|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 17, 2014 10:23:47 GMT -5
BECCA:
I think the MC comes to that realization about himself and his motives (there’s another reason he’s obsessed with creating the machine that I won’t get into). Suffice to say he rejects her because he perceives her as a projection of his desires. But it’s not necessarily true that she is just a fantasy because, after all, she is self-aware. She has free will. I don’t think one can say definitively that a self-aware machine is really just a product of its creator, anymore than one can say a child is just the product of his parents. Self-awareness creates autonomy (if free will exists at all).
So how would you feel finding out that you might be—might be—the projection of someone’s ego? Like Satan felt in Paradise Lost? Maybe then the project has to be abandoned because she goes rogue. Or do you reconcile yourself the way everyone reconciles himself with being the product of his parents? Put another way: Are you heartbroken because you lost the love of your life? Or do you come to the realization that your love is really just part of your creator’s programming and not real love at all? Then aren’t you really free—so far as you can be inside a virtual world? I don’t know.
FALLSWRITER:
My problem wasn’t really a corner problem. I have some approximation of a three-act plot in my head before I write, so I don’t get trapped by what happens next. The problem was flatness. The story just wasn’t that good: too predictable, no real character development. As Homer Simpson said, it was just a bunch of stuff that happened. Something was missing and I couldn’t see what it was. (By the way, I like to think I’m fairly objective about my stories because I approach it like a reader: I don’t love what I write, I write what I love.)
At any rate, the creator of tribbles will always get my attention. It was an ingenious premise, one that even non-fans of the franchise know. In fact, I was watching an episode of “Voltron Force” with my kid the other day, and the writers used the tribble plot: a cute, cuddly, and fecund creature is used to wreck havoc on the goodies. It’s one of my kid’s favourites too.
JOHN:
Thanks for the input. Suzy suggested this sort of HEA alternative up thread. But I’d already decided on the tragic outcome, so I had to rule it out. All the same, Suzy’s idea sparked the idea in me that the real problem is that she is everything he wants; and he comes to the realization that maybe she’s everything he wants because he’s designed her that way. She’s just a fantasy and he’s left his real, human wife behind for a made-up love and a made-up world. So he’s been fooling himself all along, playing in a made-up world while the real one is outside. That’s the solution I was looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 17, 2014 10:47:10 GMT -5
BECCA: I think the MC comes to that realization about himself and his motives (there’s another reason he’s obsessed with creating the machine that I won’t get into). Suffice to say he rejects her because he perceives her as a projection of his desires. But it’s not necessarily true that she is just a fantasy because, after all, she is self-aware. She has free will. I don’t think one can say definitively that a self-aware machine is really just a product of its creator, anymore than one can say a child is just the product of his parents. Self-awareness creates autonomy (if free will exists at all). So how would you feel finding out that you might be—might be—the projection of someone’s ego? Like Satan felt in Paradise Lost? Maybe then the project has to be abandoned because she goes rogue. Or do you reconcile yourself the way everyone reconciles himself with being the product of his parents? Put another way: Are you heartbroken because you lost the love of your life? Or do you come to the realization that your love is really just part of your creator’s programming and not real love at all? Then aren’t you really free—so far as you can be inside a virtual world? I don’t know. It might be really interesting to break the man's POV at the end of the story and give us the AI's as she struggles with these questions. The stuff you're talking about reminds me tremendously of Frankenstein. There, the creation's reaction is rage, profound loneliness, and an unstoppable desire for revenge mixed with continuing, helpless love for the "father." It's devastating. And yes, clear parallels there to Paradise Lost, as well, which makes sense -- the Romantics were all over their Milton, especially Satan. Also, whether free will exists or not, not very many people who are deeply in love feel free. Enslavement by love is an old trope for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Apr 17, 2014 12:22:05 GMT -5
