[ SECRET POST #2005 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

NA I think JARVIS's social capabilities are vastly exaggerated by fandom. I know he was almost sentient in the novelization, but the novelization was different enough about both events and characterization of other players, to be an alternate verse of its own, and in what we've seen of the movie-verse so far, he's a brilliant AI, programmed to be sarcastic and make some decisions of his/its own, but I really don't think he's anywhere near actual sentience.

[intrigueing.livejournal.com]

I disagree with the assessment of his abilities in the movieverse (there was a great lj entry somewhere I can't remember that discussed the little details of his characterization really well), but also...just because the movieverse doesn't show the complete range and extent of his abilities doesn't mean they aren't there? It's not like the movie showed Jarvis's limitations, it's simply that Jarvis had a minor role in the movies and wasn't exactly explored in great detail. So what fanon comes up with doesn't contradict anything in the movies (or even put things in a new light, like the dumb fanon defense of woobie!Loki as "well, we don't actually know that he wasn't abused as a kid!"), it just expands on and deepens what we saw and what could possibly be inferred.

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.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

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.

[intrigueing.livejournal.com]

I don't think that analogy is comparable at all -- a reveal like that would throw Tony and Obadiah's relationship into an entirely different light, whereas if Jarvis was explicitly shown as sentient, people would at the most go "huh", but most likely would not even realize any difference from the previous movies. What I'm saying is, I think it's perfectly reasonable and logical (if not absolutely neccessary) to assume Jarvis is sentient given all the factors in the movies.

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.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

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*

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious as to what the movies actually show that gives you the impression that JARVIS isn't sapient. From what I can recall, all of his dialogue makes him seem pretty much indistinguishable from a human being except in his lack of a physical form, use of technical language, and ability to do all kinds of cool shit.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

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.

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps I worded that badly, but you (or someone else?) started talking about how fandom exaggerates JARVIS's intelligence, and I'm quite simply having trouble thinking of any sort of intelligence he could be shown to have that I would think was exaggerated, because in the movies he basically behaves like a human in almost every way. The only thing I can really think of that makes him more clearly an AI and not a person-intelligence thing is that he always follows Tony's orders no matter how dangerous the results will probably be for Tony, and a sworn duty to obey a superior's orders no matter what and being human have never really been mutually exclusive concepts.

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.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

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.

[(Anonymous)]

Well I wasn't... actually saying anything about "fucking ability", that was a joke. It would be out-of-character from what we see in the movie to see in a fic anyway and I don't give a shit about it, but that was what immediately occurred to me as a form of "exaggeration" that fandom people could possibly be engaging in.

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?

[(Anonymous)]

Whether Jarvis is sentient or not, I think he's damn good at predicting Tony's behaviors and knowing Tony's emotional state. In the Avengers, he powered up Tony's boots a few seconds before Tony told him to do so, and later on, suggested Tony to make his last call to Pepper.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

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"