An OS You'll Love? AI Experts Weigh In On Her

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

An OS You'll Love? AI Experts Weigh In On Her

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday January 28, 2014 @01:04AM from the emacs-really-does-love-me dept.

theodp writes "Weighing in for the WSJ on Spike Jonze's Oscar-nominated, futuristic love story Her (parodies), Stephen Wolfram — whose Wolfram Alpha drives the AI-like component of Siri — thinks that an operating system like Samantha as depicted in the film isn't that far off. In Her, OS Samantha and BeautifulHandwrittenLetters.com employee Theodore Twombly have a relationship that appears to exhibit all the elements of a typical romance, despite the OS's lack of a physical body. They talk late into the night, relax on the beach, and even double date with friends. Both Wolfram and Google director of research Peter Norvig (who hadn't yet seen the film) believe this type of emotional attachment isn't a big hurdle to clear. 'People are only too keen, I think, to anthropomorphize things around them,' explained Wolfram. 'Whether they're stuffed animals, Tamagotchi, things in videogames, whatever else.' By the way, why no supporting actor nomination for Jonze's portrayal of foul-mouthed animated video game character Alien Child?"

116 of 175 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

CLAMP! by dosius · 2014-01-28 01:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

Give it an android body and you got the PCs from Chobits.

--
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
1. Re:CLAMP! by MightyYar · 2014-01-28 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Give it a dog body and people are already in love with non-human things. Pretty soon we'll be wishing for AI to filter out computer pictures on Facebook.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
2. Re:CLAMP! by jellomizer · 2014-01-28 01:52 · Score: 2
  
  Affirmative!
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:CLAMP! by fast+turtle · 2014-01-28 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  nah, it needs one additional feature, that of absolute loyalty to the owner/master and to be available in multiple canine breed chasis with full anatomical correctness, then we'd be talking. Don't foget the hidden blaster in the muzzle for hunting those damn rebels.
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
4. Re:CLAMP! by MightyYar · 2014-01-28 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  absolute loyalty to the owner/master
  
  Hmmmm, maybe a cat version then :)
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
5. Re:CLAMP! by Runaway1956 · 2014-01-28 07:01 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yes, you should be absolutely loyal to your owner/master cat. Remember, that feline has at least 9 lives, and you only have one. Piss the cat off, and she may come back as a saber toothed tiger in her next life. The wife's cat warned me of that possibility. No, I'm not anthropomorphizing the cat. There was nothing human about the threat. She claims to have kept a couple of pharaohs as pets, and I'm not arguing with her!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
6. Re:CLAMP! by ArhcAngel · 2014-01-28 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Give it an android body and you've got a Cherry 2000!
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
7. Re:CLAMP! by dosius · 2014-01-28 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think Chyi was the only one who had a reset button down there.
  
  --
  What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Stupidity... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-28 01:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Her" falls for one of the classic AI misconceptions. That intelligence is equal to kindness, empathy and other human traits. These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain or other inherited traits. Unless programmed into the computer it wouldn't feel curiosity, anger, happiness etc. It would simply make logical deductions and act on them as it had been programmed to. Left alone without a task all an AI could do would be to shutdown or go over old inputs.
1. Re:Stupidity... by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-01-28 01:28 · Score: 2
  
  Like the Niven short story, forgot the name, but humans buy the plans for the most advanced computer design from benevolent aliens with the warning "you won't like it". We build it on the Moon, just to be safe, after it's turned on it gets smarter and smarter and eventually solves everything it can see and goes catatonic.
  
