoke with just her finger, but still Joi needed a surrogate in order to have sex with K.
I wouldn't say that anything 1984ish has really happened, either (outside of Maoist China). I can't think of any near term SF movie (or even story) where we have met or acceded the predictions. 2001, Space 1999, Strange Days, etc. Apparently no one wanted to create a story about people who sat around watching porn on their phones.Also, has anyone noticed this by any chance? The original Blade Runner was set in the year 2019. obviously 2019 is here. Haven't noticed any replicants as of yet, just like "Big Brother" didn't appear in the year 1984, as in the book or movie versions, although 1984 proved to be more prophetic than Blade Runner ......
By that argument, I'm little more than a faux-sentient being for my wife because I also enjoy being in the rain and that enjoyment is the result of electrical pulses firing off, the same as Joi."Seem to" being the important part. She might appear to enjoy rain because that assists in making her appear "real" to fulfill her role as a companion.
Hardly. Since we don't have an Joi type AI programs, I'm going to give you credit for being a fellow human being. And as a human being, I have a pretty good idea what it is like to enjoy the rain, and assume you experience life similarly.By that argument, I'm little more than a faux-sentient being for my wife because I also enjoy being in the rain and that enjoyment is the result of electrical pulses firing off, the same as Joi.
I'm not missing anything from your posts, I just don't agree that it is ambiguous as you think it is.But what you seem to be missing from my posts is that this point is ambiguous in the film. Joi may like rain, or Joi may simply parrot back to K about liking rain. It is one of the central mysteries of the film that make it, like BR, so interesting.
Why do you think they show the second Joi copy toward the end, and K's reaction to it? So we can have an argument?I'm not missing anything from your posts, I just don't agree that it is ambiguous as you think it is.
Wait, we're arguing?Why do you think they show the second Joi copy toward the end, and K's reaction to it? So we can have an argument?
Surveillance is rarely good, but I think the defining line is that there really isn't a power that can leverage surveillance to accomplish anything too dystopian. We don't have a secret police the public fearfully complies with, legal challenges to government authority work and whistleblowing is alive and well. Despotism requires power to use surveillance in a society-altering way, and that doesn't seem to be the case.Off topic as hell, but I'm going for it. Tiran, if I may, I have to humbly disagree with your assessment of the book 1984 in the regard that it hasn't come to pass outside of Maoist China. I recall growing up in the 1960's when privacy was at a premium. In the book, electronic surveillance, newspeak and double speak are at the fore. In our society today, we can't felgercarb in the woods without some form of camera watching a person. (obvious exaggeration, but I have a feeling one gets my point.) Today, electronic surveillance is literally everywhere. Every street corner, shopping mall, library, etc. Everywhere. That can be tapped into by whatever government agency has the tech and/or desire. EVEN inside one's own home if a person has a Siri, Alexa, or smartphone. Maybe not photographic tech, but an individual can certainly be listened to by someone who has the know how to do so inside of one's home. Orwellian by definition.
Then I hear the term "alternative facts" being bantied around by members of an administration. Sir, that is newspeak by definition, to the point of our buddy George spinning in his grave like a whirling dervish. Along with a meek public that takes it lying down. Sometimes I think 1984 has proven to be more prophetic than most of our religious texts, easily.
Thanks for your time and consideration, sir, and am looking forward to your rebuttal. Take care all.
To me, this film from the eighties is about as classic as sci-fi can get. I absolutely love the film noir feel, the way Los Angeles of the future is depicted, the acting of Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer, and especially the direction of Ridley Scott.
Imho, there is a ton to discuss about this movie, from which version is better, (director's cut to me) to the different ending, all the way to whether or not anyone believes Rick Deckard is a replicant. Any of which I would be happy to debate with you.
Most people realize, this movie was lightly based on Philip K. Dick's short novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", and also, imho, a better story was made for the movie than in the book.
Basically a detective story with sci-fi trappings, this movie is one that I always have listed as one of my all time favorites, along with "A Clockwork Orange". Not just in the sci-fi realm, but in motion pics in general.
Not only Ford and Hauer, but Sean Young, Daryl Hannah, William Sanderson, and Brion James lending more than just credible performances.
I would love to hear everyone's opinions of this movie........
@almostvoid Can you explain what you mean when you describe 2049 as "too suburban in scope"?Dick's sheep story was so different. I am glad what the director created. So original in so many ways. 2049 was a fail. Too suburban in scope. Looked good and that was about it
His need to find his origins. I mean Mr Dick was about how characters lived. The 2049 seemed lame even if the director did really well the script seemed pedestrian.@almostvoid Can you explain what you mean when you describe 2049 as "too suburban in scope"?