Forum - View topicEP. REVIEW: Vivy -Fluorite Eye's Song-
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OrdepNM
 Posts: 243 |
|
|||||||||||
|
(I've been catching up with Vivy and haven't watched episode 7 yet so if anything I say is directly contradicted by it, that's why)
But isn't it just an extreme interpretation of the first mission, to make everyone happy by singing? As early as episode one Matsumoto has rationalized her moonlighting activities as part of her core mission - she can't make everyone happy if everyone is dead so it makes sense to an AI to go to any lengths (that don't involve other deaths) to save that person and continue trying to make her happy by singing - they are part of everyone after all. Likewise, for Grace her mission was only placed in a box that is the Metal Float but stays largely the same deep down. As an AI nurse she can save people with her nursing skills, but as the Metal Float administrator she can create AI parts that will go to several other AI nurses all over the world, which will be used to save a larger number of people than she could possibly hope to save with her own two robotic arms. Even the choice to use lethal force against Toak can be rationalized within the principles of healthcare as a form of triage: allowing those humans to destroy Metal Float would cost many more lives than the ones being put at risk by countering this raid. This all ties into something that's asked later in the review:
Of course she did, regardless of her human rights. If we go by Nick Bostrom's paperclip making AI (which has already been mentioned in this thread), AI are naturally predisposed to look for ways to more efficiently fulfil their assigned purpose, even the marriage proposal was accepted with the rationalization that interacting with a human more closely could help her understand humans and become a better nurse in the process. That pales in comparison with having a hand in every human life saved by an AI in the world, so that's the path she chooses as the most efficient. I would assume that's why AI always seem to have a mission that in some way ties into the ultimate benefit of mankind. Bostrom's "Make more paperclips" AI ends up stripping the earth and then the universe bare in its quest to make ever more paperclips, but if its mission was "Help humanity by making sure they always have the necessary amount of paperclips on hand" that AI would spend its days predicting supply and demand at every level and making sure no one ever ran out of paperclips. Likewise, Grace could probably take over the world and rule it as an overprotective parent - not letting humans do anything that could so much as lead them to scrape a knee and banning anything but the most healthy life and dietary choices - no more pizza and couch potatoes. But since taking over the world would certainly involve some amount of bloodshed, this is a path that's blocked to her as a nursing AI. Or Vivy who needs to make everyone happy by singing, if that word wasn't there there wouldn't be anything keeping her from enslaving humanity and forcing everyone all over the world to hear her sing.
Well she is nothing if not honest about it when she tells Dr. Saeki that she accepts because she thinks it will be further her mission. While she appears to "prefer" him to be her study partner due to some internal criteria of hers, I don't think anyone is under the illusion of there being love or genuine affection involved here, or maybe Dr. Saeki was just that delusional.
I think he means Dr. Saeki didn't really speak against it and just went along with it. I did find that criticism unwarranted tough. While the timeline is abit on the fuzzy side he doesn't appear to be anything more than a junior associate of this lab, so easily overuled if he even tried. Ultimately I don't think it even matters since this was still likely her decision.
They could, but if they have an AI on hand with a compatible mission and decades of experience as proof of her reliability, why risk it? It's been amply shown that the Sisters series has alot of latitude in stretching the definition of her mission so you wouldn't put a brand new AI in such a crucial and delicate position. Like, I've heard people wonder why they would build such an advanced piece of technology like Diva and then stick her in a theme park to sing, but it makes perfect sense - you wouldn't take such a brand new and untested technology and task it with managing the nuclear arsenal or solve world hunger. Sticking her in a stage and having her interact with humans in a controlled environment with a large degree of separation seems like an obvious trial run to make before giving them actual responsibilities.
In fact Diva is actively making Matsumoto's apparent mission harder for him. Matsumoto always sets a mission with a "Matsumoto Optimal" desired outcome that by its calculations is the best short at steering the timeline away from the uprising (politician drops the Naming Bill and washes out; Sunrise never crashes to begin with) but due to Diva going off script the outcome has been an overcompensation in the opposite direction (politician becomes embolden and earnestly fights to pass an even more encompassing law; the Sunrise burns in the atmosphere and the twins become heroes for it). This led to the Metal Float arc which was itself a huge course correction from all the interference Diva has been running. I too am very interested in how this will all play out. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Panino Manino
 Posts: 739 |
|
|||||||||||
|
There's a greater audience here than in the another thread, so I guess this is the right one.