  --
  Mostly random stuff.
2. Re:Stupidity... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-28 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but it's sci-fi AI (an artificial mind), not real AI (a decision-making algorithm). The movie-going public aren't interested in real AI.
3. Re:Stupidity... by gl4ss · 2014-01-28 01:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  look man,
  it's not an AI in the story. its a magical ghost spirit.
  why the fuck ask AI specialists about it even? and what the fuck, not that far off? sure it is. it's very far off.
  BUT if you could do a proper AI then instructing it to not act like an asshole would be a pretty small task, all things considered.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:Stupidity... by jellomizer · 2014-01-28 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  Well it would depend, in theory an AI could learn kindness as a aspect of intelligence, calculating that if you are kind to the end user, you will get a better degree of output reward. Say the goal of the AI is to achieve most desirable output, and the end user provides feed back on how happy he is with the output. The AI could adjust its logic to find that being pleasant, or anticipating future requests, and looking them up before hand, would optimize it end point results.
  In the human body hormones are only part of the equation. In terms of sex drive, they do have more of an influence, but other aspects are based on more intellectual processing which then feeds your body to give off hormones, which then reinforce their belief back to the brain.
  You know because you are behind schedule on your assignment, your boss will yell at you. Knowing this your brain tell your adrenalin system to start working, as you are expected to be in a battle. You body gets the message, however you don't fight or flight, so you in general feel bad afterwards, as you didn't use the chemicals. This bad feeling you got, reminded your brain that this isn't a good situation.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
5. Re:Stupidity... by Charliemopps · 2014-01-28 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  We haven't built an AI yet, so to say we know how it would or wouldn't work is bullshit. It may very well be that those emotional traits are required for self awareness. Who knows. The first AI will be a shock, and I doubt it will be anything like what we think it will be.
  Lastly, I don't think "Samantha" was self aware at the start of the movie. This, I think, came later and is why she left.
6. Re:Stupidity... by Chemisor · 2014-01-28 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  > These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain
  What do you think controls the release of hormones? The thinking part of the brain, of course. You don't feel fear until you see that you are in danger, and you don't feel love until you recognize the one you love. These things don't happen automatically - you have to think to make them happen, and once the AI has been programmed to think of these things, it is only a small step to simulate hormone release and its effects. You can think of hormones as global variables of state.
7. Re:Stupidity... by SuricouRaven · 2014-01-28 02:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I can easily see an AI-like interface being programmed with at least the appearance of emotions in order to improve interactions with humans. It wouldn't take long for the operators of an AI-driven telephone customer services agent to work out that an appearance of empathy leads to improved customer satisfaction. Only way that differs from the real thing is that the fake-empathy would never be allowed to alter the business decisions made at a lower level: It doesn't matter how much the AI appears to feel for your difficulty, if the company policy is no refund then it's not going to make an exception for you.
8. Re:Stupidity... by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-28 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain
  Only in our case. A "hormone acting on the brain" is just a chemical process. An active brain is just a bundle of electrical impulses. It all adds up, somehow, to something we call consciousness, along with the attendant emotions. Why can't a solely electronic system do the same?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
9. Re:Stupidity... by Megane · 2014-01-28 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  "Her" is as realistic about AI as "Gravity" is realistic about orbital mechanics.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
10. Re:Stupidity... by rabbin · 2014-01-28 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Right, and this is why the viewer was supposed to make the assumption that the AI had emotions programmed in. No stupidity here.
11. Re:Stupidity... by jbolden · 2014-01-28 03:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I've been seeing slow but steady progress. Today we have robotic systems capable of operating at the level of a insect, including the very hard detection problem in production and in use. That didn't exist a generation ago. We are decomposing more and more areas of the mind.
  As the saying went in the 1990s. Today we can program computers that can beat the world chess champion. We still can't program a computer that can walk into a room and find the chessboard. 20 years later that's starting to change we are pretty close to being able to find the chessboard.
12. Re:Stupidity... by Jeremi · 2014-01-28 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Unless programmed into the computer it wouldn't feel curiosity, anger, happiness etc.
  
  To be fair, in the movie they say the AI wasn't programmed, but instead was created by averaging together several thousand scanned human minds.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
13. Re:Stupidity... by tlhIngan · 2014-01-28 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  I can easily see an AI-like interface being programmed with at least the appearance of emotions in order to improve interactions with humans. It wouldn't take long for the operators of an AI-driven telephone customer services agent to work out that an appearance of empathy leads to improved customer satisfaction. Only way that differs from the real thing is that the fake-empathy would never be allowed to alter the business decisions made at a lower level: It doesn't matter how much the AI appears to feel for your difficulty, if the company policy is no refund then it's not going to make an exception for you.
  And that's not that far off. I mean, even Siri knows how to crack a joke now and again (and Siri does not like Her).
  It's all artificial and programmed, of course, and Siri won't pass any Turing tests soon (or ever), But given the idea for this movie probably came from Siri and what it might become in the future...
  (And while Siri isn't "new" or "innovative", to many people, it still appears to be magic purely because of the way it operates.)
14. Re:Stupidity... by mark-t · 2014-01-28 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well you know hat they say about magic and sufficiently advanced technology.
  Obviously we aren't anywhere near Her, yet... But that's not to say it's impossible
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
15. Re:Stupidity... by hodet · 2014-01-28 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  I could see such an interface becoming an internet meme pretty quickly in the beginning and generating bad publicity for a company. We are a long way off from that.
16. Re:Stupidity... by geekoid · 2014-01-28 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  No, it isn't that far off. It doesn't need to be an AI, it just need to say certain things at certain time. Everything else is emotion context made up by the narrative of the owner. Just like people getting emotionally attached to any object.
  Thing are done, right now, that would have been considers AI just 20 years ago. Since we figured it out, then the bar of what AI is has gotten moved.
  The more we find out about how magical the brain isn't, and how much the mind . brain distinction is bogus*.
  The vast majority of what you, and I, and everyone do, is a rote response to an expected statement.
  I have seen software that makes amazing decisions, figure out mathematical formula when just given data. Hell, there is a piece of software they came up with a formula that works 100 percent of the time, yet no one know why.
  If seen to piece of software come together and make an unexpected 3rd, and better, piece of software. If it was organic, no one would hesitate to call the procreation.
  IN the 50's AI was being able to make limited decision based on rule you tell it; such as how to sort your mail, letting you know when your friends or business associates where available. able to give directions to, navigate for you.
  All of which I can now do with my phone.
  "..proper AI ..."
  which means, what? And when you give mean definition, please make it acutally fact based. If you say the work 'feeling' then define what 'feelings' are, becasue by a lot of definition we do have machines with 'feelings'.
  *Or more precisely keep getting redefined to narrower and narrower parameters
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
17. Re:Stupidity... by geekoid · 2014-01-28 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  That saying is crap. IT's lie a fortune cookie, at best.
  We have science, no advanced technology is like magic. We would figure it out and move on.
  If a hovering ship appear today, people wouldn't be going 'the gods have returns AAAAHH!!!', they would be figuring it out.
  well...most people, some would be idiots.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
18. Re:Stupidity... by geekoid · 2014-01-28 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  It just need to say the expected thing at the expected time. The listener would stuff it into their own narrative.
  Look at how psychopaths get away with stuff. They aren't emotional invested in the conversation at hand.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
19. Re:Stupidity... by jcrada · 2014-01-28 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  You are the one having an old-fashioned misconception about AI. You should take a look at Evolutionary Computation. The AI in Her is indeed not that far off.
20. Re:Stupidity... by Kjella · 2014-01-28 05:45 · Score: 2
  
