Questionable Content XV: I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS! I Told You This Thread Was Weird

[diremage]

The mantra of good quality control is: it WILL fail.

If you're stress testing an object and it doesn't break, then you've wasted your time because you still don't know how much stress it can take. If a dildo survives being fired at a wall, the correct response is to find a bigger cannon.


.....


...Honestly, I'm just waiting for an obvious punchline about "stress testing dildos" ending with "your mom". If it doesn't happen, I will confirm that Jeph Jacques has been replaced by an alien pod-person.

Sometimes you don't care what the upper limit of stress for an object is, you just want to know that it will react in a defined way to a particular stress. So for instance, say a railing is required to hold 200 lbs and designed to hold 300. You don't -really- care if the particular railing that's installed fails at 275 or 305 lbs, you just care that when you apply 200 lbs to it, it -doesn't- fail, because that's the specification. And you don't necessarily want to go around destroying every railing installation to see how breakable it is.

...We kind of snuck past the "your mom" joke when Beeps asked if May wanted to be the wall.

[Lamech]

Well that's a nice way of looking at the universe. We are a beautiful soap bubble, destined to pop suddenly and without warning. I think this is what they are talking about. If I understood the article we're only probably a beautiful soap bubble. There is still a chance the Universe ends in Eternal Darkness.

[Radar]

Well that's a nice way of looking at the universe. We are a beautiful soap bubble, destined to pop suddenly and without warning. I think this is what they are talking about. If I understood the article we're only probably a beautiful soap bubble. There is still a chance the Universe ends in Eternal Darkness.

So we are a beautiful sparkling firework instead. Still works.

[diremage]

From a position outside of spacetime, duration and expansion are meaningless terms. If there was a bubble of true vacuum, it might not experience time in the usual sense; it might logically be unable to expand because duration is a property of matter-energy.

If we're talking about local and global minima in the fabric of spacetime, it might experience time more slowly and thus experience a passive pressure to collapse on its borders because time would be operating more quickly in the denser soup.

I mean, if you want to worry about cosmic events, entropy would be a better one to worry about, I would think. Or supernovae and small, wandering black holes.

[eee]

Destroyed? No, made better! By SCIENCE!!!

[Wraith]

Well, Jeph is done transcribing that wikipedia article he read; we now return to your regularly scheduled butts!

Also, I find "human standard" to be far more problematic than "anatomically correct". An anatomy is an actual, defined thing, but there's absolutely nothing 'standard' about humans.

[Mordokai]

Well, Jeph is done transcribing that wikipedia article he read; we now return to your regularly scheduled butts!

Also, I find "human standard" to be far more problematic than "anatomically correct". An anatomy is an actual, defined thing, but there's absolutely nothing 'standard' about humans.

There's not?!?

My whole life... one big lie...

Spoiler

Show

[Wraith]

When you run the gamut between Peter Dinklage and Shaq O'Neill, "standard" is stretching it a bit.

Similarly, having 2 eyes is technically an above-average number of eyes, so... go figure.

[Kish]

"Anatomically correct" doesn't work because there was nothing incorrect about Winslow's original anatomy; it was (provably) the way his designer planned it. It just didn't include a penis.

Similarly, I think there are very few people who wouldn't understand "human standard" to mean "are you okay with your daughter working a few inches away from robot vulva" in this context, and while genitals aren't universal among humans, they are standard.

[Keltest]

"Anatomically correct" doesn't work because there was nothing incorrect about Winslow's original anatomy; it was (provably) the way his designer planned it. It just didn't include a penis.

Similarly, I think there are very few people who wouldn't understand "human standard" to mean "are you okay with your daughter working a few inches away from robot vulva" in this context, and while genitals aren't universal among humans, they are standard.

As far as im aware, "anatomically correct" has always been used to refer to something intentionally designed to look like a human or other living creature, but is not actually that thing, such as a doll. As you point out, there is no such thing as being anatomically (in)correct for anything that is not specifically modeled after an already-existing creature. Calling it "human standard" though could plausibly be interpreted to just mean humanoid, without every little fiddly detail. Alternatively, it could mean things like "equipped to be able to grow a beard/chest hair/armpit hair/etc... or simply "is based on the average human body statistics at time of manufacture" without any other implications. There are simply too many ways to read it without it already having entered in the public consciousness, at which point any given literal reading doesn't actually matter anyway.

