[TV] Black Mirror

[Berndorf]

Lol wtf. Talk about reaching. One he was never "handsy". They say he stares a bit. Two he only kissed them on the lips post successful mission IE to congratulate himself and the crew on a job well done like at the end of an episode of starfleet. The episode had no sexual tones at all except loneliness and isolation

Completely agree on that episode having absolutely nothing to do with the gamergate controversy. The guy was not a misogynist at all. He was just a social recluse on a power trip. Some people apparently have trouble separating the two things. Maybe not having any healthy relationships with women can cause a bit of a misogynistic mindset in the long run but that wasn't a theme of the particular episode.

[RobertoCarlos]

Completely agree on that episode having absolutely nothing to do with the gamergate controversy. The guy was not a misogynist at all. He was just a social recluse on a power trip. Some people apparently have trouble separating the two things. Maybe not having any healthy relationships with women can cause a bit of a misogynistic mindset in the long run but that wasn't a theme of the particular episode.

He didnt even make a move on the hottie half nude swimming in the water. Dude was more interested in treating Jimmi Simpsons character like shit and getting his RP on.

I had problems with the episode though. Like the infinity receptors would surely have a battery life or time out after a certain period of use. There would be defiantly be baseline code in such immersive devices to stop such extreme scenarios.

It all felt a bit easy really, guy takes out his frustration on his co-workers that treat him like shit. Felt abit tacky or forced for black mirror. When you think of the genius of white christmas and my entire history of you just being a conversation

[8bithamster]

Lol at all the posters trying to make the episode about feminism and gamer gate. Are people that desperate to make everything political?

[RobertoCarlos]

Lol at all the posters trying to make the episode about feminism and gamer gate. Are people that desperate to make everything political?

Well it was one dude. And yes sometimes when people are obsessed with an particular agenda or way of thinking they can see it in everything.

[Bathory]

Dang s4 was disappointing. I really only enjoyed the last one. I feel like this show has pulled an M.Night, where "I'm known for having twists so I better incorporate a twist in".

[Pickynerd]

Welp, this latest episode (USS Callister) was a big "fuck you" from the creator to every MMO-champ poster, and video game and sci-fi nerd ever.

So when is Hollywood going to stop stereotyping gamers as mass shooters / sexual frustrated, socially awkward fritzls in waiting?

Until we stop playing video games, and worship Hollywood instead.

[RobertoCarlos]

Until we stop playing video games, and worship Hollywood instead.

netflix isnt even hollywood....soo really dont know what you guys are trying to say.

[shaunika123]

*spoilers*

you know you've been conditioned by the show when s4 episode 1 has a happy end and you're upset about it. But really, I thought it wouldve been more impactful if they just died. I think finally managing to free yourself from a waking nightmare by finally managing to end it all, has a nice poetic feel to it.


edit: well at least episode 2 is back with the soul crushing depressive ending.

[spanishninja]

*spoilers*

you know you've been conditioned by the show when s4 episode 1 has a happy end and you're upset about it. But really, I thought it wouldve been more impactful if they just died. I think finally managing to free yourself from a waking nightmare by finally managing to end it all, has a nice poetic feel to it.


edit: well at least episode 2 is back with the soul crushing depressive ending.

It's not conditioning. The "happy ending" you speak of consists of 0s and 1s getting some kind of "victory" while a flesh-and-blood person, who did nothing wrong whatsoever in the real world aside from taking people's trash, ends up punished with death. simply put, killing AI is not a crime.

Also, people talk about how the Trump administration is anti-science but the premise of uploading people's entire consciousness (including personality and memories) just from their DNA is pretty damn anti-science itself.

[shaunika123]

It's not conditioning. The "happy ending" you speak of consists of 0s and 1s getting some kind of "victory" while a flesh-and-blood person, who did nothing wrong whatsoever in the real world aside from taking people's trash, ends up punished with death. simply put, killing AI is not a crime.

