Steam installeren
inloggen
|
taal
简体中文 (Chinees, vereenvoudigd)
繁體中文 (Chinees, traditioneel)
日本語 (Japans)
한국어 (Koreaans)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgaars)
Čeština (Tsjechisch)
Dansk (Deens)
Deutsch (Duits)
English (Engels)
Español-España (Spaans - Spanje)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spaans - Latijns-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Grieks)
Français (Frans)
Italiano (Italiaans)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Hongaars)
Norsk (Noors)
Polski (Pools)
Português (Portugees - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Braziliaans-Portugees)
Română (Roemeens)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Fins)
Svenska (Zweeds)
Türkçe (Turks)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamees)
Українська (Oekraïens)
Een vertaalprobleem melden
De auteur van dit onderwerp heeft een bericht gemarkeerd als antwoord op zijn of haar vraag.
Regels en richtlijnen voor discussies
Dit bericht rapporteren
The funny thing is: grappling with the notion of sentient AI is a very interesting concept... but people like to conflate AI and living organic beings as being the *same*. It's a question with an obvious answer: they're different and can not be the same. but pseudo-intellectuals like to spend time bending the meaning of words to derive false insight after they assume the answer to the question is 'yes'. It's pseudo-philosophy built on a foundation of sand.
Hope the puzzles are good at least...
And yeah, let's be honest, there were already some "right" and "wrong" choices in the first game. You were expected to defy Elohim and leave the simulation to get the real ending that is now canon, otherwise you were punished by missing out on the final puzzles and restarting the whole game.
I don't actually have a problem with this since the robots try to imitate humans based on their limited knowledge, even if they don't understand everything. Their genders are basically fake (reminds me of something) while only their voices and names indicate what they're supposed to be. I'm just wondering how each robot's gender is decided.
Yes, arguing about sentience and the meaning of "people" makes at least a bit more sense.
Yes, and I think that will be the case since this stuff seems to be the focus of the story.
This is a completely unnecessary level of negativity. Clearly the idea bothers you on some profound level, but that doesn't mean you have to dismiss it as pseudo-philosophy.
The first game was concerned with what it means to be human. Alexandra Drennan's entire project was premised on the idea that humanity was more than our biological machinery, that what really mattered was our culture, our ideas, our curiosity. That it was possible to create something human out of technology. Nobody is saying that they are literally physically the same. But they themselves believe that the category of human includes them, because that category means more than biology.
And that's the premise we continue from. That's the idea at the core of the game, or the provocation, if you prefer. It's a deliberate storytelling choice, to have these characters consider themselves to be human.
If you just dismiss it instead of engaging with it, if you don't think about what the implications are, or what the game's themes are exploring, even if you disagree, then why engage with any art at all?
My favourite book in the world is The Lord of the Rings, written by a conservative Catholic and built on all kinds of philosophical assumptions I deeply disagree with. Any yet engaging with it and considering its themes enriches my life. So why just dismiss things so aggressively?
If you're going to be critical, please do pay closer attention. Soma/Talos was the name of the project to create a physical robot body, not the name of the character. The fact that Athena would become the name of the character is in fact heavily foreshadowed throughout the first game with the use of the novel Athena Reborn, in one chapter of which we went so far as to embed the words I AM ATHENA in hex.
It's frustrating that we go to the trouble of creating something so layered and complex and carefully considered, and then are accused of being lazy, random and pseudo-intellectual. This is why it's so hard to create genuinely meaningful art in games: because everyone's ready to dismiss the whole thing as stupid without even engaging with it.
There is nothing particularly provocative or interesting about saying they're people. What's interesting is that they specifically consider themselves to be human, because they are our children and the inheritors of our culture.
It's perfectly fine not to like it. It's perfectly fine to come to different conclusions, just like some people believe that sentience cannot exist in a machine, which is the premise of Talos 1. But at least enage with it in good faith as a story and a work of art, not in simplistic culture war terms or as just some random nonsense.
I didn't call anything drivel, I just agreed with the arguments in a comment that happened to use that word. I obviously still enjoy the thought-provoking questions in your writing and don't find it lazy, but I think words have meanings that shouldn't be blurred, so I got more defensive.
You have also clarified that your statement about robots being human was not your own opinion, but the robots' - or maybe both, but at least I think it makes more sense from their point of view, so I'm more willing to accept that. It's even possible that I simply took your comment too literally.