[VoxRationis]

Though there is considerable variation within humans [citation needed], there's a fairly standardized body plan, especially when compared to the broad gamut of body plans available to AI. Humans have two eyes, or two eye sockets, at least; exceptions to this rule die quickly after or before birth. We similarly have four (jointed, endoskeletal) limbs or limb sites, with a strong anterior/posterior specialization between the limb pairs. None of these limbs may take the form of a wheel or propeller. None of those things can be assumed for a robotic chassis. Some of those traits are useful to even a robot (such as having two visual sensors for depth perception so as to obviate a laser rangefinder), while others would never cross the drawing board if they weren't attempting to imitate humans for aesthetic purposes. I'd say "human standard" is a pretty useful term here.

This line of thinking actually got me to wondering about May's chassis. It's very anthropomorphic and has a lot of features (such as her articulated and expressive eyes) that don't seem necessary for a cheap, utilitarian body.

[Keltest]

Though there is considerable variation within humans [citation needed], there's a fairly standardized body plan, especially when compared to the broad gamut of body plans available to AI. Humans have two eyes, or two eye sockets, at least; exceptions to this rule die quickly after or before birth. We similarly have four (jointed, endoskeletal) limbs or limb sites, with a strong anterior/posterior specialization between the limb pairs. None of these limbs may take the form of a wheel or propeller. None of those things can be assumed for a robotic chassis. Some of those traits are useful to even a robot (such as having two visual sensors for depth perception so as to obviate a laser rangefinder), while others would never cross the drawing board if they weren't attempting to imitate humans for aesthetic purposes. I'd say "human standard" is a pretty useful term here.

This line of thinking actually got me to wondering about May's chassis. It's very anthropomorphic and has a lot of features (such as her articulated and expressive eyes) that don't seem necessary for a cheap, utilitarian body.

Given the amount of structural failures she has, I suspect her chassis is simply old (relatively speaking) rather than cheap. It was probably hard-worn by a previous owner then donated to a charity or something which supplied it for May upon her release.

[DavidSh]

May's body, as opposed to, say, Punchbot's body, seems likely to have been designed for interaction with humans. Detailed facial expression and dexterous hands make communication easier. But, I guess, not the level of interaction that calls for "anatomical correctness". Suitable for a parolee because it was cast off by its original occupant, and wasn't physically strong enough to do much damage.

[Kish]

This line of thinking actually got me to wondering about May's chassis. It's very anthropomorphic and has a lot of features (such as her articulated and expressive eyes) that don't seem necessary for a cheap, utilitarian body.

There are limits to how much "cheap utilitarian" they could have gotten away with even for an ex-convict. Roko's current storyline hinges on the question of whether they tried for more than they can get away with as it is.

[Radar]

There are limits to how much "cheap utilitarian" they could have gotten away with even for an ex-convict. Roko's current storyline hinges on the question of whether they tried for more than they can get away with as it is.

And they will surely answer the question with Bah! Humbug!

[Morquard]

I would have thought, that they would have taken measurements when planning the butt implants and stuff like that, and the point of "anatomically correct" may have come up at some point...

[Radar]

I would have thought, that they would have taken measurements when planning the butt implants and stuff like that, and the point of "anatomically correct" may have come up at some point...

Maybe they simply did measurements without Sam being around. Or even more likely they just asked for the client's chassis model and looked up relevant parameters in product specifications. The butt implants might as well have a list of compatible body models (if they are dedicated for robotic bodies, which I assume).

[archon_huskie]

perhaps human standard is to differentiate between AI in human bodies vs. spider or doggy bodies

[Radar]

perhaps human standard is to differentiate between AI in human bodies vs. spider or doggy bodies

That would be my guess. After all anatomically correct becomes too vague, when there are so many options.

[Morquard]

That would be my guess. After all anatomically correct becomes too vague, when there are so many options.

Does it? Does anyone when he hears "Anatomically correct robot" think "Oh must be a really realistic spider" instead of "Well get that humanoid robot has all the necessary parts"?

[Mechalich]

There are limits to how much "cheap utilitarian" they could have gotten away with even for an ex-convict. Roko's current storyline hinges on the question of whether they tried for more than they can get away with as it is.

I strongly suspect that May's body, and in fact most likely her entire product line, was surplused to the government when the company that produced them went under. Recall that the entire idea of embodied AIs is supposed to be a new thing, they were not commercially available until well after the comic began and the comic simply hasn't run for all that long, less than five years at the most (Momo says she is 2.7 years old when she gets her new body, and is later referred to as being 4 something like 1500 strips later, suggesting a 1000 strips per year rough approximation). May's body has many features, such as a proprietary non-standard charging cable, that are common among early iterations of a new technology as it emerges into the consumer space, and also of a product rushed out by a designer dependent upon limited venture capital rather than a well-capitalized corporate entity. For instance, it appears that pretty much all of the 'stock' components of May's chassis were made from distinctly inferior parts, to the point the repairs installed by Faye and Bubbles (and possibly others, earlier) are stronger than the original pieces.