Also, people talk about how the Trump administration is anti-science but the premise of uploading people's entire consciousness (including personality and memories) just from their DNA is pretty damn anti-science itself.

well okay we could go into the whole "what constitutes a real person" etc, but from my point of view, and how the story told it they were just as real as the people outside.

we're just a combination of DNA code, much like computer programs.

and yeah sure, killing AI is not a crime, but that's the point isnt it? if the only thing stopping you from doing vile and irredeemable things is that there are laws forbidding it, then you're not a good person at all.

there were tons of stuff that werent crimes a 1000 years ago, and are now. and vica versa. society and morals constantly change.

I guess that's the brilliance, that we could talk about it all day.

but to me, he was a pathetic man who did vile things because to him they werent people, much like how a 1000 years ago people did vile things to others because they didnt consider them people.

until we can define what consciousness is with real numbers and definite proof, a film that portrays beings with consciousness even though in reality they might not have it, will have the dramatic impact of conscious people on me.

sure, I feel sorry for and pity Daly, but that doesnt mean he didnt do evil things, if from nothing else, then the story's point of view. And he didnt really treat them like programs, he treated them like real manifestations of people to exact a form of revenge on them. He couldve just coded unconscious and non thinking programs that look like them and keep punching them in the face. But no, he basically created clones with the same memories personalities and everything, so in effect the same person with the same consciousness, to torment them. So even he treated them like real people.

plus I dont think he died either. he's just stuck there, and they'll probably find him if he doesnt show up for work and get him out. if you could literally die from the game they wouldnt be marketting it (in fact they had another episode last season just about that). but that's just my interpretation I guess.


as for the whole, anti-science thing, I dont even know what you mean.
it's scifi, you always have to accept the premise to accept the rest.

[spanishninja]

well okay we could go into the whole "what constitutes a real person" etc, but from my point of view, and how the story told it they were just as real as the people outside.

we're just a combination of DNA code, much like computer programs.

and yeah sure, killing AI is not a crime, but that's the point isnt it? if the only thing stopping you from doing vile and irredeemable things is that there are laws forbidding it, then you're not a good person at all.

there were tons of stuff that werent crimes a 1000 years ago, and are now. and vica versa. society and morals constantly change.

I guess that's the brilliance, that we could talk about it all day.

but to me, he was a pathetic man who did vile things because to him they werent people, much like how a 1000 years ago people did vile things to others because they didnt consider them people.

until we can define what consciousness is with real numbers and definite proof, a film that portrays beings with consciousness even though in reality they might not have it, will have the dramatic impact of conscious people on me.

sure, I feel sorry for and pity Daly, but that doesnt mean he didnt do evil things, if from nothing else, then the story's point of view. And he didnt really treat them like programs, he treated them like real manifestations of people to exact a form of revenge on them. He couldve just coded unconscious and non thinking programs that look like them and keep punching them in the face. But no, he basically created clones with the same memories personalities and everything, so in effect the same person with the same consciousness, to torment them. So even he treated them like real people.

plus I dont think he died either. he's just stuck there, and they'll probably find him if he doesnt show up for work and get him out. if you could literally die from the game they wouldnt be marketting it (in fact they had another episode last season just about that). but that's just my interpretation I guess.


as for the whole, anti-science thing, I dont even know what you mean.
it's scifi, you always have to accept the premise to accept the rest.

the difference between scifi and fantasy is that scifi premises at least have tge potential to be true. the idea that DNA contain personalities and memories can be conclusively proven false, by comparing your present DNA sequences with what you had when you were first born.

I disagree that Daly treated those avatars like real people. quite the opposite. he created fake versions of those people so he could do to them what he couldn't do to their real life counterparts. you can't compare this to evil things people did in the past because those things WERE done to actual human beings. code is still code, and until humans actually come into agreement about whether AI is considered "alive", your stance is no more valid than mine.

And lastly, one of the main reasons video games exist is so people can do bad things in the confines of a virtual world. just because I am fine with killing in-game doesn't mean if it were not illegal I would surely do it in real life too.

[shaunika123]

your stance is no more valid than mine.

