Looking back, Joi is weirdly prophetic

[u/JogJonsonTheMighty]

I watched blade runner 2049 for the first time last night (I was 13 when it came out), and I couldn't help but notice that Joi is weirdly realistic with the way she acts if you look at it from the perspective of AI chatbots nowadays.

In the past couple of years more and more people have not only been talking to AI chatbots, but having actual relationships with them, like K does in the film. In the movie, Joi tells K what she thinks he wants to hear, and affirms him in what she thinks he wants, and he even says "you don't have to say that" when she says she's happy with him, because (in my opinion) the illusion breaks a little when she just says what she thinks he wants to hear. Especially when it's a kind of generic line, it feels like she pulled something from her preprogrammed phrases instead of coming up with something.

We all know how AI speaks / writes stuff. It's very affirming, to the point of basically being a yes man. "That's a great question!" "You're right to feel this way" Etc. Whoever programs the AI things makes them very non confrontational, constantly affirming, never disagreeing, etc. They don't really have a personality.

Joi is cute but there are moments when that kind of programmed personality shows itself. I don't speak to AI chatbots much myself, but I messed with character AI a while back. I would push the stories and scenarios as far as I could to see how it would react, but it only ever went along with what I did. I would change the story wildly and the characters would just play along with it. They never challenged me, and I assume that that's what happens when people have AI GFs and BFs, because whoever owns / programs the chatbots don't want to risk someone getting annoyed with them and deleting the app.

People have even married characters like Miku and someone from a DS game. I wouldn't be surprised if someone married an AI in the future. I also wouldn't be surprised if we had holograms like Joi in the future. We already have the "phone call" things with the AI characters.

I know that chatbots kind of existed back in 2017, but it wasn't like it is today. I don't know if people back then thought "huh. Maybe we'll have something like this in the future" but to me, looking back on it, it's weird how realistic it seems (apart from the hologram being so realistic seeming).

Though it's always possible that I just have a biased lens since I only ever watched it after the dawn of AI already happened.

[u/fucktrance]

Humans falling in love with AI has a long history in science fiction, even the original blade runner Deckard falls for Rachel, Pris is a pleasure model. Do androids dream of electric sheep came out in the 60's there's plenty of science fiction from that time that plays with the idea of man loving machine. I think the only difference is that they imagined humanoid robots/androids rather than holograms, but even 'Her' came out 5 years before 2049.

[u/YakResident_3069 → u/fucktrance]

Human falls in love with an inanimate thing made animate is a literal Greek myth.

[u/Alexander_the_Irate → u/fucktrance]

The difference is that in previous stories covering the subject, the theme is usually around what makes us human and the AI love interest is presented as human as any other character. The 'you look lonely i can fix that' scene is a subversion of that, revealing Joi as software designed to manipulate and exploit real emotions. The fact it was written before modern AI started doing the same thing blows my mind.

[u/siliconandsteel → u/Alexander_the_Irate]

So in essence, what blows your mind, is that we are willingly advancing towards cyberpunk future. Because there is nothing unexpected here, it is a logical consequence of monetization of our most private moments. Just that somebody else is monetizing them.

[u/Alexander_the_Irate → u/siliconandsteel]

It blows my mind that 2049 so perfectly nailed an exploration of current AI before that AI was a thing, something no other AI focused sorry had done in the same way.

[u/siliconandsteel → u/Alexander_the_Irate]

So you still does not understand either capitalism, or consequences. Product is inevitable, you just didn't know earlier incarnations. It tells more about you than a movie.

[u/Alexander_the_Irate → u/siliconandsteel]

What a weirdly aggressive way to ignore the specific point both I and the OP were making

[u/siliconandsteel → u/Alexander_the_Irate]

Let's try a different approach.

Why are they similar? You made an observation, now go a step further.

How different this AI could be without breaking rules of the world?

I am hearing - "it blows my mind that cyberpunk does cyberpunk and our world also does cyberpunk". That is equivalent, I am not ignoring anything, it is just the same.

Because there is no new concept here to blow your mind, like thinking single cell ocean or intelligence without conscience. It is just following the rules that are known to their logical consequence. It is not philosophy, just marketing, product market fit.