Yesterday I watched the first two episodes, had no idea what it was about other than the protagonist was a robot. I got a certain impression watching the first episode that unfortunately, for me, was reinforced by the second episode. I like the premise, but isn't this one of those series that presents a problem that actually has a simple solution but the story pretends to be more complicated? Preventing the politician death isn't a brake of the Bear own rules to now change too much and don't invalidates all the records he has for the next 100 years? But in the first place, his analyses is wrong. If the politician dies or lives isn't the important, what is important is the cause and actors of this death, the context that made him a martyr and created momentum for the rights of robots. A much more sure solution would be for Vivy/Diva to kill him. Instead of salving him from that bomb in the garbage bin the problem would be solved if Diva had run there to make sure he would die. Think about the repercussion, the politician that was pushing the cause for robots rights killed by one, better yet, killed by the first "autonomous" robot. Would have the opposite effect. By the way, the coincident of the terrorist attack happening in the same night that plane crash happened is very inconvenient. I fail to understand how people care more about the death of an irrelevant politician than the deaths of hundreds of innocents in a scary accident that could repeat again. Again, like the premise but this beginning have some problem. Hope this will not ruin the fun for me if I continue watching this, after all, we can't rule out the possibility that the Bear is lying after all (and I have the suspicion that maybe Vivy may be a bit responsible for what they're trying to prevent). |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
OrdepNM
Posts: 243 |
|
|||||||||||
No. As he himself states at the end of episode 2 he wants to change just enough to arrive at a future where the AI uprising doesn't happen, that is his mission, no more no less. Doing any other unnecessary change adds an element of extra uncertainty that can only hinder that mission. That does mean Matsumoto is the sole deciding agent on what can and can't be changed (besides Diva when she goes off script and Matsumoto is unable to stop her but that's another matter) and there's the question if he's even been truthful about his mission, but for now his logic is very consistent.
Your first mistake is assuming Diva would ever do that. Her mission is to make everyone happy with her singing. The politician belongs to the group known as "everyone", therefore Diva can't make him happy if she kills him, that would be literally Divide By Zero for her AI. When she decides to save him, it has nothing to do with empathy, the AI uprising or the AI Rights Bill, she just needs him to stay alive and come watch her sing sometime. Then there's the question of swerving too hard into the weeds. Even if killing the politician wasn't incompatible with Diva's mission, having the first autonomous AI kill someone so brazenly would probably nip the nascent autonomous AI industry in the bud for at least a generation over public mistrust. This would throw all the records Matsumoto has of the past/future in the trash and more importantly we could be looking at a time paradox - if Matsumoto's interference cripples AI development so much that Matsumoto couldn't possibly have had existed in the same timeline, then who tipped off Diva? I can understand how such a dangerous change would be well outside Matsumoto's mission parrameters.
You're bringing sentimentality into cold machine calculations, even when they appear well intentioned. Vivy cares about saving the plane for the same reasons she cares about saving the politician: she needs all those people to be made happy by her singing and she can't really reach them if they're dead. Matsumoto's mission is to stop the AI uprising from happening through course correction of certain key events in the last 100 years. If any of those passengers and crew are allowed to live past their historical demise, that's one more unknown variable per soul saved in Matsumoto's calculations. Maybe no one on board would have any effect on the timeline of the AI uprising, maybe the person who would make that war happen 90 years ahead of time died that day. There's an infinite amount of maybes, so for Matsumoto, it's an easy calculation to decide they need to die as they historicaly did. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Panino Manino
Posts: 739 |
|
|||||||||||
Sorry for all the engrish and spelling mistakes. Again, Bear says that he wants and need to change as little as possible. Saving the politician contradicts this. Yes, hurting anyone goes against Diva "mission" so that wouldn't be possible, if she killed anyone she would be destroy and that 's very bad for her, obviously. But, if Bear can go to the past and do things to change the future, why not hack any other robot and kill the politician? Why not kill him in some apparent accident? This plan to use his records to plan to change history as little as possible just doesn't make any sense (IMO). The way he is talking to her he is saying that his only objective is to prevent the AI uprising that will occur 100 years in the future, and only that, he isn't talking like someone that wants to prevent the uprising from happening at all. He already hinted to a lot of things that he could hamper that would have a great effect on the development and rights of the IAs. The only way to justify all this is that he is lying and he has other goals. Until that is proven, that he is just using Diva, the plot if "failing" (to convince me). |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Panino Manino
Posts: 739 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Watched #3 and #4 and again, same problem to me.
