--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Priest" <apriest_at_n...>
wrote:
>
>
> āž¢ I think that was largely designed to be an anachronisism -
> a 'foul' creature that believed himself to be God's gift to
> girls. For as you may recall in the start of one of the
> cartoons, he effectively cleared the perfume shop he
> visited. Hmmm, maybe that is why a friend is studying
> French - to try and develop an accent to improve his chance
> of picking up..... Good luck, though he does have the
> advantage of not smelling like a sprayed skunk...
>
> There is that of course, and I imagine that said anachronism is
part of the humor of the character. Yet, I suspect there is more to
it. Have you ever seen a skunk walk? They have a particular stride
that almost resembles a strut; as though they are showing off. This
odd walk of theirs is so distinctive that even without the strip
itā€™s a dead giveaway. Given that animation is the art of movement,
I imagine that the skunkā€™s walk was a large part of the
inspiration for the character.
>
> āž¢ True, any desired characteristic can be exaggerated to the
> point of blatant, a huge plus for advertisers.
>
> Indeed. Yet there is more to it than that. Perhaps at its most
banal, yet the same phenomenon is what allows are to be more pure,
and sometimes even more intense than reality itself. By simplifying
and exaggerating it is possible to extract something of an
fundamental form of reality. Or give the little pink dragon really
big eyes.
>
> āž¢ I think you'd have to admit that 'cute and cuddly' are not
> two words generally associated with snakes, so having
> improved him in these regards makes him a more 'lovable
> villan'. If it sells movie merchandise, they can't hate
> that!
>
> Also donā€™t forget that someone had to animate the character.
Facial animation on a more snake like snake would have been a
nightmare to say the least. Getting the required character animation
into the character requires modifying it enough to effectively
animate. Bambi is a good example of this.
>
> āž¢ Totally agree with this! I was analysing characters at one
> stage and trying to identify commonalities of certain
> attributes. Cute characters tend to have rounder
> construction shapes, softer lines and are generally more
> effininate.
>
> āž¢ Think about the Skunk Sisters for example. HEY! ATTENTION
> BACK HERE!!!! You can think about yiffing them later...
> Generally it is considered that Onyx is the cutest of the
> three. Notice that her facial shapes are a little rounder
> than either of her sisters? Notice too that the parts you
> consider make her look 'cute' versus 'sexy' are DIFFERENT!
> In poses where she appears more 'cute', she'll be standing
> where her limbs make gentler curves as opposed to where
> she's being more purposeful that tends to use longer,
> entended arcs that tend to reduce the cute factor and
> increase the 'that looks hot' factor. This brings on to
> lines that make things look powerful etc, but we'll skip
> over this for now.
>
> āž¢ Girls with cute butts tend to be rounder of the posterior
> than girls who have a 'hot' butt that as described above
> will tend to have longer, less rounded lines in their
> 'construction'. The doesn't mean girls with 'cute' butts
> are not desireable, or that they can't be some of both, but
> it is something to consider when you're checking out the
> sisters next.
>
> Now I feel out of my depth, but Iā€™ll note that to some cute can
be sexy. Or perhaps cute is a fetish of sorts. There seems to be
something of a dichotomy between sexy and cute. Sort of a forbidden
fruit thing I suppose. Itā€™s interesting that vertically compressed
is one thing that makes things seem cute. Still, I was born without
a single artistic bone, so donā€™t trust my instincts.
>
> āž¢ 'Cos it's so easy to dress someone up in a bad costume and
> churn out another B grade Sci-Fi... :-) Tends to follow
> our thought trains (as discussed before) that humans are
> the superior race (like we all believe we are 'above
> average' drivers...), hence creatures that are 'similar' to
> humans (anthropomorphic even, meaning having human-like
> characteristics!) are more likely to be accepted by our
> psyche as being possibly able to be smarter, faster, more
> able to run the universe or whatever than we are. How many
> aliens have you come across recently that don't follow the
> 'human' body model, even if they are a different size or
> have a few different appendages? Don't see many 1" flying
> salmon trying to take over the world? Equally as likely as
> some 6" tall fox from another galaxy, but our mindset says
> otherwise...
>
> I think youā€™re being overly harsh. Or Iā€™m being too kind.
Still, itā€™s inherently difficult to wrap oneā€™s mind around a
truly alien perspective. While Sci-Fi books have indeed had all
kinds of alien creatures, they do tend to ultimately center on
something that humans can relate to; whether that be insects or
animals or even fish and octopi. Aliens that are truly alien are
pretty rare. And itā€™s even questionable whether one can really see
from such a perspective. At best all we really can do is see from
what we imagine the perspective of the other would be. And thatā€™s
bound to be tainted by out own views.
>
>
>
> āž¢ A simple example (maybe too simple?). Many of you have a
> dog (or know someone who does). If the dog was able to
> walk on its rear legs, use its paws to manipulate things as
> we do our hands, talk and generally interact with everyone.
> Think about the way the dog behaves? Does it have
> annoying habits, cleanliness, etc, that it would probably
> bring with it in anthro form that would really grate? Even
> if you did 'correct' it's physiology and make it a little
> larger (say up to 4' tall), it would still look like an
> upright walking dog with the same fur, potential for
> collecing grime (as an anthro dog, it may be perfectly
> acceptable to roll in things that smell...) and possibly
> the same habits (anthro dogs view it okay to hose down any
> vertical object they encounter, not brush their teeth, etc,
> etc). Sort of take the shine off hey? Because we are
> assuming because it is anthro it will want to use human
> ideals, human logic and human way of dealing with issues.
