[ SECRET POST #5981 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5981 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #855.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I mean my point, I guess, is that "uncanny valley" isn't a fundamental problem with AI. It's not a reason to reject the possibility of AI-created art ever being satisfying for human beings. It's just purely a functional pragmatic question of whether or not the AI system is good enough to avoid the uncanny valley or not.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

The thing is, I don't think Uncanny Valley is a technical problem in the first place. When people see a picture, of someONE as opposed to someTHING, they put out their emotional feelers and try to sense the life inside that body and the thoughts animating those eyes. For a strict materialist, what they are doing must be physical, so they look at the problem as a matter of HOW to trick the senses into believing there's life behind a facade that has none.

From my perspective, the fact that people can tell the difference between when they're looking at a fellow being and when they're not is important and necessary, and I hope the people who are trying to blunt that sense in others continue to fail indefinitely.