Hmm. Perhaps he forms a sort of bubbled-off personal philosophy where if she acts real, she is real, regardless of what others think. Many people believe we have souls, despite not being able to see them. Others think we do not have souls. If a human acts real and an AI act real (funny, loveable, concerned, bored, happy, sad), then a person who falls in love with such a compelling AI could conceivably decide "she's real, I don't care what anyone says" and that's that. I'd buy that argument as a reader if I accept that reality is subjective. As long as something is real to you, it doesn't have to be real to anyone else. There is no objective reality because there is no objective consciousness. "Reality" is defined by individual perception and group consensus. Both originate from repeated or common experiences and our innate desire to wrest order from the chaos of life. There is no red pill. |
|
|
|
Post by vrabinec on Apr 17, 2014 13:03:01 GMT -5
JOHN: Thanks for the input. Suzy suggested this sort of HEA alternative up thread. But I’d already decided on the tragic outcome, so I had to rule it out. All the same, Suzy’s idea sparked the idea in me that the real problem is that she is everything he wants; and he comes to the realization that maybe she’s everything he wants because he’s designed her that way. She’s just a fantasy and he’s left his real, human wife behind for a made-up love and a made-up world. So he’s been fooling himself all along, playing in a made-up world while the real one is outside. That’s the solution I was looking for. If the guy is flesh and blood, and he lives in a flesh and blood world, there can't possibly be a happy ending. Not unless he's tied to a machine ala Neo in the Matrix and doesn't have a need for fulfilling physical desires. If he's meeting her in the virtual world, eventually, the machine gets shut off and he's alone in a room by himself, nobody to snuggle up to, nobody to eat with. All he could do, if he was really that concerned for her well being, is to create an AI double of himself in the virtual world and leave the double there, then go off and look for his real life soul mate. |
|
|
|
Post by Suzy on Apr 17, 2014 13:25:24 GMT -5
I think this is very topical and not sci-fi at all. Because we do live partly in a virtual world right now. Not that we can design online lovers in that way. But we do have online relationships these days, and those relationships can be very real. Because what we write reveals so much about ourselves. We think we can hide behind some online anonymous persona, with made-up names and faces that aren't the real us but maybe what we want the cyber world to think is us.
A pretty, fun, quirky picture, a made up name and we're away, playing a fantasy game with fantasy people. We think this is is pretty harmless, nobody gets hurt. It's just a bit of fun, really.
But it can be a very dangerous game. Because we often implicate real life values into virtual relationships. Emotions play a big part. And then we might ask our online flirtations to treat us as real people and to make the same kind of commitment as our real life friends and lovers. Even if what we have in cyberspace is one-dimensional. And then we get hurt because we ask too much from the people we connect with in the virtual world.
Hey! I just got an idea for a story!
|
|
|
|
Post by vrabinec on Apr 17, 2014 13:32:59 GMT -5
Okay, I confess. The me you guys have been seeing isn't the real me. Here I am:  |
|
|
|
Post by Suzy on Apr 17, 2014 13:35:11 GMT -5
Okay, I confess. The me you guys have been seeing isn't the real me. Here I am: I knew it! Take your finger out of your nose or the axe comes out and I'll chop it off! |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 17, 2014 14:18:12 GMT -5
BECCA:
1. Two POVs. That seems to follow. I’m not sure what I’ll do there. But I won’t worry about the mechanics till I write it out.
2. Frankenstein’s monster, yes. I’m glad you saw it because I was thinking it too and forgot to mention it. I don’t know what living in a virtual world is like. Does she want out? Does she feel like an abomination too? Or does that really depend on the desire to be human, which can’t be taken to follow automatically from self-awareness—a trope that’s way overused in SF.
3. Freedom and love. Their situations seem to mirror each other. He frees himself from her when he realizes she’s a projection his desires. Shouldn’t she also be free of him when she realizes her desires aren’t really her own, they’re her maker’s? To me that must lead more toward sadness than rage, which speaks to item 2. (Besides, I’m working on a Frankenstein-like story too, so…)
By the way, I just noticed how odd this is. We’re discussing a story that hasn’t even been fully committed to paper yet.
FRED:
There’s an episode of Outer Limits called “Simon Says” that has a “creepily ever after” that could work. A father loses his son, Simon, in an accident but manages to salvage his “memory engrams.” So he uploads the memories into a robot that he’s building from parts stolen from a lab where he works. When he’s caught stealing, he ends up killing himself and joining “Simon” inside the network he built. Of course, the creepiness of it all is the hints that what he thinks is his son might not really be his son. What’s inside the robot that talks to him and acts like his son is…whatever’s inside that robot. I don’t know how well they executed the whole thing, but it’s an interesting idea if the emphasis is on the uncertainty about what or who “Simon” is.
SUZY:
You’re right. It’s a human story. I’m in Bradbury’s camp when it comes to SF. I see it as a vehicle for human stories.