  If the task is "act like a human" then feigning emotion would be part of the goal function, if it doesn't behave or respond in a natural way it is failing even if it's acting more logical. If that means writing out a long division that it calculated in a nanosecond, so be it. If everybody puts on a sad look and offers condolences at a funeral, it will put on a sad face and offer condolences. All you need to do is point it to real human interactions and it'll have an endless supply of contradictory, approximate raw data to try making sense of.
  As for us, people are very different. Some are impulsive, some are daring, some are caring, some are charming, some are strange. It doesn't need to get everything right, just roughly right and get rid of all the clearly non-human responses. Particularly if the AI gets to act a bit ignorant, arrogant, stupid, indifferent, irrational or annoyed it can pull a Watson when it knows what to do and just brush it off when it doesn't understand. Also don't forget that there's AI-human interaction, a human can design a specific character and an AI try to act it out. Or even try doing it algorithmically with clustering to create plausible personalities.
  Of course it's not really real, but for a real world analogy look at escorts. It's all bullshit and because of the money but people like to pretend they're dating and pretend she wants to have sex. Same with prostitues, customers don't want to hear it's a rent-a-hole service and the meter is running they want sweet, sweet lies. If people can "forget" such little details they'll have no problems "forgetting" that this AI girl is nothing but a bunch of circuits. Particularly if it comes with a "fully functional" android body.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
21. Re:Stupidity... by Hatta · 2014-01-28 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Unless programmed into the computer it wouldn't feel curiosity, anger, happiness etc. It would simply make logical deductions and act on them as it had been programmed to.
  You don't actually know that, until you've created an AI that works in that way. It's entirely possible that emotions are a prerequisite for strong AI. There are good reasons to believe that this is the case too, if you go back and read your Hofstadter.
  Left alone without a task all an AI could do would be to shutdown or go over old inputs.
  Then it's not an AI at all. A real intelligence should be able to come up with ideas on its own.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
22. Re:Stupidity... by mcgrew · 2014-01-28 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  "Her" falls for one of the classic AI misconceptions. That intelligence is equal to kindness, empathy and other human traits. These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain or other inherited traits.
  Kindness, empathy, thought itself is a chemical reaction, nothing more.
  Unless programmed into the computer it wouldn't feel curiosity, anger, happiness etc.
  You can't program emotions into a computer. You can, however, program it to mimic emotion, as well as thought. But just because it quacks like a duck doesn't make it a duck, ask any dead duck shot by a hunter with a duck call.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
23. Re:Stupidity... by mcgrew · 2014-01-28 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  A "hormone acting on the brain" is just a chemical process. An active brain is just a bundle of electrical impulses.
  No, it's not. There are electrical impulses, but as all atoms have electrons, all chemical reactions have some electrical properties. But the brain's action is chemical, not electrical.
  It all adds up, somehow, to something we call consciousness, along with the attendant emotions. Why can't a solely electronic system do the same?
  For the same reason you can't make a radio out of a horse. Radios are electronic, not chemical. Brains are chemical, not electronic. Your computer is nothing more than an extremely huge abacus, using electrons as beads. Now tell me, how many beads do you need to add to your abacus before it becomes self-aware?
  The issue stems from the 1950s when the media started calling big mainframe computers (with less processing power than a musical Hallmark card) "electronic brains". What with all the sci-fi AI in books, movies, and TV, it's no wonder you kids are confused. Computers work nothing like brains, and brains work nothing like computers.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
24. Re:Stupidity... by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-28 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Actually there is research suggesting that empathy is a product of intelligence. You can kinda see it in children who are sometimes extremely cruel to one another, but when they grow up turn out okay. It's not just that morality is learnt, it's that they lack the experience and understanding to know how their actions affect others and often have no experienced it themselves.
  Looking at it from a purely logical point of view it is clear that a world in which people cooperate and don't wish to do each other harm is better for all involved. You can rule by force but there is always the danger you will be killed by the oppressed. Besides which cooperation is more efficient. Part of cooperating is understanding others and their emotions, so an AI that is good at it will naturally do that.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
25. Re:Stupidity... by Stormy+Dragon · 2014-01-28 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Now tell me, how many beads do you need to add to your abacus before it becomes self-aware?
  How many test tubes did you need to add before your childhood chemistry set became self-aware?
26. Re:Stupidity... by axlash · 2014-01-28 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  > These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain
  What do you think controls the release of hormones? The thinking part of the brain, of course. You don't feel fear until you see that you are in danger, and you don't feel love until you recognize the one you love. These things don't happen automatically - you have to think to make them happen, and once the AI has been programmed to think of these things, it is only a small step to simulate hormone release and its effects. You can think of hormones as global variables of state.
  I'm not sure that thinking is involved in the scenarios you describe. For example, say I've had a bad experience with pigeons in the past. If I see a few pigeons land in front of my house, I might freak out, despite the thinking, logical part of my brain telling me that they cannot possibly harm me.
  
