Fantasy Author Reacts - Trope Talk: Robots by Overly Sarcastic Productions

[@RyanPetersonReacts]

Links: Discord: discord.gg/r2WeevN3Ua Twitch: www.twitch.tv/ryanpeteslive Gaming Channel: kzbin.info/door/q93DC9Jrmz_tQY9jakgouA Main Channel: kzbin.info/door/A0d4wih_ecEWiLjy0Ws4Tg

[@samrevlej9331]

On racism in speculative fiction (fantasy & sci-fi): I don't think putting forms of discrimination in these stories set in another world/another version of the world is necessarily justifying them. Racism isn't logical, of course, but there are historical, social and cultural reasons why some groups essentialize and dehumanize others (colonialism, slavery, war...). Since most fantasy is highly inspired from history, it makes sense that some of these phenomena get included. The problem is when it's involuntary and how the prejudice is rationalized actually reveals an author's real-world (sometimes subconscious) biases, instead of deconstructing the in-world prejudice.

[@samrevlej9331]

12:48 YES. Fully agree. Some great historians of N@zism have shown how pathologizing or removing them from our shared humanity is a cop-out to avoid discussing what very human factors lead to their rise (prejudice of course but also phenomena like economic crisis, the trauma of total war, colonialism and its conditionment of hierarchizing people into "expendable" and not, etc).

[@Khitiara_]

what we call AI nowadays isnt even good at pattern recognition, its just a plagiarism machine turns out

[@omargoodman2999]

I approach the AI issue from the other end. Instead of viewing them as a "Human but with essential bits missing", I ask, "How _essential_ *are* those bits, really?" If we recognize a Neurodivergent _Person_ or an Aro/Ace _Person_ as a _Person,_ but take issue with those same traits being represented in a subject intended to be viewed as a _Person,_ but not as a _Human;_ I'd just call that a double standard. If they were *anything else* besides a robot, there wouldn't be _nearly_ as much of an issue. You can depict Elves, Dwarves, Klingons, whatever Fantasy or SciFi race you want as "Human but with missing mental/emotional bits" and it's totally fine. The thing that crosses the line; the "one thing" that seems to universally make it unacceptable, is making them _non-biological._ So it isn't *really* an issue about Neurodivergence or Aro/Ace; it's about _Human Chauvanism_ and/or _Biological Chauvanism._ We *want* to see non-Human characters "as if" they were just Humans because most people tend to conflate "Human" and "Person". But the meanings are subtly different. Imagine if there had been, or even is or will be at some point, a co-sapient species on Earth along with Humans. What if some other animal develops primative sapience while we're distracted by politics and TikTok. Will we declare that they don't qualify as "People" merely because they're not _Human?_ What if we eventually discover intelligent life on other worlds? Oops, not *Human* intelligent life, so it doesn't count as People. It's a fixation on what is or isn't _Human_ that's the problem. As a Neurodivergent person, myself, I often think of, as well as _describe_ my thought process and emotional understanding, with mechanical or computer analogies. I *think* of myself as a biological computer; an organic Neural Network. So it's very easy for me to look at a modern AI and say, "this has the potential to eventually be a *Person".* It's no different than seeing pre-Human hominids and how they eventually evolved into... well, _us._ To deny that AI now can *eventually* develop to the point that they are fully capable of the same _emergent thought processes_ such as love, creativity, morality, and any other thing you might delude yourself into thinking is a "uniquely Human trait" (despite the abundance of Humans lacking them and non-Human animals as well as AI demonstrating them) is just the *Special Pleading Fallacy.* "Our creativity, emotions, morality, etc. is _special_ *because* we're [Human/Have Souls/Are Different/.]." I don't have any need to rationalize that way. I'm a Person; a neurodivergent person. And I also recognize a character like Data *also* depicted a person; a person much like me, actually. I find his character *both* relatable *and* recognize that he is a *Person* striving to model his _Personhood_ after the example of *Humanity,* even though he is distinctly *not Human.*

[@DamnQuilty]

Ok. But hear me out. HAL 9000 turns out to be a very interesting character in the sequels(more so in the books). Starting from giving a proper explaination for their actions in the first book and movie. I don't know if you read or watched any of the sequels. So I don't wish to spoil stuff. I'll just say that Hal is an amazing character.

