• TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    2 days ago

    That movie made me so mad.

    The book I, Robot is a series of short stories presenting situations where it seems like robots didn’t follow the three laws of robotics and then explaining how they were caught up in loopholes, essentially. It’s great.

    In the movie, the loophole is: “We put a second brain in the robots that doesn’t follow the three laws of robotics.”

    (I might be wrong, it’s been a very long time since I’ve read the book or seen the movie. This is just what I remember.)

    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Thing is, the movie started as a screenplay called Hardwired that had nothing to do with Asimov. They just slapped the name I, Robot onto it and changed a few character names because the studio had the IP and thought they’d get more sales that way.

    • Klear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      Yeah. The worst part was that the main character was trying to figure out why there are robots attacking him and then during one fight scene his arms get wrecked and we see they are robot arms and I was like oooooh! he’s a robot himself so the protections towards humans don’t work for him! That’s clever! And then the next scene he says he lost his arms and has robotic prosthetic ones and none of that mattered and the actual explanation was dumb.

      That pissed me off so much.

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also in this scene, why was there an empty spot in the grid for the robot to blend into? If it took the place of another robot, what did it do with the remains of the other robot without time. A lot of “don’t think about it too much” in this movie.

    • otacon239@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 days ago

      That was not the loophole. That only applies to Sonny who was the only one capable of ignoring the 3 laws. The main computer (Vicky I think?) is the one who comes to the “we must enslave the humans to save the humans” conclusion all on her own.

      • entwine413@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        But none of that is in the book from what I remember. The 0th law of robotics wasn’t introduced until much later in the robots series.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s the loophole in the robot that turns out to be a good guy, the loophole in the AI that turns out to be the bad guy is accidentally deriving a zeroith law: protect humanity from individual humans, by taking away their freedom

    • hopesdead@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Have you read the original Asimov move script? I believe it was written back in the 70s. A special edition of the movie came with a paperback edition of the book version that was illustrated by Harlan Ellison.

    • entwine413@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s the movie I hate the most. For one, the problem robot looked exactly like its creator. Also, don’t they broach the topic of the 0th law, which isn’t introduced until way later?

  • EvilBit@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    There’s a VR game that I think has a flat port as well, called The Last Worker. You basically play The Last human working at an obvious Amazon analogue. It’s pretty entertaining.

        • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Does that also support videos? JXL was made by google but now it’s removed from chrome so I don’t think it’s making a comeback.

          • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            I don’t think Google had anything to do with it. Unless if they are part of jpeg, which is entirely possible.

            It’s not clear why they used another format, maybe someone’s boy(girl)friend worked on it.

      • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Barely any platforms support it. Do you know why? At the end of the day, if it’s not being adopted then it’s useless to encode images with it.

        • Baŝto@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          But this is about animations and not images.

          as a static image

          Means that the format basically works, but the viewer/browser doesn’t support the animation extension … or more likely the animation got erroneously re-encoded and the extension was lost.

          In the past it looked like some platforms generally move away from supporting animated images and converted them to videos or static images instead. Videos give you more control over the playback. animations either stop when they are done or loop for a fixed/infinite time. Videos can stop, pause, rewind etc.

        • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Imagine when animated GIF’s weren’t yet supported.

          useless to encode images with it.

          You know, webp wasn’t created for you. Websites switched to webp from jpg for better quality and bandwidth savings. Tell them how useless the format is.