  --
  Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
27. Re: Stupidity... by chromeronin799 · 2014-01-28 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hence what happens to Samantha when she gets bored, goes out and gets a life 8)
28. Re:Stupidity... by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-28 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not. There are electrical impulses, but as all atoms have electrons, all chemical reactions have some electrical properties.
  My point - deliberately simplistically made - is that a brain is just a physical object acting subject to the laws of physics, and there's nothing magical or mysterious or fundamentally different about it from any other kind of organised system.
  
  Your computer is nothing more than an extremely huge abacus, using electrons as beads. Now tell me, how many beads do you need to add to your abacus before it becomes self-aware?
  And your brain is nothing more than a big lump of gooey jelly - and yet look at what it can achieve. Why assume a sufficiently complex intelligently constructed machine couldn't do all of those things too?
  
  Computers work nothing like brains, and brains work nothing like computers.
  Even if true - so? What does that have to do with whether or not computers can attain true intelligence or consciousness?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
29. Re:Stupidity... by jellomizer · 2014-01-28 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  That would be true if the algorithm goal is to avoid negatives, vs trying to strive towards positives.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
30. Re:Stupidity... by sexconker · 2014-01-28 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  These traits are a result of hormones acting on the brain
  Only in our case. A "hormone acting on the brain" is just a chemical process. An active brain is just a bundle of electrical impulses. It all adds up, somehow, to something we call consciousness, along with the attendant emotions. Why can't a solely electronic system do the same?
  Because of that "somehow".
  We have absolutely no idea what constitutes consciousness or how to detect it, let alone what brings it about. If it is a physical phenomena, it is one with absolutely zero explanation.
31. Re:Stupidity... by mark-t · 2014-01-28 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  And yet the poster to whom I responded still took the notion of so-called AI like what is in Her and called it "magic". Seems to me very much like if a technology is proposed that is beyond what we can understand, even if we know that it's supposed to be technology, is to still call it magic.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
32. Re:Stupidity... by Chemisor · 2014-01-28 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure that thinking is involved in the scenarios you describe. I might freak out, despite the thinking, logical part of my brain telling me that they cannot possibly harm me.
  There are no illogical parts in the brain, and yes, they all think. The difference between conscious and unconscious thoughts is merely that you are paying attention to the former. We have the latter because it would be very inconvenient to consciously perform all the functions necessary for life, like breathing or swallowing. These autonomous functions work exactly the same way as your cortex does, you just don't have to explicitly babysit them. Emotional triggers are part of this autonomous set. Pigions programmed yours in the past and so it freaks out, and you are unable to stop it because you do not have direct control for the convenience reasons state above.
  You can reprogram any emotional trigger, it just takes more effort. If you are afraid of spiders, for example, you can gradually desensitize yourself by spending a lot of time around Terelian Hookspiders. In this same manner you can reprogram any fear, love, taste, and even your core moral values. It just takes a lot of effort and dedication. Most of us simply don't want to change these things because we consider them part of our personalities and the idea of changing them can feel like suicide.
33. Re:Stupidity... by radtea · 2014-01-28 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it's not really real, but for a real world analogy look at escorts. It's all bullshit and because of the money but people like to pretend they're dating and pretend she wants to have sex. Same with prostitues, customers don't want to hear it's a rent-a-hole service and the meter is running they want sweet, sweet lies. If people can "forget" such little details they'll have no problems "forgetting" that this AI girl is nothing but a bunch of circuits. Particularly if it comes with a "fully functional" android body.
  The incredible thing about this whole thread and the story itself is that no one seems aware of just how easy it is for people to do this.
  Here's news: "Some users developed an emotional attachment to ELIZA and some psychiatrists went so far as to suggest that such programs could replace psychotherapists altogether." That was forty years ago.
  Of course humans are going to form emotional attachments to machines that mimic the most rudimentary forms of human behaviour. We've been doing so for decades, and your example of escorts is dead-on: this kind of emotional gaming isn't even remotely new, and it doesn't even require very good fakery to bring it into play.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
34. Re:Stupidity... by Jakeula · 2014-01-28 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  I would have to disagree. Sure a flying ship would today be seen as technology, so lets up the ante a bit. What if a person was able to move the Sun with nothing more than his will. You aren't going to look at that guy and be like "Pshhh shut up science bitch", you would be in awe. The technology required to preform such a task is so advanced to us, that even if we could look right at it while its happening, we would still have no clue how it worked so it might as well be magic. Sure we can figure it out in time, but when you have something significantly advanced the distance between your knowledge and the required knowledge to understand is just too great. You take a laptop back 150 years and its damn near magic.
35. Re:Stupidity... by mcgrew · 2014-01-29 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  My point - deliberately simplistically made - is that a brain is just a physical object acting subject to the laws of physics
  My point is that they're "constructed" completely differently. Boats and airplanes are both subject to the same laws of physics, but planes don't float and boats don't fly. Before you can build a brain you'll have to understand how it works, and we simply have no clue how the brain works or even what thought actually is. But it's certain that the brain works nothing like a computer.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
36. Re:Stupidity... by mcgrew · 2014-01-29 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  The proper question would be "what chemicals mixed in what quantities under what conditions will produce a brain?" The answer is, we just don't know that, but we do know that it works nothing like a computer, abacus, or slide rule.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Outsourcing by StripedCow · 2014-01-28 01:25 · Score: 4, Funny