So the general story behind May's body is probably that some company rushed out an early full-body chassis, only it was distinctively inferior to others available on the market and didn't sell, the company filed for bankruptcy, and then the extant models were liquidated at an extremely low cost. Government procurement rules more or less obligate entities to take the lowest bid on a contract, which means they end up with a lot of junk, which then gets passed onto those in need of their services.

Which actually means that the most realistic offer from the Parole Board or whatever agency actually controls May's status would probably be to replace her current body with any unused version of the exact same chassis, as they may be legally prohibited from even buying any other models until the current stock is used up. To note the chassis:cars analogy again, government agencies are obligated to put a certain amount of miles on their vehicles before they can be replaced, which leads to junky vehicles that everyone hates sitting in agency parking lots for an eternity.

[geoduck]

I strongly suspect that May's body, and in fact most likely her entire product line, was surplused to the government when the company that produced them went under.

I have to suspect you've given this a whole lot more thought than Jeph has.

[Radar]

Does it? Does anyone when he hears "Anatomically correct robot" think "Oh must be a really realistic spider" instead of "Well get that humanoid robot has all the necessary parts"?

When yo know, who you are talking about, then it will be understood, but without any context it could mean any kind of realistic body. Granted, it is a bit of an extrapolation, since in our world the meaning is clear, but the situation is pretty different in the comics.

[Lethologica]

Does it? Does anyone when he hears "Anatomically correct robot" think "Oh must be a really realistic spider" instead of "Well get that humanoid robot has all the necessary parts"?

Two points:
(1) The language may well need shifting when there really are realistic robots of many forms.
(2) The language may well need shifting when there really are sapient robots who would prefer not to center their notions of correct forms on the human body, thanks all the same.

[Wraith]

(2) The language may well need shifting when there really are sapient robots who would prefer not to center their notions of correct forms on the human body, thanks all the same.

This one is actually a really good point. The only times I have used the phrase "anatomically correct" is in reference to things like action figures/toys, medical diagrams and equipment, or exotic sex toys.

You know... things which resemble humans but explicitly *are not human*. There are parallels that could be drawn between referring to AI's as anatomically correct, and to words used by segregationists.
There has been very little of that sort of thing shown in the comic - apart from the idiots who insulted Bubbles in her coat - but I can easily understand how out could be implied by other close-minded people in the wider QC universe. "Anatomically correct" being an intentionally back-handed compliment, because there's very definitely lots of ways in which they are "incorrect", sort of bigotry.

[Morquard]

Ok, yes, and the "human standard" might come in then, to say "its a humanoid robot". But that can just mean, torso, two arms, two legs, one head. Not necessarily *scrubbed*.

While Faye asking Jim if Sam can work on an anatomically correct robot, they all perfectly well understood what it meant.

[Wraith]

Gordon is anatomically correct - he just happens to be anatomically correct for a spider.

Sam's dad presuming that Faye meant an anatomically correct *human* is EXACTLY the sort of privileged, close-minded assumption that the International Anti-Defamation of Robots League of America was formed to fight against!

[Lethologica]

Ok, yes, and the "human standard" might come in then, to say "its a humanoid robot". But that can just mean, torso, two arms, two legs, one head. Not necessarily *scrub the post, scrub the quote*.

While Faye asking Jim if Sam can work on an anatomically correct robot, they all perfectly well understood what it meant.

Any shorthand phrase could conceivably mean something other than its actual meaning. Also, there's already the term 'humanoid' to describe robots matching the rough human body plan wrt limbs and such. The comic is telling us that this is what 'human standard' means in the QC setting, and that it has replaced 'anatomically correct' for social reasons. Not to put too fine a point on it, there are lots of words that we choose not to use for social reasons even though everyone still knows what they mean.

[Willie the Duck]

Sam's dad presuming that Faye meant an anatomically correct *human* is EXACTLY the sort of privileged, close-minded assumption that the International Anti-Defamation of Robots League of America was formed to fight against!

Him being corrected on this is pretty much Jeph's joke for #4140.

[mucat]

"Tell me which D-word Faye called me, and I promise to teach you at least three others that she apparently did not call me."