Best Films of 2016/2017

[Speaker to Animals]

What was he's hologram girlfriend's name? I know "she" was only programed to say and do things he liked or was likely to want etc. but at the end it made me really start to belive she loved him.

I'm slower so bear with me and help me out, but Im guessing Joe's "memory" of the horse wasn't real it was programmed, or was it? Does anyone think the replicant child was really a half human half replicant (being that she had to be in a quarantined environment and has some type of immune system issue)? Also if Deckard is a replicant why is slower and old now?

Thanks

SPOILER ALERT

Do not read this if you have not seen the film. Don't fuck this up. Go see the film first.




(1) The replicant that was the right hand of Wallace was named Love. The AI girlfriend of K was named Joy. Love murders Joy. K has to drown Love to death in order to save lives and keep the war at bay.

(2) It's deliberately ambiguous as to whether Joy was truly self-aware. That was the entire point of that scene where he was walking by the hologram advert using another copy of her AI and she called him Joe. He questioned whether she ever really loved him or if it was just a script playing out, which mirrored his doubts about himself.

(3) It's ambiguous as to Deckard's humanity (as opposed to the original novel when he was clearly human). Wallace suggests that Deckard may in fact be a replicant specifically designed to fall in love with Rachel as part of Tyrell's project to create reproducing replicants. But there is no confirmation either way. The daughter could be a hybrid or maybe not. They never discuss exactly how the replicants are constructed, but it's strongly implied they are more accurately described as biots, so it stands to reason they have DNA just like natural humans.


There is quite a lot in there to unpack. The interplay between joy and love was just something I realized right away. I want to watch it again to pick up some more details.

[GloryofGreece]

What was he's hologram girlfriend's name? I know "she" was only programed to say and do things he liked or was likely to want etc. but at the end it made me really start to belive she loved him.

I'm slower so bear with me and help me out, but Im guessing Joe's "memory" of the horse wasn't real it was programmed, or was it? Does anyone think the replicant child was really a half human half replicant (being that she had to be in a quarantined environment and has some type of immune system issue)? Also if Deckard is a replicant why is slower and old now?

Thanks

SPOILER ALERT

Do not read this if you have not seen the film. Don't fuck this up. Go see the film first.




(1) The replicant that was the right hand of Wallace was named Love. The AI girlfriend of K was named Joy. Love murders Joy. K has to drown Love to death in order to save lives and keep the war at bay.

(2) It's deliberately ambiguous as to whether Joy was truly self-aware. That was the entire point of that scene where he was walking by the hologram advert using another copy of her AI and she called him Joe. He questioned whether she ever really loved him or if it was just a script playing out, which mirrored his doubts about himself.

(3) It's ambiguous as to Deckard's humanity (as opposed to the original novel when he was clearly human). Wallace suggests that Deckard may in fact be a replicant specifically designed to fall in love with Rachel as part of Tyrell's project to create reproducing replicants. But there is no confirmation either way. The daughter could be a hybrid or maybe not. They never discuss exactly how the replicants are constructed, but it's strongly implied they are more accurately described as biots, so it stands to reason they have DNA just like natural humans.


There is quite a lot in there to unpack. The interplay between joy and love was just something I realized right away. I want to watch it again to pick up some more details.

What does "biots" mean exactly?

What are your thought on the women that was the "memories" programmer? I found it interesting that the replicant creator allowed her to "sub contract" out her services and I guess other people do the same job she does but she's the best?

[Speaker to Animals]

What was he's hologram girlfriend's name? I know "she" was only programed to say and do things he liked or was likely to want etc. but at the end it made me really start to belive she loved him.

I'm slower so bear with me and help me out, but Im guessing Joe's "memory" of the horse wasn't real it was programmed, or was it? Does anyone think the replicant child was really a half human half replicant (being that she had to be in a quarantined environment and has some type of immune system issue)? Also if Deckard is a replicant why is slower and old now?

Thanks

SPOILER ALERT

Do not read this if you have not seen the film. Don't fuck this up. Go see the film first.




(1) The replicant that was the right hand of Wallace was named Love. The AI girlfriend of K was named Joy. Love murders Joy. K has to drown Love to death in order to save lives and keep the war at bay.

(2) It's deliberately ambiguous as to whether Joy was truly self-aware. That was the entire point of that scene where he was walking by the hologram advert using another copy of her AI and she called him Joe. He questioned whether she ever really loved him or if it was just a script playing out, which mirrored his doubts about himself.

