Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2012-06-29 06:43 pm
[ SECRET POST #2005 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2005 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06. [nf]
__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08. http://i.imgur.com/H1X1Z.gif
[linked because uh not sure if this is porn or not; live action]
__________________________________________________
09. http://i.imgur.com/pNcu1.jpg
[porn of the drawn variety - Tintin]
__________________________________________________
10.

__________________________________________________
[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]
11. [SPOILER WARNING for Hourou Musuko]

__________________________________________________
12. [SPOILER WARNING for Prometheus]

__________________________________________________
13. [SPOILER WARNING for Homestuck]

__________________________________________________
14. [SPOILER WARNING for Avengers]

__________________________________________________
15. [SPOILER WARNING for Merlin]

__________________________________________________
16. [SPOILER WARNING for Tangled]

__________________________________________________
[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]
17. [WARNING for ... pretty sure this has something to do with rape]

__________________________________________________
18. [WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #286.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 01:31 am (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 02:17 am (UTC)(link)no subject
Put it this way -- if Iron Man 3 shows Jarvis as very explicitly sentient, no one would notice a change from his characterization in Iron Man 1 or 2, or the Avengers, they would just be more aware of it.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 10:24 am (UTC)(link)just because the movieverse doesn't show the complete range and extent of his abilities doesn't mean they aren't there?
Well of course. But it doesn't mean that they are either. Fanon posits that JARVIS can and does sometimes act against explicit orders and own make decisions. I've watched the movies with JARVIS' sentience/sapience in mind, and not once does this happen. Sure it doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't, but it does put atleast as much weight (and I think a bit more, given the tropes of an AI in every other bit of real and fictional media) in the column of 'yeah, not happening'.
To put it in a similar analogy to yours - in Iron Man 3 explicitly reveals that Stane subtly sexually abused Tony as a teenager, there would be no need for a change in his actions in IM1 needed to fit that revelation. We'd just be more aware of the creep-factor. But that doesn't mean that it's canon or true that this happened in movieverse at all. I'd be really interested in that article if you can find it! But from what I've seen I remain as unconvinced of JARVIS's sapience as I am of the fact that Steve Rogers is a technologically helpless blushing ingenue.
no subject
And...hmm...I think that the Jarvis discussion was in a thread in the comments section of a journal entry about...I'm wanting to say it was an personal review/recap of either The Avengers or the MCU in general, but now I think it may have been in the comments for a fic. I've seen people comment on Jarvis's humanness in multiple different venues though, so I'm not sure if there's some place where I can show you everything that's been said on the subject.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 06:07 pm (UTC)(link)Uhh, not really. In fact I'd say that this particular 'reveal' about Obadiah would just add one more level to the already textual manipulative and heavily implied subtly abusive relationship. While JARVIS being revealed to be 'sentient' puts a whole new spin on a LOT of things - not least Tony's genius (could go either way), Tony's relationship with him (is it slavery? Does he know about the sentience or not?), Fury shutting JARVIS down becomes akin to attempted murder rather than disabling a security system, JARVIS not taking any action when Stane paralyzes and de-arcs Tony becomes worthy of scrutiny (if he's sentient why didn't he take any action on his own?) and so on and so forth.
I'm an engineer, and I've worked with both artificial speech systems and robotics, and I'd damn well need more 'proof' before JARVIS's sentience became any apparent or 'true' or anything more than fanon. I'd be glad to see any meta on this, not actually asking to see 'everything that's been said on the subject'. I get you're pretty attached to that headcanon and that's okay. But that doesn't make it more than headcanon. But I think if you really feel so strongly that "perfectly reasonable and logical ... to assume Jarvis is sentient given all the factors in the movies" then it's not untenable to ask you to be able to give a few of all these factors and your thoughts for thinking so. *shrugs*
