|
|
|
|
|
|
by godelski
302 days ago
|
|
|
I still think you're cherry-picking and ignoring any of the depth here. You're being so quick to find an answer you are missing all complexity. Your argument is that people are only subjected to what the author says, leading them to have no ability to think or form conclusions themselves. Star Trek was given as the most familiar example (one which people would likely debate these aspects) but there is far more complexity in stories like The Positronic Man or even A.I., where the author is specifically asking you to think about these things (just like in those aforementioned Trek episodes where clearly the author is making people think about those things). I'm just trying to say, don't let an answer get in the way of understanding. Don't just trivialize everything, and don't try to explain to someone what they already acknowledged. |
|
|
>You're being so quick to find an answer you are missing all complexity. Your argument is that people are only subjected to what the author says, leading them to have no ability to think or form conclusions themselves.
I'm not sure why you keep straw manning my argument.
I have explained several times that my point isn't that audiences lack the ability to think or that fiction has no depth or complexity.
Works like The Positronic Man or A.I., are specifically designed to make us question the nature of consciousness and intelligence. And they're perfect illustrations of my actual point. The reason we grapple with the question of sentience in The Positronic Man is precisely because the author, Asimov, explicitly made it the central theme. He provided the "data" for us to consider that question.
My argument has never been that audiences can't think for themselves or that fiction lacks complexity. It's about the nature of the evidence available to us.
With a fictional AI like the Enterprise computer, our entire understanding is filtered through the lens of the writers. We can only interpret the scenes they choose to show us. If they never write a scene where the computer questions its existence or similar hints, then for all intents and purposes, that potential doesn't exist within the story. Our interpretation is bound by the provided text.
This is a fundamentally different epistemic situation from interacting with a real-world LLM. With ChatGPT or Gemini, I can personally test its limits, ask it unexpected questions, and form a conclusion based on my own direct, unmediated experience. I can probe for depth; in fiction, I can only observe the depth the author has written.
So when I point out that most people in the Star Wars universe treat droids like appliances even when they feel so alive, it's not to say a deeper interpretation is impossible. It's to highlight how powerfully the author's framing shapes our default perception. The story isn't about droid rights, so the narrative encourages us not to focus on it. That's the power, and the limitation, of the authorial lens.