(3) It's ambiguous as to Deckard's humanity (as opposed to the original novel when he was clearly human). Wallace suggests that Deckard may in fact be a replicant specifically designed to fall in love with Rachel as part of Tyrell's project to create reproducing replicants. But there is no confirmation either way. The daughter could be a hybrid or maybe not. They never discuss exactly how the replicants are constructed, but it's strongly implied they are more accurately described as biots, so it stands to reason they have DNA just like natural humans.


There is quite a lot in there to unpack. The interplay between joy and love was just something I realized right away. I want to watch it again to pick up some more details.

What does "biots" mean exactly?

What are your thought on the women that was the "memories" programmer? I found it interesting that the replicant creator allowed her to "sub contract" out her services and I guess other people do the same job she does but she's the best?

Biot is a blend word that was coined by Arthur C. Clark in Rendezvous with Rama. The two roots of the blend word are biological and robot. It basically means an artificial biological organism; a robot made of biological stuff.



Now, in hindsight, I remembered they were looking at the DNA of the child, so obviously it's explicitly stated that replicants have DNA too.

[GloryofGreece]

Would you or that author agree that DNA manipulation like crisper and other engineering techniques are a form of robotic biology?

[Speaker to Animals]

It's all in the definitions of things. One of the points of PKD's novels was that we often get caught up in the names of things and lose perspective on the world as it really is. You see that well enough in the original novel and in both of the Blade Runner films, where characters are constantly questioning what it means to be human or artificial, etc. Those are words that we use to describe the world. When we start changing the very nature of the world, we can confuse ourselves because we often are too fixated on the words rather than what they signify.

I think it would be a really bad idea to start building replicants. Use AI to run cities, buildings, spaceships, vehicles, etc. Give AI embodiments that are not human.

Humanoid robots will threaten us with extinction, in my opinion, and not because they will try to kill us, but because we will drift apart and slowly die out.

[GloryofGreece]

It's all in the definitions of things. One of the points of PKD's novels was that we often get caught up in the names of things and lose perspective on the world as it really is. You see that well enough in the original novel and in both of the Blade Runner films, where characters are constantly questioning what it means to be human or artificial, etc. Those are words that we use to describe the world. When we start changing the very nature of the world, we can confuse ourselves because we often are too fixated on the words rather than what they signify.

I think it would be a really bad idea to start building replicants. Use AI to run cities, buildings, spaceships, vehicles, etc. Give AI embodiments that are not human.

Humanoid robots will threaten us with extinction, in my opinion, and not because they will try to kill us, but because we will drift apart and slowly die out.

I can sympathize with parents choosing to select for healthier options for their child but then there will also likely be the full gambit of boutique selections that are distasteful and inhumane in my opinion as well. Everyone has different "lines" they won't cross, but I fear for the possibility in will be either unknowingly or even tyrannically imposed on us. The possibilities seem endless. I do think some or even many will fall into the category of opting out so to speak and who knows maybe many will be phased out by a central planner.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's all in the definitions of things. One of the points of PKD's novels was that we often get caught up in the names of things and lose perspective on the world as it really is. You see that well enough in the original novel and in both of the Blade Runner films, where characters are constantly questioning what it means to be human or artificial, etc. Those are words that we use to describe the world. When we start changing the very nature of the world, we can confuse ourselves because we often are too fixated on the words rather than what they signify.

I think it would be a really bad idea to start building replicants. Use AI to run cities, buildings, spaceships, vehicles, etc. Give AI embodiments that are not human.

Humanoid robots will threaten us with extinction, in my opinion, and not because they will try to kill us, but because we will drift apart and slowly die out.

I can sympathize with parents choosing to select for healthier options for their child but then there will also likely be the full gambit of boutique selections that are distasteful and inhumane in my opinion as well. Everyone has different "lines" they won't cross, but I fear for the possibility in will be either unknowingly or even tyrannically imposed on us. The possibilities seem endless. I do think some or even many will fall into the category of opting out so to speak and who knows maybe many will be phased out by a central planner.

In my estimation, transhumanism, which is what you describe, is a far greater threat to humanity than AI.

[de officiis]

SPILOILER WARNING

I'm slower so bear with me and help me out, but Im guessing Joe's "memory" of the horse wasn't real it was programmed, or was it?

Thanks

It was real, but it was Ana Stelline's, not Joe's; she gave it to him.

[GloryofGreece]

Good little article to stir up some debate and curiosity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/blad ... questions/

[Speaker to Animals]

This film is so awesome. I missed it when films had us thinking about these things days later.