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 02:56 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 10:09 am (UTC)(link)Hah, that's a really strange way to put it. Wouldn't the better question be "what the movies actually show that gives you the impression that JARVIS IS sapient?" Given that JARVIS is supposed to be an advanced AI in a world with superpowers, one would expect some features more than what is present in AI in our own mundane world. But to prove that an inanimate object or system has gained a characteristic of a living thing, shouldn't the burden of proof be on 'why do you think this robot/AI is sapient' rather than 'why you think it isn't?", when the answer to the latter is a simple: "it is not a thing which is generally sapient, it is not stated to be sapient and so far it has not exhibited any behavior which posits that it is sapient as opposed to well-programmed."
As far as I know JARVIS has so far not done anything for himself/itself, has never in fact, contradicted any order given by Tony, in fact, it just sounds very human and is able to replicate a sense of humor. I don't really think that makes it 'human'.
So, what in the movies gives you the impression that JARVIS is sapient? Cause snark ain't it, for me.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 10:37 am (UTC)(link)Basically I'm confused by what people are saying are limitations they perceive to JARVIS's intelligence, clearly enough that they can tell when someone is "exaggerating" it in fanfiction, when I don't think we've really been shown any in particular. Unless, like others have said, you count "not being a main character that warrants that much screentime", as one of them, which I personally don't.
Of course, I have not read any fanfics with him in them. So... like... maybe they have him playing kawaii matchmaker with the Avengers or computer-fucking them or something and people are mad because fucking is people and a computer can't be people? Help me out here, how are people doing this.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 12:42 pm (UTC)(link)Well JARVIS!slash (generally as Paul Bettany) and AI!sex is pretty common in the fandom, yes. As well as fic from JARVIS' pov. Or fic with matchmaker!JARVIS. Or fic that explicitly gives the AI emotions and feelings. So yeah, fandom does exaggerate even to that level. But I have no problems with that when it's clearly fanon because well, ficcers write what they want. However, I don't think this leeway applies when it comes to meta or discussion of things that actually happened in the movie, where, I don't see any behavior from JARVIS which posits sentience/sapience.
It seems really strange to me that you take the ability to talk and snark and "fucking ability" as proof of sapience? Which is the point in this thread: that an anon, in a discussion, said that JARVIS had social abilities beyond an AI, and can go beyond its programming. Which, I don't think is proven at all.
We don't see any proof or disproof of the sentience of Tony's toaster in the movie. Certain people may write sentient!toaster fic, since toasters are generally non-sentient even if they make toast automatically; when it comes to discussing actual sentience of Tony's toaster it will be a bit silly to say that automatic toasting means it's definitely sentient. For me, it's the same case with Tony's AI. Since an AI's entire purpose is to mimic intelligence, a machine being successful at it doesn't seem to me to be proof that it's more than that at all, any more than I'd say that a Keepon has any "real" awareness of music and/or affection.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 11:37 pm (UTC)(link)I don't take any of it as proof, just that... if we're even entertaining the possibility of a computer being a person, what exactly can we definitively say are the traits it would have to display to show it is one and what disqualifies it from being one? Disobeying orders? The "stolid, dutiful butler" theme could cover that. He essentially is one, just invisible and with cool powers.
I'm not saying JARVIS is definitely sapient. Just that I don't know of anything I'd consider a huge exaggeration of his abilities, and his obedience may be an indicator that he's just a machine, but I see it as part of his personality as well. vOv Defining personhood as it applies to minor-character magical superhero AI systems isn't the most cut-and-dried of issues. I mean, at what point is it "mimicking intelligence" enough to actually maybe possess that intelligence?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 04:57 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 10:16 am (UTC)(link)Oh, I do think JARVIS is ridiculously advanced and can often predict Tony's behaviours. But I don't think the capacity to act on "free will", or against explicit programming, or have emotions or wants or needs of its own, is something that's present in JARVIS. Hence, the "not actually sentient/sapient"
Recs?
(Anonymous) 2012-06-30 05:05 am (UTC)(link)Re: Recs?
There's also The Evaluation Process (http://archiveofourown.org/works/447243) which is about Jarvis dealing with Tony's death.
And this non-kink kinkmeme fill about Jarvis's opinions of all the team-members: http://avengerkink.livejournal.com/1854.html?thread=42046#t42046
Re: Recs?
Probably my favourite. It has Tony/others at first, then Steve/Tony and Steve/Tony/Jarvis (in a way)