> Big assumptions here, I believe. Throw in the last part -
> would you then want to have sexual relations with it, even
> if it were compatable, allowing these other undesireable
> attributes? Nope, not looking so bright. Though I think
> another option, addressed a little further down is more
> appealing.
>
> Iā€™d argue the problems run deeper. For example, a dogā€™s real
legs simply arenā€™t built for supporting its full weight. There are
key differences in the shape of the spine that would make it
difficult if not impossible. Dogs donā€™t have shoulder joints like
a human has, which would be awkward to say the least. Speech would
be interesting since the Dogā€™s mouth, throat, vocal cords and such
simply arenā€™t designed for speech. And itā€™s pretty much
impossible to guess what would happen when you expanded the brain of
the dog to human proportions as youā€™d need for him to have human-
like intelligence. Presumably, the instincts of the lower brain
would become suppressed like they are in humans. Would it even be
possible to increase the dogā€™s intellect and not have it become
more human-like in the process? Tough. How many of the ā€˜dog-
likeā€™ elements would survive the process?
>
Actually, I've seen articles claiming that dolphins have human
intelligence, and they don't act anything like humans. You may not
agree with this, but a being's growth (human or otherwise) is going
to determine it's actions. Any mammalian creature given a human
level of intelligence and taught and raised in our society would end
up acting almost identical to a human, with differences depending on
the species. Non-mammalians, on the other hand, would be quite a
different story. Their brains are constructed differently from
mammal brains, so their entire thought process would be different.
>
> āž¢ This gets my thumbs up. Addressing the above points: human
> ideals - programmed by humans, so anything you want. Won't
> roll in the dirt - may even hate the stuff! Human logic -
> again determined by us, so it'll resolve issues and
> dilemmas (the third point) the same way we would, or at
> least the way we've told it to. Learning machines may come
> about, but obviously things can be made to run within
> guidelines (with the usual deviations inherently possible)
> with the majority giving the desired results.
>
> Itā€™s also tough to imagine what a machine AI would be like.
Itā€™s quite possible that to achieve human-like quality an AI would
have to develop mentally much like a human does. Programming
something as intricate as a mind may be beyond us in sheer scope.
And such an AI, while on the one hand seeming to conform to certain
requirements, may also be very alien. The ability to learn will, of
course, be a requirement of any true AI. Otherwise its limits would
quickly become apparent. Passing the Turing test will require an AI
thatā€™s very flexible and adaptive.
>
> āž¢ Many of the materials these days may not have the longevity
> of self renewing flesh, but the look at feel etc, are as
> good as (or sometime better!) than real skin. Some of the
> synthetic furs etc are nicer than the real thing, depending
> on application. Also removes the limits of colour and
> texture etc.
>
> Yeah, longevity will be a huge issue for androids. Even now, for
example, the high tension steel tendons they use in robotic hands
donā€™t last so very long. But the possibilities of having
interesting colors or enhanced texture of feel is a strong
advantage. In fact, they could be made exactly as the user desired I
supposeā€¦
>
> āž¢ Tails, strength, stance, ears, muzzles, wings. They could
> all be however we desired.
>
> Within limits, sure. I imagine that actual flight would be out of
the question without some kind of hover technology. Still, there are
possibilities.
>
> āž¢ They may even make small slips in speech etc as
> humans do, just to 'keep the human feel'.
>
> An old trick, though it will require more than that to pass the
Turing test
> .
> āž¢ Imagine having one of the sisters as a life sized robot
> (for lack of better description at this stage), that looked
> exactly like you'd expect her to (as per JMH's drawings)
> and reacted just like you'd want her to when you spoke to
> her etc. And reacted the way you'd like in other
> situations too!
>
> Imagine it went beyond that. Imagine it learned your likes and
dislikes, moods and behavior, and evolved to suit you better and
better. Imagine it molded itself into exactly what you desired, both
consciously and subconsciously; becoming your perfect mate
physically and mentally. Given the ability of humans to project onto
other things their own feelings and desiresā€¦ the possibility of
real love on the humanā€™s part is very strong. As Spielberg said in
an interview on the AI DVD, it wouldnā€™t be how machines considered
humans, but how humans considered machines. I believe that a
sufficiently realistic robotic creature could, even with its
artificiality, induce very real feelings within humans.
>
> āž¢ Refuelling could probably be handled by dropping what ever
> was required into their mouth and swallowing it: "I'd like
> 1/2 litre of synthetic hydraulic oil and a serve of AA
> batteries please..." would probably be an unintrusive
> method. A give away they weren't human, other than they
> were a 5' tall talking skunk...
>
> Probably would be able to look after itself in this regard.
Perhaps even eat normal human food, if not actually digest it, so as
to pass as more living. The possibilities are both amazing and
dangerous. I donā€™t think the effect of such high-level machine
beings on humanity is even possible to know absolutely. It could
alter society in ways we canā€™t even imagine.
>
Although I do agree with both of you about what you've said here
about robotic furs, there is one very important thing that would be
true of AI that I'm not sure you have mentioned. I'm sorry if you
have, or were trying to imply it, I'll just be walking on beaten
ground.
Anyway, my point is that an AI cannot feel emotion (and a learning
computer could quite possibly find a way to defeat its own
programming, given reason to) and as such would be confused,
annoyed, or even angered by the emotional shortcomings of its human
companions. Actually, that's giving a machine an emotional response,
so that is still incorrect. It might become confused (read: Does not
compute), or it might decide to circumvent or eliminate problems
caused by human emotion.
On another note, what if said AI decided to remove the only thing
that could shut it down: its creators? I'll admit that that's a
Terminator-esque idea, but it's still a valid possibility.
Timuri
Received on Sat Sep 06 2003 - 02:25:52 CDT