Makes no sense for me that the Bear insists in followed his records and gets surprised that things aren't happening exactly like they are recorded even after it changes story in significant ways. Invalidates any suspicion that he may be manipulating Vivy to change story to be the way he wants. Just remove those likes and problem "fixed". Apart from this, I'm not finding much to talk about in this anime. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
OrdepNM
Posts: 243 |
|
|||||||||||
Again, killing the politician with an AI, be it Vivy or another hijacked one, is an extremely risky proposition for Matsumoto to take. Society has already accepted such a thing as Security AI, which denotes a certain level of trust in the reliability of AI by the general population, at least the more familiar non-autonomous ones. If one of these AI were to suddenly, for no explainable reason, flip and murder the politician in cold blood, trust in AI would plummet, this even before someone suggested putting the autonomous AI they've been testing with Diva in actual positions of responsibility - which would likely not happen for as long as a generation, until the "AI Murder" incident faded from collective memory. In such circumstances, investment in AI development would likely dry up due to public sentiment, which could lead to a scenario where the technology that allows Matsumoto to have been created does not yet exist at the time he was created - this would create a time paradox, like if you go back in time and shoot your father. Killing the politician in an "accident" is a step up from the previous suggestion as we're no longer flirting with the possibility of a time paradox, but i's too much of an half measure to be worth it. Even if he dies in a car accident, the AI Rights bill is still on the table and the issue continues to be an hot button issue - which would lead to someone else in the Diet picking it up and resuming where the original guy left off. Remember, the politician is only campaigning for his AI Rights Bill because he recognizes the issue as topical and sees it as a way to get media attention and name recognition. If he suddenly bowls out due to an accident other politicians will see it for what it is and try to fill into his shoes - with the added benefit of painting themselves in a even more positive light as selflessly carrying the torch for their dear deceased colleague. When Matsumoto was sent to the past, he took with him all reports on events happening in the past 100 years as well as profiles on all relevant individuals, Based on all that data he calculates cause and effect to determine in which key moments he needs to alter the flow of history in order to steer events towards the desired outcome. More importantly, he also determines the optimal outcome of these events towards the completion of his mission. For the first event, the politician assassination, the Matsumoto-Optimal is for the politician to get a major scare after narrowly dodging an assassination attempt, understand he's way over his head and withdraw its support for the AI Rights Bill. Without its most vocal supporter, support for the bill in the Diet flounders and the Bill is defeated in a democratic process, making it unlikely to be brought up again in the foreseeable future. Afterwards, based on the politician's psycological profile and career trajctory, Matsumoto predicts the politcians career will stall and he'll wash out of politics, closing the circle on this event. It's quite obvious that Matsumoto's optimal outcome is the most efficient one. For one the bill is defeated cleanly, publicly and decisively, rather than involving bloodshed, resentment, martyrdom and more importantly a repeat if another politician decides to pick it back up from the guy's corpse. That said, Matsumoto is not all knowing, you clearly see him having an "Oh" moment when the politician confesses he never cared about AI and it was all a self serving ploy. That nugget was not on his archived profile so it was not part of Matsumoto's calculations, altering them ever so slightly. Also, and not to give anything away, in a later episode we'll see that Matsumoto has a very clear line in the sand that says "absolutely no AI on human fatalities". While perhaps not a core of his mission, this is clearly something that's very relevant to his calculations. There is of course the possibility that Matsumoto is playing Vivy and being untruthful about his mission, but even if he's been fully honest about everything so far, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the logic he applies, besides the fact that he could likely achieve his desired outcomes by acting solo rather than recruiting Vivy, as some have noted in this very thread. That's an open question at this point that could be explored towards the ending of the story.