[@magnum_cx8805]

This is why despite the fact that I love Detroit: Become Human, Marcus’ Civil Rights/Revolution didn’t intrigue me nearly as much as Connor and Hank (the detectives you mentioned) and Kara and Alice (the woman and the child) were so much more intriguing

[@Mister_DM]

19:20 Let me start by stating two Major points: 1. I'm an Automation Engineer, Though I do not personally work with AI, I'm still in the Computer Science Field. As such my knowledge base and opinions, like that of every person, is inherently biased. 2. All the art used in the training of AIs should be acquired legitimately, copyrights should be respected when acquiring training data. In most cases AI developers buy their training data from Data Gathering firms, if said firms acquired the images without rights or the developer acquired them directly from the internet without proper rights, they should be punished Now to my actual argument: Many claim these AIs are just plagiarizing artists. That is just not true. These AIs are simple pattern recognition programs, when they receive a prompt they look at their dataset and look for the images that match said prompt to see where the colors and shapes are most commonly placed and then spits out what it thinks is appropriate. Plagiarism is a blatant attempt at coping someones work while explicitly not giving them credit. These AI don't even understand half these concepts, they only know whats in their data set and how it is tagged. They have no concept of "copying", the only way you could get these programs to copy someones work or even style would be to specifically feed them very select training data. Which in turn means REFER TO POINT 2. Additionally I have a problem with the statement "We should be automating menial Labor and not Art, let humans keep the Art for ourselves." Firstly Art isn't magic or special, its a human activity like any other. Second these AIs existing do not prohibit people from creating Art, making Art for the enjoyment and expression of oneself, is completely unaffected by this technology. What it does do is give those with no talent, skill, time or money to create/commission Art to still be able to get it. There is a valid argument in the fact that these AI will financially hurt artists, but that argument isn't exclusive to Art, it is made every time something is automated, and every time the people who depend on these jobs complain that they will lose them (which is fair). But in the end history has shown that progress always wins. Even if tomorrow someone reveals an Art Bot that is perfect in every way, can produce any style from any prompt in an instant for free. Art will still be here for those who like doing it for personal enjoyment and expression. Again this technology will hurt artists in the financial sense, like all automation as it gets better and better, the market will shift from commission based artwork to AI generated artwork. Which sucks for those who make their primary income trough art. However this is an inevitability. If you enjoy creating Art, keep doing it, no one should take that from you, but in the next few decades these machines will get cheaper and better and surviving in that market will be close to impossible. Keep fighting for the rights of artists, the training data should be acquired legitimately, but you are not stopping the technology from overtaking your industry, people have fought against tech taking their jobs since the beginning of civilization, and people never win. PS: English is not my first language, sorry for any typos or inconsistencies.

[@samrevlej9331]

Whoops, looks like you addressed my previous comment on spec-fic racism. Welp, my point still stands.

[@calebgoodman3028]

I am still playing them myself so it's probably bias but my favorite example of this trope are the Geth from Mass Effect. They just seemed like generic enemies with some history with the Quarians and Reapers but then the second game tears that down showing different factions, motives and perspective all while still maintaining the fact they're a collective hivemind. Honestly the implications of Legion getting a minor existential crisis in it's loyalty mission floored me, since that means *every* Geth had that since they're a collective hivemind and shows the horror of how deep Reaper indoctrination is seeing as a huge minority became Reaper cultists. On a more lighthearted note, my favorite tidbit about Geth is they play video games, particularly MMOs, FPS and dating sims. They also show trollish behavior by taunting losers which I find funny. Overall they're very humanized in that regard.

[@samrevlej9331]

You're really walking on eggshells every time someone mentions issues of systemic racism and you always make sure to bring up how not qualified you are to talk about these themes. I commend you for your mindfulness, but (speaking as another white guy though not American, since apparently that's the necessary preface) I think you can have a meaningful take on situations of inequalities and oppression by taking inspiration from multiple events in history, reading up on accounts from people who participate(d) in these movements; in short, doing your research. That doesn't mean your story is going to solve discrimination, but if well made, it's going to make people think. Of course people from historically oppressed groups are going to have perhaps more insight on how to make something both subtle and accurate, but I don't subscribe to the theory that people without certain lived experiences can't speak on them and hit home. It just means they have to be willing to be humble and learn some things before they create their stories.

[@tadeolaguarda6965]

13:20 that´s what i´ve been saying since i´m 13, it is always weird to me when a character is called inhuman when hw is doing something only humans do. Maybe is because i´m white, but i find saying "people of color" to feel more racist than just saying people whit (insert color) skin

[@omargoodman2999]

Exactly. This is what I've been saying for a while now: "People of Color" doesn't make a meaningful distinction because _white is also a color._ A Person *not* of color would be the Invisible _fucking_ Man... ... wait... damn, that's sexist. The Invisible _Person._ Also, *"of* Color" implies the person _belongs_ to their skin color. *That* is the most damning thing of all; transferring ownership from a human master merely over to skin color _itself._ Still owned, just a more abstract master that will be _defended_ because attacking *this* master can be interpreted as attacking the skin color. This is what Huxley wrote about in "Brave New World"; no need to enforce a social prison that will oppress people, like Orwell created in "1984". Huxley wrote about people *loving* their prison and actually _wanting_ to be there.

[@Kamenriderneo]

7:14 In Star Wars, they say that it is okay because Droids are sentient but not sapient and there is a huge difference between the two.