• unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    I agree with the point, but thats not how that meme format works.

    “Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a… canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?”

    “Can you?”

    … [stunned expression]

    Thats the original text, so this is really not the right format.

      • Malgas@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Better to read the short story collection it’s allegedly based on. Yet another case of a movie studio paying for the rights to something beloved so that they can slap the title on something generic and unrelated.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Honestly you could make an argument against my previous comment saying that the clanker in the original saying “can you?” is just a dumb LLM repeating snarky reddit comments from its training data. Then the accurate reaction would really be “omg what a fucking dumb piece of trash”. In the movie this robot was actually truly intelligent tho iirc. Been a long time since i watched it.

          • Poik@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 hours ago

            The book was better, and completely unrelated. The movie is fun, but kind of a dumb action flick. It ignores most of the nuance Asimov would have had to make a movie you don’t have to think about. There’s nothing wrong with that, I just don’t prefer that, unless it’s what I signed up for, like with John Wick or something else obviously just action.