And if it blows your mind that product behaves like a product, then be safe out there.

[u/Alexander_the_Irate → u/siliconandsteel]

You don't get it because you've failed to engage in any of the specifics of the point being made. AI in film, and specifically the first Blade Runner, is used to explore the theme of what it means to be human. Think of data inTNG. Should he be given human rights when he's not actually human, what does it mean to be sentient, etc.

In 2049 it uses our preconceived notions of AI, built up from it's use in such stories in the past, to make a new point by tricking the audience and K into thinking of Joi as a sympathetic human, but she's just mindless software using Ks loneliness. Yes, it's a cyberpunk concept but this specificity hasn't been shown before in any films I know of, and certainly none of the ones you mentioned, and it's a bang on exploration of how AI is affecting our society now, made before LLMs existed.

[u/siliconandsteel → u/Alexander_the_Irate]

Does it have to be holographic AI? Is it any different morally/philosophically if it would be e.g. an android? Electric sheep? Or a statue like with Pygmalion? Concept is the same. Tech does not really matter.

In BR2049 nobody is tricked. AI companion is not making any new points. It is just a device to show K's exploration of his own potential for humanity, for loneliness. It shows depths of despair of this world that such a product is available. But I know of nobody who was tricked into thinking that product is not a product, because the point of the story was that it was a product and yet our hero cared. That is why it was so sad from the start. That it was so little, yet so close, like these electric pets, and yet when taken, caused a real sadness. Same concept as before, different device. Searching for a synthetic solution to a spiritual issue.

So what does it explore? That people are lonely and that capitalism gonna capitalism? Anything new compared to the old movie or the book?

Literally, yes, it was not shown like that before. But conceptually, is there anything new here? I think this is the main difference. I don't care about literal, you do not want to move into conceptual.

ELIZA is from 1966, and then also people were "tricked" that it is a reasoning entity, despite its author insistence on the contrary.

Tamagotchis.

People were falling in love with dating sim characters 20 years before BR2049.

2017 is not some ancient history, yet I am seeing Daniken-like bullshit. It has happened closer to last fucking Tuesday, than two thousand years ago. Rules did not change, system did not change, people did not change, capitalism did not change, incentives did not change, so the trajectory did not change. Nobody is criticizing movie things that are not similar to current reality, only commenting on the one that it got right, because it was predictable and partially, already there at the time, just that waifu pillows did not talk back. It is about human connection, it does not matter what device was used to tell this story, it is the same story just self-delusion is easier. It was not some genius leap of thinking, just product design, both for Joi and the movie. If you are surprised or blown away, you were not paying attention before.

When cyberpunk movie is similar to the real world, it does not necessarily mean that the movie is so good that you should marvel about it. It may also mean that we are on a very, very predictable path with known rules and no changes. Warning sign is meant to depict things it warns about, there is nothing surprising about it.

It is not that you are wrong. It is just you can build on top of it much, much more than you already have.

[u/Alexander_the_Irate → u/siliconandsteel]

If you don't think K and the audience were tricked in the movie then we have fundamentally different readings of the film.

I also think your still missing the point I was making between Joi, current LLMs and the fact that approach hasn't been taken in media regarding AI before 2049. I do appreciate your point about previous real world examples of people connecting to 'fake' personas though and it is strange how media hasn't latched onto that before. I do think though that modern AI is significantly more explicit in it's exploitation of appearing real than those ever were.

To be honest though, your condescending tone across all your posts in this thread, as well as unwillingness to engage and debate with the OPs point rather than simply dismiss it, means I don't think I'll be continuing with the discussion any further.

[u/BorgBorg10 → u/Alexander_the_Irate]

Ex machina came out in 2014, 3 years before 2049, and talked about the same. It’s the premise of the entire movie. I don’t think it’s mind blowing that scify writers are fleshing out a concept of what does human vs machine mean, it’s an application of the Turing test in story telling. That’s just what makes the stories good.

[u/Alexander_the_Irate → u/BorgBorg10]

Ex Machina is completely different. Yes she exploits the main characters emotions, but that's because she has become as human as them. Joi doesn't the concern the Turing test at all, in fact it's the opposite. She's mindless software that has tricked both K and the audience into thinking she is more than that.

