Enjoyed this film.
Shortly after the toilet scene they fight in the bar and they use Silver Bullet’s “20 Seconds to Comply”. OMG - I flipped the fuck out when that came on. I love that song. Being of similar ages, and them from the UK, I can’t help to think me and Simon Pegg have both jammed out this.
When will Amazon be selling it?
I just watched this again this weekend–definitely one of those I find I enjoy more on re-watching. Anyway I’m incredibly impressed that they built an animatronic head rather than relying on CGI.
Film Crit Hulk’s review of this film is worth a (long) read.
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2013/10/03/film-crit-hulk-smash-alcohol-withnail-and-gary-king
Why can’t roboticists make realistic animatronics like this? Every android I’ve seen all look so stunted and lifeless and move horribly. They are slightly better then the Disney Hall of Presidents. They’ve been at the same level for decades now. Surely, there should have been some advancement in this direction by now??
Other than devising a novel illusion, what would be the point? There are biological reasons for humans to appear as they do, which do not apply to robots. Why not design vacuum cleaners to resemble dogs, or cars to resemble elephants? It’s a cool stunt, but I think it doesn’t demonstrate an advancement. The real advances based upon nature have been adapting how animals work into the designs of robotics, but there need not be any superficial resemblance.
I disagree. It is not just a novel illusion. Being able to create an ease of interaction or an intuitive sense of how a robot works based solely off of appearance would greatly useful. It’s all about affordances. If the robot looks like a person, maybe I can interact with it like one. If the design follows that form the interactions you’ll have with it are more predictable and natural. The more it appears like what it is designed to mimic the more it’s uses and capabilities become clear.
But isn’t the ease of inter-human activity itself based upon illusion?
Humans have never been optimised for the kinds of society even that they themselves have made, so in many respects, they still do so quite poorly. The utility of robots is to design machines which are not subject to human’s own (arguably) innate limitations.
That seems somewhat tautological. My point was that there is no pressing reason for any degree of mimicry in the first place. Even if I was going to design a robot for climbing trees, it would probably not closely resemble an ape. Since it is not biological, the biological basis of ape-morphology would be grossly inefficient to factor into a non-biological context.
But we have made an entire world designed to fit humans. If I wanted to make a general purpose robot that interacts effectively with that environment, wouldn’t designing it to look like, move like and interact like a human be more efficient?
We can also then use that sort of robot for proving equipment to be used by people in without putting human life at risk.
I mean we humans are the most important thing on this planet, right? 
It’s also that age old argument of aesthetics versus utility. If it “looks right” will people more comfortable working with it?
This is the question I apply to robust AI: when we make such poor use of each other’s minds in our economy, what is the specific advantage in making a machine that “thinks” the way we do. For undestanding, sure, I get it. But for work? Let’s change the way we do things before enshrining it into the code.
Product of head development made by head of product development.
Do not connect this to SkyNet.
As far as you know…
But what does that mea-Oh dear God…
Thanks for the nightmare fuel.
I think we’ve successfully navigated past the Uncanny Valley, and we’re well on our way into Holy Fuck Town.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
