Since when did anybody (Mori? The Valley itself?) predict that a cartoon image that was specifically designed to be human-like (and also beautiful!) could serve as a suitable continuum endpoint in an uncanny-valley study? This should be silly to anyone who knows how to read and who is capable of critical thinking.
When did “uncanny valley” become a single discrete monolithic authoritative unambiguous scientific position thing that goes around making predictions? (A trademark of bad science journalism is the portrayal of “science” as a uniform collective of people who agree about everything to the extent that one sensational unexpected finding *Changes What We Thought We Knew About The World!*™®.)
The uncanny “valley” refers to a valley of data points, on a graph. An interpretation of that valley is what makes predictions, not the valley itself. Aside from the cartoon stimulus being way off the mark here.
Science journalism trope: “New experiment forces scientists to think in a new way about X. We have (accidentally or on purpose) misconstrued X in an overly narrow and strong fashion, in order to depict it as having been subverted and/or thrown into doubt.” What I say to this is: ahhhh, no.