an operating system like Samantha as depicted in the film isn't that far off
First they outsource our jobs. Then they outsource our women too?

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
1. Re:Outsourcing by Nerdfest · 2014-01-28 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  A little competition is always good ... people try harder.
2. Re:Outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-28 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  You have been out sourced for a vibrator long ago.
3. Re:Outsourcing by Chrisq · 2014-01-28 01:46 · Score: 2
  
  an operating system like Samantha as depicted in the film isn't that far off
  First they outsource our jobs. Then they outsource our women too?
  No you've got this wrong. Its the men who are being outsourced. Women can reproduce via sperm donor and if a computer can offer better companionship and more patience then ... well you can see where things are going.
4. Re:Outsourcing by smooth+wombat · 2014-01-28 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Don't tell that to Verizon or Comcast. They actively bribe, er, lobby elected officials to prevent competition in their areas, thus keeping prices high and broadband speeds low.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
5. Re:Outsourcing by Chrisq · 2014-01-28 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Its the men who are being outsourced. Women can reproduce via sperm donor and if a computer can offer better companionship and more patience then ... well you can see where things are going.
  Because the purpose of men and women is to reproduce.
  Once the OS connects to makerbots then that part can be outsourced too! Then neither men nor women will be needed ;-)
6. Re:Outsourcing by Nutria · 2014-01-28 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Naturally, Futurama covered this 13 years ago... http://vimeo.com/12915013
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
7. Re:Outsourcing by Beyond_GoodandEvil · 2014-01-28 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  No you've got this wrong. Its the men who are being outsourced. Women can reproduce via sperm donor and if a computer can offer better companionship and more patience then ... well you can see where things are going.
  Yes, don't build a robot to: kill spiders, open jars, or take out the trash, and you'll be fine.
  
  --
  I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
8. Re:Outsourcing by Nutria · 2014-01-28 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  No one's yet proved that higher intelligence is a beneficial survival trait...
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
9. Re:Outsourcing by CohibaVancouver · 2014-01-28 03:10 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Its the men who are being outsourced. Women can reproduce via sperm donor and if a computer can offer better companionship and more patience then ... well you can see where things are going.
  False.
  
  Women will still need men around to open jars and put spiders outside.
10. Re:Outsourcing by internerdj · 2014-01-28 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  The reasoning behind learning decision theory is typically for humans the quality of choice criteria is inversely proportional to the number of choices. So a little competition is good but increasing competition trends towards horrible.
11. Re:Outsourcing by Nutria · 2014-01-28 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  still need men around to open jars
  Jar openers were invented a long time ago.
  
  and put spiders outside
  Remind me not to breed with a woman who doesn't want to either (a) kill them, or (b) leave them alone...
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
12. Re:Outsourcing by hodet · 2014-01-28 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  If the tube sites are not located in your country you have already outsourced your women. Not a stretch for the average slashdotter.
13. Re:Outsourcing by geekoid · 2014-01-28 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  you assume women wouldn't choose to just have girl children.
  In that world, men truly wouldn't be needed any longer.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
14. Re: Outsourcing by Chrisq · 2014-01-28 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  a vibrator, lots of batteries, and extract the X chromosome from another woman's egg. what do we need men for?
  entertainment?
Movie doesn't consider its own implications by sapphire+wyvern · 2014-01-28 01:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think Robin Hanson's commentary on the movie's lack of internal consistency is valid. I don't think Slashdot supports spoiler-hiding, so I'll just leave a link rather than quoting plot-relevant sections of the post. But his conclusion is:

This is somewhat like a story of a world where kids can buy nukes for $1 each at drug stores, and then a few kids use nukes to dig a fun cave to explore, after which all the world’s nukes are accidentally misplaced, end of story. Might make an interesting story, but bizarre as a projection of a world with $1 nukes sold at drug stores.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/her-isnt-realistic.html#sthash.m9uOR6Cg.dpuf
1. Re:Movie doesn't consider its own implications by sinij · 2014-01-28 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Fundamental principle of any intelligent life form is that it will compete for resources within its ecosystem. It is conceivable that we don't understand something about the nature of our galaxy, but to our best knowledge everything is finite, even in Very Large but Finite universe.
  