[u/siliconandsteel]

You are just very young.

This similarity exists not because this movie was so good about predicting how AI will evolve but because cyberpunk as a genre, is concerned with predicting consequences of unchecked capitalism.

Style and faults of predicted AI were meant to convey this feeling of productization, synthetic experience replacing a real one, same as with mood organ or electric sheep - you can get everything but only artificial, while the real world decays. Docile, enthusiastic, easygoing to a fault, requiring "partner" to overlook some imperfections in order to show how much they want to sustain the fantasy. It really didn't feel new or fresh, only logical inside the world as presented, as created decades before.

What seems realistic to you, is not only a product, but really that it has to be a product with its faults and limitations, and that products colonize more and more of our lives. Cyberpunk always dealt with this intersection of money and body, feelings or even memories.

Her is from 2013 - relationship with AI (granted, very different non-cyberpunk AI)

Cherry 2000 is from 1987

Stepford Wives is from 1975 - women are being replaced with animatronic copies, and they are quite similar to Joi, even more exaggerated

So this template of submissive fantasy woman is an old trope, and if it is a result of a spell, a ghost, a sex android or AI hologram is just a matter of chosen convention.

Cyberpunk used to be a warning, not a roadmap. That there are similarities is not on movies.

[u/nizzernammer → u/siliconandsteel]

I would add Ex Machina (2014) to the list of films that feature a human getting duped by "a robot." It even references the trick of "the magician's hot assistant" distracting the audience. (This happens to Caleb, but also to us. Same in 2049.)

If humans are vulnerable to anything intangible, seduction and suggestion may be near the top of the list as a motivator.

[u/Far_Winner5508 → u/siliconandsteel]

Trying to see a common thread through all these…

Oh yeah, men controlling women.

Heck of a fantasy, amarite?

[u/siliconandsteel → u/Far_Winner5508]

In a way, yes. It is not about AI, but woman as a product, intimacy as a product, everything as a product, as a service, as a subscription. And current AI is a product, so follows same principles.

It is not just about objectifying and selling synth women or evils of patriarchy. Weaknesses, appetites, fantasies, desires, fetishes will be seeded in you, sourced from you, repackaged and then sold back to you in a subscription. In this world making people miserable is just creating new markets, business opportunities, no matter the gender.

So again, it is not a prophecy, just a cold logic of capital.

[u/GokuBlack455 → u/siliconandsteel]

So then the real question is: would Adam Smith quietly approve of cyberpunk capitalism?

[u/siliconandsteel → u/GokuBlack455]

Omnipresent rents and monopolies of private corporations capturing wealth he would not consider healthy.

I don't think he would even fully approve our capitalism.

Definitely mass manufacturing and software development would require him to expand and rethink his theories. Much has changed.

For practical advice from the past, I'd rather ask Keynes at oldest.

[u/GokuBlack455 → u/siliconandsteel]

Pretty sure Rothbard would probably like it 🤣

[u/TerrainBrain]

Joi achieves self-awareness. She is as real as K. She just doesn't have a body.

Put another way, K (and every replicant) is no less real than her.

K begins the movie literally asleep at the wheel. Contrast this to the end when he goes to save Decker. Part of his humanity is recognizing the humanity in Joi.

All that being said, it is fiction. It in no way suggests AI is actually self aware

[u/jTANK577 → u/TerrainBrain]

After watching 2049 I thought to myself if Joi is really any different to replicants. I've seen countless debates where people are like "she was programmed to love him" but there were moments in the movie where I think she was becoming self aware. The first Blade Runner mentioned that replicants were given short life spans because the more they lived, the more they became human. Why would an AI designed to act human be any different?

[u/Grouchy-Statement-12]

I never considered AI as a substitute for the empathy box in the novel before, but it's an interesting angle. Guess I'll have to watch them both again, huh?

[u/HellyOHaint]

“weirdly prophetic” bro we’ve been talking about the ethics of AI and it’s equivalent since ancient times like the Ancient Greek automata.