I never said it was, I'm not trying to convince you, I revel in the thought that a show today can still sprout a discussion where both parties are completely reasonable and right but still disagree.

I completely understand your point and where you're coming from.

all I'm saying is that I see it differently.

since we cant define consciousness, then once we're presented with something that appears a 100% conscious (and human actors playing AI that acts 100% like a human would and makes their own decisions, completely irrelevant of their creators are that) we could assume that it is.

I dont know if you watch star trek or not, but in star trek voyager there's a doctor who's completely artificial and basically a hologram, but he's still a real character and an episode's main point is whether or not he is a person or not.

it's not a new scifi premise, AI having consciousness and for lack of a better word "a soul" is something that has been prevalent in many other works, like blade runner, A.I. hell even pinocchio.

as for the whole "DNA cant create personalities" thing, I agree, however it's not like they showed the entire process, they just said that the DNA is essential for it, which was basically a plot device as to how he couldnt do it again.

he could quite easily have been using the technology of the virtual reality itself to scan their consciousness and memories and use it together with the DNA to create the persons. any scifi requires suspension of disbelief.

and as i said, yes you consider them people today, but that's the point that they literally didnt see them as people back then. it's the same premise just a step further.

like, let's say the universe was created by someone, would he see us humans as people? maybe he's so far ahead of us in anything that he wouldnt, and yet we still see ourselves as people. he could just say "you're just a code of DNA not real persons". it's easy to thread that philosophical line

or let's say he cloned those people in real life, and tortured them that way, in what way would that be different really? (assuming the conscious minds of the programs are 100% real which the show clearly shows they are)

[spanishninja]

I never said it was, I'm not trying to convince you, I revel in the thought that a show today can still sprout a discussion where both parties are completely reasonable and right but still disagree.

I completely understand your point and where you're coming from.

all I'm saying is that I see it differently.

since we cant define consciousness, then once we're presented with something that appears a 100% conscious (and human actors playing AI that acts 100% like a human would and makes their own decisions, completely irrelevant of their creators are that) we could assume that it is.

I dont know if you watch star trek or not, but in star trek voyager there's a doctor who's completely artificial and basically a hologram, but he's still a real character and an episode's main point is whether or not he is a person or not.

it's not a new scifi premise, AI having consciousness and for lack of a better word "a soul" is something that has been prevalent in many other works, like blade runner, A.I. hell even pinocchio.

as for the whole "DNA cant create personalities" thing, I agree, however it's not like they showed the entire process, they just said that the DNA is essential for it, which was basically a plot device as to how he couldnt do it again.

he could quite easily have been using the technology of the virtual reality itself to scan their consciousness and memories and use it together with the DNA to create the persons. any scifi requires suspension of disbelief.

and as i said, yes you consider them people today, but that's the point that they literally didnt see them as people back then. it's the same premise just a step further.

like, let's say the universe was created by someone, would he see us humans as people? maybe he's so far ahead of us in anything that he wouldnt, and yet we still see ourselves as people. he could just say "you're just a code of DNA not real persons". it's easy to thread that philosophical line

or let's say he cloned those people in real life, and tortured them that way, in what way would that be different really? (assuming the conscious minds of the programs are 100% real which the show clearly shows they are)

you're right that if you subscribe to creationism, god can be a wrathful one and he would not necessarily have a problem with doing the same thing to us miniscule humans as Daly did to the AI. but that is kind of the point. humans are still the dominant species on earth, and we decide what is considered a "high level lifeform". we already do what they please with lesser creatures on earth, whether it is as pets, pests, or food.

i just think the argument raised by this show is very problematic for the future of virtual entertainment in general. at some point we have to recognize that games are still games, no matter the level of sophistication. even in Star Trek's universe, holodeck programs are turned on and off on demand by the user for the most part, without a second thought. are you saying that once AI shows enough sophistication, that we should no longer play violent video games? or should we stop making progress on this end in order to avoid having to cross this line?