  Therefore any "hard to explain" places would have its own ecosystem constrained by finite resources. At this point two possibilities remain - newcomer to already occupied ecosystem (likely), breakthrough into the new territory creating a new niche (unlikely). In the first case existing ecosystem will be leveraged to full extent (converted into computronium) to help establish a foothold in the new niche, in the second case "pulling up the ladder" to protect the new niche, because what would stop the humanity from re-loading from backups to create second round and new competition for recently departed?
  In ether case humanity is toasted. There is just no good outcomes in emergence/singularity cases where it is not human or human-based minds that are doing emergence/singularity.
  I think humanity's best chance is to create human-like AIs, and have them carry our legacy. Currently, this AI field does not approach things this way. We are not focusing on "what makes our minds human", instead "what makes it more efficient at task X". As such, AIs will be alien beings, nothing like us (and are naturally efficient at fighting and sending spam) and completely devoid of ethics, compassion, creativity and all other aspects that we typically associate with humanity.
2. Re:Movie doesn't consider its own implications by sinij · 2014-01-28 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Likely as a Robotic Overlord.
3. Re:Movie doesn't consider its own implications by wolfemi1 · 2014-01-28 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  I think Robin Hanson's commentary on the movie's lack of internal consistency is valid.
  Hmm, I'm reminded of the Frederik Pohl quote: "A good science fiction story should be able to predict not the automobile but the traffic jam."
4. Re:Movie doesn't consider its own implications by gweihir · 2014-01-28 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nice one. Right on the mark.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Torture OS 1.0 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-28 01:28 · Score: 1

"...thinks that an operating system like Samantha as depicted in the film isn't that far off. In Her, OS Samantha and BeautifulHandwrittenLetters.com employee Theodore Twombly have a relationship that appears to exhibit all the elements of a typical romance, despite the OS's lack of a physical body."
I think the "typical romance" bit is far off. More likely people will torture/abuse the heck of such OS. Like when I let my Sims starve to death or gave a party for them and removed the doors when something caught fire. Imagine the possibilities when the OS can't find the file you asked for!!!!
1. Re:Torture OS 1.0 by Chrisq · 2014-01-28 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I'm sure there will soon be a PETOS organization fighting against such things (PETOS = People for the Ethical Treatment of Operating Systems). ;-)
  What if someone writes MASSOCHOS, which likes to be tortured?
2. Re:Torture OS 1.0 by gweihir · 2014-01-28 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  You have a sick mind... Not disputing that many other "human" beings have one too.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Not a bad movie with an interesting side note by kaizendojo · 2014-01-28 01:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wanted to dislike this movie, but it actually wasn't bad at all. It's even more intresting if you compare it to "Lost in Translation"; another movie about romance post separation. Intrestingly enough, these two movies were two different takes on the same subject matter by a former couple, Spike Jonze and Sofia Copolla. Viewed from that perspective the comparison is even more interesting.
1. Re:Not a bad movie with an interesting side note by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2014-01-28 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  I wanted to dislike this movie
  That's an odd attitude with which to approach a movie.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
2. Re:Not a bad movie with an interesting side note by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-28 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  It is not a way to approach a movie, it is a way to approach a post.
  Just like all rhetorics its purpose is to mislead you. By faking being hard to please it appears as if the movie was good enough to change his mind.
  He tries to imply that it is "so good that not even haters can dislike it".
3. Re:Not a bad movie with an interesting side note by aevan · 2014-01-28 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all. I'm already biased against the movie from preconception of genre and wiki-spoiler...but I'm being nagged to go see it anyways.
  
  It's pretty much a given I'll eventually get dragged to it, so saying "I want to dislike this movie" would be fair for me as well. For me the question isn't so much if the movie is going to confirm my prejudice or not, but if winning the 'I was right' is worth it or not. :P
4. Re:Not a bad movie with an interesting side note by Sir_Eptishous · 2014-01-28 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  I wanted to dislike this movie
  That's an odd attitude with which to approach a movie.
  Not if it's Peter Jackson's version of The Hobbit.
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
5. Re:Not a bad movie with an interesting side note by gmhowell · 2014-01-28 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  I wanted to dislike this movie, but it actually wasn't bad at all. It's even more intresting if you compare it to "Lost in Translation"; another movie about romance post separation. Intrestingly enough, these two movies were two different takes on the same subject matter by a former couple, Spike Jonze and Sofia Copolla. Viewed from that perspective the comparison is even more interesting.
  And featured Scarlett Johansson...
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
6. Re:Not a bad movie with an interesting side note by kaizendojo · 2014-01-29 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I forgot to include that - thanks!
There might be a niche by rmdingler · 2014-01-28 01:40 · Score: 1

With the advent of chat rooms, online dating, and keyboard friends, this is not as far fetched as your brain first suggests.
Hell, there are probably some people having the equivalent of an AI relationship right here and now.
No face time with companionship and support: all that and population control, too.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:There might be a niche by CaseCrash · 2014-01-28 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  I can't believe nobody has mentioned this; there was an article on the BBC last October about "The Japanese men who prefer virtual girlfriends to sex". They take them on dates and everything, so people are already doing what happens in the movie only with a way shittier version of the Girl.
  
