Bad Bots and the Women—and Men—who Love Them!

Would you like to go on a date?

Recent artificial intelligence (AI) films like Her (excellent) and Transcendence (meh, it was OK) have entered a not so new question about computers and where they’re taking us as a culture.  I’m not really a scifi/futurist writer (although I’ve played one for teleconferences) but every now and then, I’m engaged on a science-y topic that invites some logical discussion.  The question of AIs walking among us is nothing new.  One of the earliest science fiction movies, Metropolis (1927), had AIs.  Westworld, which came out in 1973, the year I was born, posited the question of using life-like androids as a means of high-end entertainment.

But most of the earlier films (and writing, for that matter), have AIs going awry in a really bad way.  Witness the impressive, but psychotic, actions of one HAL 9000 when “his” programming is tampered with in 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Newer films posit the ever-rising possibility and plausibility of humans not just killing or being killed in horrible ways by AIs (Terminator, Blade Runner, Alien, Resident Evil, etc.), but also having relationships with our artificial creations.  No, not just those, relationship, as Jude Law showed us through his android gigolo in the Spielberg/Kubrick A.I. (although, those as well).  The meaningful, emotionally-connected relationship that most humans strive to seek and find, but generally fall short—like Haley Joel Osment showed us through his little boy character in the Spielberg/Kubrick A.I.

Come with me if you want
to have an emotional connection!

Before you reject the argument out of hand, consider for just a moment the depth of emotion and connection that online relationships/dating elicits.  If you’ve never watched an episode of Catfish, well maybe you’re the lucky one.  On the other hand, when 99.44% of the “catfishers” turn out to be less than they suggested online, the explosion of drama is like witnessing the Hindenburg, but in color and with people.

Of course, those are people, real, breathing, eating, farting people, on either end of the interwebs screen, and the emotion is real, even if it’s based on a lie.  Part of this is because we, as humans, want to love and be loved—so much so that we’re willing to be blind to obvious, and repeated, red, neon, warning flags.  Already, there are examples of online and real life interactive programs that can and have replicated emotional connections.

In some ways, an artificial companion would be better than the messy, complicated, social interactions we currently navigate on a daily basis.  Take Facebook for example.  Have you had “a friend” who lost friends over a comment, a joke, a political or social stance?  I know I have.  Although that’s mostly because not all my jokes are funny.  Now consider an AI, free from a lot of the emotional baggage and triggers that human companions are subject to. There could potentially be less work to be done in a relationship, on whatever level. We’re talking about mimicry here, not an actual emotional response, but if it's a perfect mimicry of love, affection, tenderness, etc., will you be able to tell the difference? If you can't tell the difference between "real emotion" and mimicry, does it matter?

Some empathy for others isn't full empathy. It can't be. You'd be emotionally bankrupt on a constant

Search your feelings.  You know that I am cute!

basis if you were always empathizing with friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances, and Michael J. Fox. But based on experience (which you draw from your memory bank and social programming algorithms), you know that you can make certain sounds and certain facial expression so that the other person at least THINKS that you care. You probably do care, but you aren't actually empathizing with them. Or maybe you don't care, but you just want the other person to believe you do, for whatever reason—social constraints require it.

Could you love an artificial human … real love?  The answer is obviously yes. Humans can feel strong emotional connections to any number of non-human things. Animals/pets, books, movies, inanimate objects of all stripes. We assign an emotional value to them, and they take on that meaning, whether they want to/can or not.  If an AI, an artificial human, can return emotion, even if it's perfect mimicry, as a real human you probably wouldn't care. If you can't tell the difference, then you have a loyal, loving, caring companion—just like Suzette—in many ways better than a real human.

Except for Batman. Nothing is better than Batman.

Killing off characters? Don’t mind if I do!

Mama, just killed a man.

Put a gun against his head,

Pulled my trigger, now he’s dead.

Mama, life had just begun,

But now I've gone and thrown it all away.

Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody

PLEASE NOTE: There be spoilers ahead.  You have been warned, matey!

You dig it the most!

For writer’s, even those playing the Writer as Evil Bastard, killing off a main character (MC for those in the know) is not something to be undertaken lightly.  Sure, sure, George R.R. Martin kills a baker’s dozen of MCs before brunch, but there’s a reason that’s so shocking and not the norm.  MCs are the eyes and ears and heart of the story.  They’re the characters through which we experience the world the author has created.  They’re the ones that we fall in love with and alongside.  We feel their hurts, their pains, their fear.  In 99.44% of the cases, they are the hero of the story, someone who is faster, stronger, quicker, smarter and sometimes just plain luckier than everyone else around them.  They fight bad guys, and bad gals, and Big Bads and monsters.

Most of all, when done correctly, readers want to experience more of the MC in other stories.  We encourage the author to write them by buying the books and leaving positive reviews.

But he's in the sequel, right?

But into every life, a little death must fall.  It certainly has to be done correctly. The mood needs to be set and the death needs to be justified. It should feed the story, forward the plot, make the other characters react.  It should not be done just for shock value.

