[vintermann]

Interesting first point. I'm reminded of Blade Runner, which definitively fits in the "robots are people too, you monster!" genre ... But the source material was the exact opposite. Philip K. Dick went out of the way to rub in that even if the robots could move you to tears with their art (Luba Luft), be a reassuring authority figure for years (Garland), or even appear vulnerable and afraid (Pris Stratton), they are actually not people, but rather artifacts designed to fool you about what they are.

It's amazing how many people miss that. The SEO-spammed "grade saver" analysis practically says that the film is right - and from what I've seen, it's probably fair in that the teachers grading you might well think that too. Most misunderstood PKD book by far.

[stvltvs]

Sounds like the book and the film are different works, so people who only watched the film can't misunderstand the book because they didn't read it.

[soulofmischief]

When phrased this way, you're describing real people as well. We all have our various masks, secrets and lies.

[palmotea]

> When phrased this way, you're describing real people as well. We all have our various masks, secrets and lies.

You're misunderstanding "Dick went out of the way to rub in that ... robots ... are actually not people, but rather artifacts designed to fool you about what they are." A person fooling others doesn't make that person an artifact.

[soulofmischief]

I understand the idea, but my take is that while PKD was by all accounts a visionary who could see things few others could, I wonder how his opinion on this would have evolved over the last four decades.

Like what makes something an "artifact"? That it is a superficial image produced intentionally by another? Mass propaganda and social pipelining have produced the same phenomenon in humans.

Is it that the robot doesn't "feel" like a human does? Well, now we're in extraordinarily subjective territory, dealing with qualia, and the distinction will become more difficult as neural models continue to evolve and experience the world in the same way we do.

I like PKD's take but I think it's an open question.

[IAmBroom]

> Most misunderstood PKD book by far.

Most had a different interpretation than you did.

Under the "Fallacy of Intention" theory of literary analysis, even Philip K Dick's intent isn't "the real meaning".

Regardless, "misunderstood" is at best a way to say "unpopular" or "overly simplistic". It isn't wrong, since there are no absolute facts; only opinions.