You’re also right that a lot has been written about this sort of thing, both fact and fiction. My biggest complaint is that the ideas get corralled into one of four paths: stalker story, conman story, crazy AI story, or a mad man takes over the world using AI story. It just seems like there’s so much more potential there that’s going untapped. Maybe you’re on track to do something outside the box. Keep us (or at least me) in the loop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Suzy on Apr 17, 2014 14:25:39 GMT -5
I think I might write a novella based on this. There is so much out there, so many people floating around in cyberspace looking for relationships they can't have in a real world. We all live in our heads and that's why we can get sucked into something that can we can't stop. Your thread inspired me. So, thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 17, 2014 14:29:54 GMT -5
Okay, I confess. The me you guys have been seeing isn't the real me. Here I am: If that were my younger widget, the finger would go straight to the mouth. STRAIGHT. Friggin' conveyor belt. |
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 17, 2014 14:41:59 GMT -5
BECCA: 1. Two POVs. That seems to follow. I’m not sure what I’ll do there. But I won’t worry about the mechanics till I write it out. 2. Frankenstein’s monster, yes. I’m glad you saw it because I was thinking it too and forgot to mention it. I don’t know what living in a virtual world is like. Does she want out? Does she feel like an abomination too? Or does that really depend on the desire to be human, which can’t be taken to follow automatically from self-awareness—a trope that’s way overused in SF. 3. Freedom and love. Their situations seem to mirror each other. He frees himself from her when he realizes she’s a projection his desires. Shouldn’t she also be free of him when she realizes her desires aren’t really her own, they’re her maker’s? To me that must lead more toward sadness than rage, which speaks to item 2. (Besides, I’m working on a Frankenstein-like story too, so…) By the way, I just noticed how odd this is. We’re discussing a story that hasn’t even been fully committed to paper yet. Ah, the time-machine-like powers of the plotter! Sadness, yes, perhaps. Maybe rage, too. It would depend on her personality, I guess. If I realized my innermost feelings were fabricated by someone else -- feelings that seemed utterly real and consuming and that created pain and grief -- and if I then came to further understand that he'd created those feelings in me out of a desire for an ideal (=easy) partner instead of struggling with the messier challenge of reconciling with his real-life partner, I'd be pretty pissed. It'd go beyond being used. I'd feel like a disposable side-effect of someone's ... I don't know. "Cowardice" is too strong a word. "Avoidance," maybe. And if those fabricated feelings disappeared, what would be there in their stead? I'd be made of him. Who's to say those feelings could be banished and replaced with something else made by me? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 16:06:09 GMT -5
Something that may be worth considering... you said he has a debilitating injury but not what it was. Depending on the severity and type it may affect how he reacts. Some people with a particularly noticeable problem may see an AI in love with them as a blessing. At least for a while. The possibility that no flesh and blood woman would want to deal with the complications caused by such an issue may cause him to temporarily cling to the illusion of her reality.
Of course it would depend on a lot of other factors. If there is another active love interest or a reasonably strong reclusive streak that goes right out the window. Still, the shock and distaste of the unnatural nature of the one who loves him may be overridden by the fact that she will love him as he is with less chances of instability than a 'real' woman. While that may not be true, it's a reasonable assumption for someone to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 18, 2014 20:23:49 GMT -5
BECCA:
I’m think out loud here. How much blame does he get? He didn’t set out to create her. He intended to create the learning system for the simulation’s AI, not a fantasy. He doesn’t even recognize that she’s self-aware until he’s developed a “relationship” with her. On top of that she conceals her self-awareness, so she’s not blameless in the way things turned out.
I guess all this is what’s been throwing me. As I said initially, it so beyond experience that it’s difficult to think through how it plays out.
AIMLESS:
Very perceptive. His injury does play a role in all this, though not quite the way you’ve described it. He was injured a long time before and learned to live with his situation. He’s even been able to turn a weakness into a strength. But during some early testing of the simulation he discovers that he’ll be able to do things inside the simulation that he long ago gave up on. So the simulation has reawakened or maybe reopened an old wound.