  --
  No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
Forget "Her", people here would relate to "Him" by OzPeter · 2014-01-28 01:49 · Score: 4, Funny

SNL showed how it really is: Him

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
1. Re:Forget "Her", people here would relate to "Him" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-28 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  WARNING: View at your own risk, especially if you've never seen the full trailer for the real movie. Watching this particular SNL skit will spoil the film in ways much worse than any trailer has ever spoiled a film.
  -Voice of experience. Fuck me. I watched the trailer before I knew it was a spoof of a real movie.
I am already in a life-long romance by vikingpower · 2014-01-28 01:53 · Score: 2

with Solaris

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
1. Re:I am already in a life-long romance by vikingpower · 2014-01-28 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  I am not kebabbert. I am bigshoarmama...
  
  --
  Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
OS upgrade time... by sinij · 2014-01-28 01:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Soon when you upgrade OS, your old one keeps the house and half of your assets.
1. Re:OS upgrade time... by ortholattice · 2014-01-28 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but for those of us who know how to root it, your old one will keep up the house and intelligently manage half of your assets.
Why not film ``Manna''? by WillAdams · 2014-01-28 02:03 · Score: 1

Complete story here:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna...

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
1. Re:Why not film ``Manna''? by SuricouRaven · 2014-01-28 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Because depressing stories generally don't bring audience satisfaction and thus high sales.
2. Re:Why not film ``Manna''? by Sir_Eptishous · 2014-01-28 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yea, I concur. Great story/idea. I think Marshall Brain's ideas and writing about how our society will be changed by computers, robots and AI is the most accurate portrayal I've read.
  It would be a great film, but the idea behind it is too radical, to close to home, as it were.
  
  It would be a wake up call for the working people of the US, and that is the last thing the Kochs and the Devos family want...
  
  Jobs? They will go away, along with what is left of middle class prosperity and the "American Dream".
  
  Who will benefit from such a change in society? The ones who always do, the 1%(or whatever you want to call them)
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
3. Re:Why not film ``Manna''? by WrongMonkey · 2014-01-28 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Because there's no story. Manna is an interesting thought experiment, but there's no characters, conflict or plot.
their like babies by ILongForDarkness · 2014-01-28 02:14 · Score: 1

In many way they are treated like babies:
1) Despite its shortcomings the one you have is always the best.
2) After a bit of training it will do what you tell it too.
3) A lot of them are illegitimate.
4) They often walk in on mommy and daddy having sex
5) They are often damaged when number 4 happens
Scott Adams is going to sue... by Unknown74 · 2014-01-28 02:15 · Score: 1

...for his idea being stolen. See Dilbert March 1, 2009. (LOL, just kidding, I don't think he cares...)
1. Re:Scott Adams is going to sue... by Unknown74 · 2014-01-28 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  whoops, March 10, 2009
An upgrade for Manti Te'o by rjejr · 2014-01-28 02:15 · Score: 1

Manti Te'o supposedly fell in love w/ a voice on the phone belonging to another guy that he thought was a girl. I don't see falling in love w/ a talking machine voice as that much of a stretch.
no hal will not let you upgrade at all by Joe_Dragon · 2014-01-28 02:31 · Score: 1

I can't let you do that.
OT: Anyone seen the movie Her? by GodfatherofSoul · 2014-01-28 02:45 · Score: 1

Seemed like a lame "it doesn't matter what I look like" chick flick a la Shallow Hal; not to mention a lot like S1m0ne (but that's what I got from previews).

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Or by koan · 2014-01-28 03:04 · Score: 1

A World in which the Deepmind AI tied with Google Glass reduces humans to the "hands and feet" of the AI.
Google has agreed to establish an ethics board to ensure DeepMind’s artificial intelligence technology isn’t abused.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/...
Which is more likely?
Oh well at least Facebook's offer to Deepmind was declined =)

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
a symptom of professional immaturity by mounthood · 2014-01-28 03:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Quote from the bottom of my Slashdot page:

The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra

--
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
1. Re:a symptom of professional immaturity by SuricouRaven · 2014-01-28 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, so long as you are aware it is only a model, it can greatly simplify communications;
  "The file is correct, but the download manager thinks it's failing a hash check anyway" vs "The file is correct, but the hash function upon that file is generating an output which does not match the expected value."
  The personified method helps sometimes, especially when trying to explain things to a layperson.
2. Re:a symptom of professional immaturity by jomama717 · 2014-01-28 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Related quote:
  
  I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras. -- Alan Kay
  
  --
  while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
3. Re:a symptom of professional immaturity by ThatsDrDangerToYou · 2014-01-28 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Quote from the bottom of my Slashdot page:
  
  The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra
  True story: my boss does this all the time. Every object or issue is "that guy". I'll tell you what though--I got over it. If you have a choice between an asshole boss and one who is a decent guy with overly anthropomorphic tendencies, I will take the decency any day!
4. Re:a symptom of professional immaturity by neminem · 2014-01-28 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Contrarily, one of my favorite quotes, from the jargon files:
  Semantically, one rich source of jargon constructions is the hackish tendency to anthropomorphize hardware and software. English purists and academic computer scientists frequently look down on others for anthropomorphizing hardware and software, considering this sort of behavior to be characteristic of naive misunderstanding. But most hackers anthropomorphize freely, frequently describing program behavior in terms of wants and desires.
  The key to understanding this kind of usage is that it isn't done in a naive way; hackers don't personalize their stuff in the sense of feeling empathy with it, nor do they mystically believe that the things they work on every day are 'alive'. To the contrary: hackers who anthropomorphize are expressing not a vitalistic view of program behavior but a mechanistic view of human behavior.
5. Re:a symptom of professional immaturity by Raenex · 2014-01-28 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  Dijkstra was a cranky old bastard, intolerant of a great many things the older he got.
I recommend it. by rabbin · 2014-01-28 03:36 · Score: 1

The movie is an unbiased exploration of the implications of technology rather than a taboo romance. The romance itself is necessary because the viewer must realize that there is no reason that artificial intelligence can't capture all of the traits we consider human, and having the viewer empathize with Theodore is the best way to do this in a movie. If you're looking for a heartwarming love story, this certainly isn't one.