The important thing to remember here is that stories are worlds unto themselves. They may reflect the author's beliefs in some ways, but interpreting them in this way is always reductive and ultimately pointless. What matters is the work itself, which is something that can't necessarily be reduced down to an essay. Otherwise it's just propaganda.
Simply observing the story from the outside I would say, for example, that taken philosophically (or spiritually, if you come at it from that angle) "the robots are human" is a true and important statement that says much about what humanity is, but speaking materially, they are profoundly different from where we are today. For one thing, they're immortal.
And this contrast, between the extreme humanity of their minds (which was the whole point of Talos 1) and the physical difference between us is precisely what's interesting and thought-provoking, in that it also makes us consider ourselves and which parts of ourselves are purely down to biology and which might be something else.
I absolutely 100% do not expect people to have noticed every little detail, nor do you need to in order to enjoy the story. It's more a matter of how you approach the experience. If you go in thinking it's all nonsense, all you will find is nonsense.
ETA: A mistake I've made myself with some of my favourite works, by the way. Going in with negativity, sometimes due to completely unrelated issues, and completely missing the point. Only to come back years later and realize the problem was how I'd approached it.
The statement that machines can't be human is true if by "human," we mean "biologically human." No one is arguing that a machine will grow skin and bones. The point in question is about the nature of sentience, consciousness, or whatever quality you think makes humans special.
You say that a machine can mimic a human but will never be one. Mimicry and actuality are different dimensions, sure. A man mimicking a woman isn't a woman. But then, what exactly is being mimicked here? Is it the substrate (biological cells) or the process (conscious thought, emotions, etc.)? A man can never become a woman biologically, but if the 'essence' of being human lies in something beyond our biology, then we're discussing a different ballpark altogether.
Now, regarding the idea that people conflate AI and living organic beings as being the same—they're not the same in material but could be in function. A carbon-based neural network and a silicon-based neural network are not made of the same stuff. But if they process information in the same way, generate thoughts, have self-awareness, and can contemplate their existence, then they might be the same in a way that matters. The concept isn't pseudo-philosophy; it's a serious question about what aspects of "being" are essential.
It's not a matter of bending the meaning of words but questioning the basis of our definitions. The questioning of "what is" and "what could be" is the root of all philosophy and scientific endeavor. If we take it as a given that 'different substrates can't have the same function,' we're not doing philosophy or science. We're doing dogmatism.
What "humanity" meant a million years ago is not precisely what it means now, and in this fictional future the meaning of humanity may expand again. Considering such ideas and provoking thought and debate is the purpose of speculative fiction.
Think of it another way: if the materialist concepts behind Straton's Talos Principle are correct, then where exactly is the line between human and machine? Is a human being with an artificial organ less human? (Some science fiction seems to think so, but is that correct? Are people with pacemakers alien to us?) If we change ourselves gradually using technology to eliminate biological problems, will we be less human? Are we less human now because we've eradicated all kinds of biological problems from our past? If not, then why are the robots necessarily not human, if they were created by us to be like us?
And again, consider that this is a work of speculative fiction with explicit philosophical aims. Why shouldn't it explore ideas that might make us uncomfortable?
To be fair, I think the discussion got a bit heated because of current politics and modern media. Old stories are rewritten, original characters (even real historical figures) get misrepresented, the meanings of words are being manipulated, and new ideologies and narratives are being promoted and "popularized" in ways that wouldn't happen organically, together with censorship and figurative witch hunts. There is lots of actual propaganda and people are wary of things that wouldn't have been an issue 10-20 years ago because it was not this bad and obvious.
You may not even agree with me, but I guess that's what caused an overreaction when you outspokenly said that robots *are* human. Maybe also because you never said it so bluntly through the game's writing, even if it was strongly implied.
No, but there are people who might argue that skin and bones aren't relevant to the discussion, which can then be used as a way to bend what certain words mean.
That's a good example.
Amusingly, I think the demo actually contains a voice recording or maybe a written text where someone says that all humans should live together because they're one race or something like that, as if evolution and cultures don't matter. I was wondering if this was a case of writers inserting their own opinions or simply the naive personality of a fictional character. Of course we have already established that it ultimately doesn't matter since the game is its own universe, but I became wary, as previously explained.
That might indeed happen across long periods of time, but it seems wrong to me to forcibly inject that into our current world views. Call me old-fashioned.
But yes, it's still interesting to entertain these thoughts, even while disagreeing with them.
"Ship of Theseus" DLC for Talos 2? lol
PS: This has to be one of the most sophisticated threads on this entire platform.