[shaunika123]

you're right that if you subscribe to creationism, god can be a wrathful one and he would not necessarily have a problem with doing the same thing to us miniscule humans as Daly did to the AI. but that is kind of the point. humans are still the dominant species on earth, and we decide what is considered a "high level lifeform". we already do what they please with lesser creatures on earth, whether it is as pets, pests, or food.

i just think the argument raised by this show is very problematic for the future of virtual entertainment in general. at some point we have to recognize that games are still games, no matter the level of sophistication. even in Star Trek's universe, holodeck programs are turned on and off on demand by the user for the most part, without a second thought. are you saying that once AI shows enough sophistication, that we should no longer play violent video games? or should we stop making progress on this end in order to avoid having to cross this line?

it doesnt have to be creatonism, what if we lived in a computer simulation and we ourselves are programs. does that instantly mean we dont matter? well imho we never did, human life is no more special than any other life, it's only special to us because we are humans.


but here's the thing

we're waaaay waaaaay off from creating actual consciousness. if we're even capable of doing that.

but if we managed to do so, I believe it would/should have a right to life, much like we do.

if an entity has their own hopes, dreams, ambitions, ability to make conscious choices then it is for all intents and purposes a person, and should be treated as such.

we can just, you know, not put those entities into video games where 12 year olds can murder them.

it'd be the exact same thing as killing for sport, which I'm 100% against, even if its just a bird, let alone a completely conscious intelligent being.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

you're right that if you subscribe to creationism, god can be a wrathful one and he would not necessarily have a problem with doing the same thing to us miniscule humans as Daly did to the AI. but that is kind of the point. humans are still the dominant species on earth, and we decide what is considered a "high level lifeform". we already do what they please with lesser creatures on earth, whether it is as pets, pests, or food.

i just think the argument raised by this show is very problematic for the future of virtual entertainment in general. at some point we have to recognize that games are still games, no matter the level of sophistication. even in Star Trek's universe, holodeck programs are turned on and off on demand by the user for the most part, without a second thought. are you saying that once AI shows enough sophistication, that we should no longer play violent video games? or should we stop making progress on this end in order to avoid having to cross this line?

Yeah, I do think that once we have created fully self-aware Artificial Intelligence that thinks and feels like real people...we probably shouldn't be using them against their will to fulfill our revenge fantasies.

[PACOX]

The thing about USS blah blah is that he knew that the AI had will, intellect, emotions, and feelings.They were clones of the people without a physical body, they were real people.

[eschatological]

Yeah, it would have been more interesting if the clones thought that this was real life (after all, memory isn't part of DNA) and he was really the big boss man. Maybe their world completely pauses or fills in the gaps when he exits the game.

And then they discover this isn't reality. That there's versions of themselves out in the "real world." And that he treats his XO like shit because the XO treats him like shit in real life.

----------------------------------

Or, you have it where the CTO is just trying to emulate semi-smart, conscious AI, and doesn't realize they have consciousness or memory of their real lives, and they're too scared to say anything when he goes away because he's too violent and angry. And then he realizes they know what's happening, and has to deal with that discovery.

[shaunika123]

on an unrelated note

what the hell was the point of episode 5?

I was looking for some sort of reveal or explanation, but then it just ended.

[PACOX]

Or, you have it where the CTO is just trying to emulate semi-smart, conscious AI, and doesn't realize they have consciousness or memory of their real lives, and they're too scared to say anything when he goes away because he's too violent and angry. And then he realizes they know what's happening, and has to deal with that discovery.

Right but thats what a lot of people (Black Mirror fans) would have expected, no?

[shaunika123]

Right but thats what a lot of people (Black Mirror fans) would have expected, no?

I actually expected that them finally being able to kill themselves would be demonstrated as a victory.

like that would have that bittersweet, depressing irony that a lot of episodes have.

this was a bit too hollywood for me, altough the aaron paul cameo at the end was funny.

I guess you gotta have a happy end once in a while (altough according to some people here it wasnt a happy end which I find fascinating)

I just think that Black Museim and San Junipero did the whole happy end thing better.

I still thoroughly enjoyed the episode, I just didnt much love the very end.