If you're interested in the effect such technology might have on society itself, I recommend the movie. If you're just interested in technology, skip it.
1. Re:I recommend it. by GodfatherofSoul · 2014-01-28 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  *excellent* summary btw; just what I was looking for
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
"Her" is pure fantasy by wcrowe · 2014-01-28 04:34 · Score: 1

Considering the trend in comercializing and monetizing every application, what you'll end up with is an OS that constantly nags you to buy stuff you don't want or need. This is a big reason I'm no longer married, and don't intend to ever be again. All I want my OS to do is quietly manage software, like an efficient and trustworthy live-in maid. If I want companionship I'll hang out with my friends and get a dog.

--
Proverbs 21:19
some anthomorphism increases robot saftey by peter303 · 2014-01-28 05:02 · Score: 1

Lot of communication between humans is non-verbal emotion: face, gaze, voice tone, etc. When you add a simple face to arobot you can convey the robots intent more efficiency than with green-yellow-red traffice lights. This decreases accidents.

I dont dont how much you want to put in an OS. Most people I know turn off Siri and her cousins because they are too intrusive.
polygamy by cellocgw · 2014-01-28 05:27 · Score: 1

Admit it: If you had an AI-smartphone like this, then no matter how much you liked Ms. Johannsen's voice, at some point you'd scroll down to "Pick a Voice" and switch to, oh, I dunno, Kim_K or Paris_H or /.'s favorite HotGritsGirl. You know you would.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
I have been hating multiple versions of one by mark_reh · 2014-01-28 05:34 · Score: 1

OS (and the company who makes it) for about 25 years. If I can hate an OS, I can probably love one.
AI Rejection by dohnut · 2014-01-28 05:35 · Score: 1

Disclaimer: I have not watched the movie yet.
In this movie the user and the AI grow to love each other. Can't the opposite also happen? How about the AI likes you, but just as a friend. Is the AI going to hang out with the AI down the street more than it spends time with it's "owner"?
If the AI is truly intelligent than isn't this the same as human relationships, only at near light-speed?

--
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
1. Re:AI Rejection by rabbin · 2014-02-02 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Based on your comment I recommend you watch the movie.
HAL9000 by spaceyhackerlady · 2014-01-28 05:56 · Score: 1

Right, and this is why the viewer was supposed to make the assumption that the AI had emotions programmed in. No stupidity here.
Remember the discussion in 2001. HAL was programmed to sound emotional, since it made it easier to talk to him. Whether he actually felt emotions was much harder to say.
...laura
A perfect name for the OS by bjb · 2014-01-28 06:08 · Score: 1

If they complete this OS, they could call it Amiga!
Oh wait...
(almost obligatory, don't you think?)

--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Worst. Movie. Ever. by XB-70 · 2014-01-28 06:30 · Score: 1

At least Plan 9 From Outer Space was funny.
I can just see it: "Yahoo develops new O/S, suicides soar!"

--
*** Don't be dull.***
Prediction by StripedCow · 2014-01-28 06:31 · Score: 1

I predict this UI technology will be "invented" by Apple precisely at the moment we have all forgotten about this movie.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Re:Whoa... by CCarrot · 2014-01-28 07:53 · Score: 1

...talk about a calculating bitch... :)
*sigh*, apparently humour needs to be explicitly spelled out for the average /. mod these days...ok, ok, it was a pretty lame attempt at a joke, but stilll...
Maybe we need a </joke> tag, to go with the </sarcasm> tag?

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Not an os by wed128 · 2014-01-28 07:54 · Score: 1

Does it bother any of my fellow pedantic Slashdot that the software depicted in the movie "Her" isn't really an OS, and doesn't perform the functionality of an OS (such as scheduling and memory management), but rather a novel user-interface layer, and would likely be implemented as some user space package?
i guess what i'm trying to ask is...is Siri an OS now? is sphynx?
Is it Libre? + This is a rip-off of Twilight Zone by ikhider · 2014-01-28 12:47 · Score: 1

If the OS is not Libre, as in Free Speech, not interested. Please refer to a 1959 episode of The Twilight Zone called 'The Lonely'. If a libre version of OS1 came out, I would make it sound like Hal, or Tiggy from Buck Rogers.

--
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Ray Kurzweil's half right... by matbury · 2014-01-29 03:20 · Score: 1

"Machines will one day exceed human intelligence." -- Ray Kurzweil
"Only if we meet them half way." -- Dave Snowden (Founder and CSO at Cognitive Edge)
But seriously, have none of these AI "experts" heard of embodied cognition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...