[sxp]

The skepticism is warranted for any bleeding edge technology. I wonder if there's another version of a Turing test when a technology can be considered sufficiently advanced when it's indistinguishable from a fake version you've seen in sci-fi. E.g, the Boston Dynamics' dancing robot video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn3KWM1kuAw) still looks fake to me because it's at the level that I would expect to see from Hollywood CGI rather than a real tech demo. If I saw the video anywhere else but on the BD page, I would have enjoyed it and forgotten about it since it's an average CGI video.

[OnlineGladiator]

I genuinely don't understand your position. Are you saying a tech demo is only impressive if it can do things that can't be simulated? What can't be shown via simulation or CGI with enough time and money today? If we're limiting ourselves to video there's no interactive component.

Even though that dancing video likely had hundreds of takes, the part that makes it impressive is that it's real. I swear I'm not trying to be disagreeable here - I honestly don't understand your perspective.

[MrOrelliOReilly]

I think what the author is trying to say is that if a technology is sufficiently advanced it seems like it can’t be real, meaning it’s something only possible with CGI. So we see these dancing robots, think “just more CGI”, then are astounded when we find out it’s real

[sxp]

Exactly. CGI is just movie magic. And now some real world tech demos are sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from CGI/magic.

[dvtrn]

Hrm. Is uncanny locomotion to modern robotics what uncanny valley is to CGI?

Fun to ponder.