The “meta-theme” here is desire we all have to transcend ourselves and our limitations. This is a good and noble thing when it manifests as a desire to excel, to be the best person we can be. But it can manifest itself in escapism. We try to flee into a fantasy world where our limitations don’t exist. This road always ends in tragedy, because no one escapes for long. Reality returns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 20, 2014 16:21:34 GMT -5
BECCA: I’m think out loud here. How much blame does he get? He didn’t set out to create her. He intended to create the learning system for the simulation’s AI, not a fantasy. He doesn’t even recognize that she’s self-aware until he’s developed a “relationship” with her. On top of that she conceals her self-awareness, so she’s not blameless in the way things turned out. I guess all this is what’s been throwing me. As I said initially, it so beyond experience that it’s difficult to think through how it plays out. Hmm, yes, I see what you mean about her part in it. So, maybe it comes down to this: is she the kind of person who's likely to be honest with herself about her responsibility for the situation, or is she more the blame-the-other-person type? (Unfortunately, I know an awful lot of the blame-the-other types -- even people who are high quality individuals in areas other than affairs of the heart.) Maybe, as an AI, she's incapable of being as irrational as a human being can be? |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 20, 2014 21:32:29 GMT -5
BECCA: I’m think out loud here. How much blame does he get? He didn’t set out to create her. He intended to create the learning system for the simulation’s AI, not a fantasy. He doesn’t even recognize that she’s self-aware until he’s developed a “relationship” with her. On top of that she conceals her self-awareness, so she’s not blameless in the way things turned out. I guess all this is what’s been throwing me. As I said initially, it so beyond experience that it’s difficult to think through how it plays out. Hmm, yes, I see what you mean about her part in it. So, maybe it comes down to this: is she the kind of person who's likely to be honest with herself about her responsibility for the situation, or is she more the blame-the-other-person type? (Unfortunately, I know an awful lot of the blame-the-other types -- even people who are high quality individuals in areas other than affairs of the heart.) Maybe, as an AI, she's incapable of being as irrational as a human being can be? The more I think about it the more I think my problem with figuring her out is figuring out an AI woman's reaction. There's something there that I'm not seeing about how she'd react that completes the circle... |
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 20, 2014 21:38:20 GMT -5
Hmm, yes, I see what you mean about her part in it. So, maybe it comes down to this: is she the kind of person who's likely to be honest with herself about her responsibility for the situation, or is she more the blame-the-other-person type? (Unfortunately, I know an awful lot of the blame-the-other types -- even people who are high quality individuals in areas other than affairs of the heart.) Maybe, as an AI, she's incapable of being as irrational as a human being can be? The more I think about it the more I think my problem with figuring her out is figuring out an AI woman's reaction. There's something there that I'm not seeing about how she'd react that completes the circle... Hmm. If she's the creation of a man, will she think like a flesh-and-blood woman or more like her creator? |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 20, 2014 21:45:01 GMT -5
The more I think about it the more I think my problem with figuring her out is figuring out an AI woman's reaction. There's something there that I'm not seeing about how she'd react that completes the circle... Hmm. If she's the creation of a man, will she think like a flesh-and-blood woman or more like her creator? Good question. I thought about how the "learning algorithms" operate to create self-awareness, but I only thought of her manifesting as a woman because of her symbiotic/creator relationship with him. I never really thought about how the feminine got "into" her programming. So I didn't really think of her being a her so much as "it" manifesting itself as someone he could love. Her/its motivation being to escape the loneliness of being, well, the only one of its/her kind. I guess that means a woman's reaction might not even make logical sense, even though it seems to make narrative sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Apr 20, 2014 21:52:41 GMT -5
Hmm. If she's the creation of a man, will she think like a flesh-and-blood woman or more like her creator? Good question. I thought about how the "learning algorithms" operate to create self-awareness, but I only thought of her manifesting as a woman because of her symbiotic/creator relationship with him. I never really thought about how the feminine got "into" her programming. So I didn't really think of her being a her so much as "it" manifesting itself as someone he could love. Her/its motivation being to escape the loneliness of being, well, the only one of its/her kind. I guess that means a woman's reaction might not even make logical sense, even though it seems to make narrative sense. Maybe that complexity could be part of what's interesting in her reaction -- her consideration of who she is as an individual apart from her creator might include musing on or freeing herself from this weird gender thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 15:16:08 GMT -5
I hate to play Devil's advocate, but so what if she's AI.
Perception is reality.
If he's happy, what's the harm?
|
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Apr 24, 2014 11:55:13 GMT -5
I hate to play Devil's advocate, but so what if she's AI. Perception is reality. If he's happy, what's the harm? Not much of a story that way: Guy meets fake gal and falls in love. The end. As for perception being reality, I wish you’d explain that to my bank. I keep trying to withdraw the millions of dollars I perceive to be there; my bank keeps saying the only thing I have is a self-serving belief in a philosophical paradox. |
|