Back in early 2001-2002 there was a rumor going around that Peter Jackson was going to kill off Frodo at the end of The Lord of the Rings.  Fans of nearly every stripe, from the hardcore Redbook-thumpers to the more casual read-once-a-year, aimed balls of fire and lightening in his direction.  But I recall writing a defense of Jackson for forwarding a bold concept that is actually part of the books. Tolkien stated that fighting evil takes a toll—you don't walk away unscathed.  Frodo was scarred, his body and his soul, from fighting the evil of the One Ring. More than just having Boromir die, Tolkien could have killed off Frodo and it would have been in the same light, the same tone and theme, as the rest of the story.

It’s true, you don’t have to kill off your character.  You can kill them, but then have them come back,

Druss.  'Nuf said.

sometimes stronger and better than ever.  J.K. Rowling does this for us in Harry Potter, George R.R. Martin sorta does this to us a few times.  Even Tolkien did this to us with Gandalf getting a change of clothing.  The emotional impact of a character dying, but then not dying, isn't the same as the character actually being killed and mourned over.  Think here of Boromir, or Druss the Legend, or Hoban Washburne (look it up).

If you’re going to kill off a character—really kill them—remember the audience and the impact.  Sean Bean’s death in Game of Thrones was sudden, violent, and a huge twist largely because audiences have witnessed this Hollywood scene play out happily so many times in the past.  Instead, Martin showed us what would realistically happen if a hero falls into the clutches of a Big Bad.  But the lead up to that moment, and everything about it, built a beautifully unforgettable and tragic moment that will never be forgotten.  

Or, just get Sean Bean.  That dude knows how to die!

And he dies very well!

Last Knights — Movie Review

Why yes, we are bad ass!

Take one big heaping part of the classic legend of the Forty-seven Ronin, three teaspoons of Ocean’s Eleven and a light dash of First Knight.  Stir until mixed, then serve with multi-culturalism and a voice-over from Morgan Freeman.

That essentially sums up Last Knights.  The unfortunately titled movie is reasonably enjoyable, but suffers several missteps, the first of which is naming the main character Raiden.  Most fans of semi-historic action, swords and sandals-type genre films will sit up in their seat when they hear the name and wonder if they got it wrong.  They didn’t.  Clive Owen isn’t quite Lord Raiden (from the Mortal Kombat game or the movie), and likely the film is trying to evoke Raijin, the Japanese god of lightning and thunder.  Here, it’s a miss.

Explanations also fly fast and furious in the first act of the movie, telling the audience why there’s a multi-cultural cast (not needed), and why Raiden is so dangerous (he has a dark past we never see, and is never part of the movie again).  Also, why Morgan Freeman’s Lord Bartok must do everything in his power to not tell the truth of the confrontation with the Big Bad (whose name I honestly can’t remember) and instead must die.

This is how you make a legend.

The movie hews fairly closely to the legend of the 47 ronin, which is actually a lot of fun to watch (and much, much better than that Keanu Reeves travesty).  But tries to make us care about too many characters in the semi-ensemble cast.  As an updated version of the movie, the assault on the Big Bad’s nearly impregnable keep is wonderful and very exciting.  But misses opportunities to really sell the legend as an update, by bogging it down with allusions to a caste system that is never clear and never fully understood.

Overall, though, I liked this film and could easily watch it again.  Clive Owen and his supporting cast do an excellent job.  The assault is very exciting, the sword play and fight scenes are watchable, and mostly realistic.  I even liked the psuedo-katana swords!

Constable of Aqualinne - Chapter 6 Excerpt

"Hung like" takes on a whole
new meaning!

I just finished writing this section of Constable of Aqualinne yesterday, and I loved how this ended so much, I wanted to share it with you.  Not a big spoiler at all, and I knew where this was going, but it came up so nicely, I felt like sharing with all you wonderful people.

Please enjoy!

Sterben led the way, deeper into the Old Forest, but still along the track they had been following in the cart.  The leaves above were still green, most dark almost to being black.  Sunlight and blue sky peaked down through the canopy, but in rare moments which grew less and less as they walked.  Aubrey’s cane sank into the earth and carpet of old leaves.  She had to move carefully, around branches, and over roots that had ripped up through the track.  Sterben moved well, but moderated his pace to accommodate her.  Even though the day was cool, and they marched in the relative shade provided by the trees, Aubrey felt her undershirt soak with sweat.  She moved her hand to open the top button of her collar and found she’d already undone it minutes earlier.

“Break?” Aubrey suggested.

Sterben took two more steps before he registered the request.  He turned back and nodded to Aubrey.

“Good a place as any,” he said, and pulled free a canteen of water.  He took a long, deep pull, some of it running down through his moustaches.

Aubrey was surprised to find she was out of breath.  They hadn’t walked that fast or that far, but she felt light-headed.  She tilted her head back, and felt beads of sweat run down her scalp and along the back of her neck.  She pulled out a handkerchief, mopped at her forehead, behind her ears and across her neck, and stopped when she saw the centaur staring at her.

So what did you think?  Please tell me in the comments!