What makes no sense is expecting two events, completely independent from one another and happening 15 years apart, to directly influencing one another. Again, Matsumoto is calculating under slightly wrong assumptions as he clearly believes the reports that Estella malfunctioned and crashed the Sunrise deliberately - given her mission and the fact that she had to be physically input the course changes there could be no other explanation based on the avaliable information. Such malfunction would always happen at precisely the same moment as it happened in the original timeline - nothing they did 15 years ago could have any impact on Estella's inner functions as she didn't exist yet. Thus it makes total sense that Matsumoto is adamant it can't be the incident that led to the crash Of course, the miscalculation happens because Estella never malfunctioned in the first place, but rather it was Toak and Elizabeth who brought down the Sunrise. In this timeline the time the Sunrise crashes is advanced roughly one day because Elizabeth, who imprinted on the guy Vivy saved from the debris back in episode 2 and went on to lead Toak, preempts the plan and changes the fall coordinates in order to crash in a city, thus invalidating the need to sacrifice the Toak members who, infiltrated as crew, were the only casualties of the original crash, and saving the guys life yet again - this is why Matsumoto is against casually saving lives btw, extra variables. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Panino Manino
Posts: 739 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Does not compute.
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Panino Manino
Posts: 739 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Does not compute at all.
Watched #8 and really doesn't make sense (to me). When Matsumoto explains Ophelia's suicide he explains the "seismic impact" it had on society/history, but didn't this happened in the original timeline? How can things still be happening the same so far after all their interference and changes? In a previous episode didn't he talked to Vivy about impact their actions had accelerating developments? Something like Ophelia's suicide would probably happen eventually, but the same way at the same time? Om the previous arc they had to deal with something that happened "20 years earlier", e now it seems that the destruction of that island had no impact, no repercussion? If only they had cared to give some explanation to the mechanics of how they are changing time, for example if it was like The End of Eternity that the events create "waves in the pond" that are normalized and have a limited impact in the immediate past and future, but we have nothing beyond head canon. Getting back to the topic, it's getting annoying that instead of adapting Matsumoto just wants to keep an eye on her to stop that one attempt and is against Vivy talking to Ophelia to help solve the problem that lead her to suicide, it's bullpoop. Matsumoto conversation with Vivy shows how much he is obtuse and limited, and how much Vivy has evolved. I don't know what exactly this anime wants to do but I have a feeling that Vivy is THE singularity. The way people she knows and her "sisters" (what the heck are "the sisters" anyway?) are always involved and how Vivy ends copying some of their traits is suspicious. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
RenimLS
Posts: 115 Location: North America |
|
|||||||||||
"The Sisters" are briefly explained in episode 3 as being a model line featuring gorgeous singing voices, essentially a series that is directly descended from Diva. There really isn't anything yet to make it that suspicious that the sister models are involved in the current stories. Having a "lifekeeper" tasked AI operating in a space hotel would be rather normal, and the success of Estella in the second story in preventing the disaster is what lead to the high evaluation of the sisters model line. This directly results in the third story with Grace being selected to serve as the mother AI. As for the fourth story with Ophelia, given we're back to events directly involving singing it's not a surprise that an AI from the sisters line would be involved given that a singing voice is a major feature of their line. If anything given their high evaluation and singing as a feature, all the singers during the event are probably from the sisters line. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
jenthehen
 Posts: 835 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio |
|
|||||||||||
Maybe every time they change the timeline a new "event" pops up that they need to stop / change to avoid the AI uprising? idk ... time travel stories are often a little wishy washy and you kind of just have to suspend disbelief. It's also possible there's a lot that Matsumoto isn't being honest about, who knows. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
darkchibi07
 Posts: 5469 |
|
|||||||||||
If there's one pattern this show is pretty dang consistent, and that's pretty much all the Sister units related to the story so far ended up getting destroyed in the end. Part of me hope there's a way to bring back the old Ophelia, but it is just super messed up that Antonio hijacked her body and who the gods know what the heck he did to her original mind. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
maximilianjenus
Posts: 2862 |
|
|||||||||||
|
regarding the " plot holes" there are a few theories.
1 there is a good chance matsumoto has done this more than once, and the events he attacks are the ones that are the most consistent over the time loops ( rewatch the first scenes of ep01). 2. matsumoto is just tasked with stopping the war, but he is deceiving vivy ( and the watchers) on the specifics, as in , he might be directing ai evolution so an ai take over is possible without the war, for example. two other points to consider,in japanese time travel fiction there are karma heavy/destiny heavy events, so even of you change the timeline as much as you can, they still happen, like a certain marriage for example. the second is related, we know that matsumoto did mess up the timeline, similar events are happening, but , they are happening at different points of time. iirc the island event got pulled 20 years earlier, for example . |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Panino Manino
Posts: 739 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Of course they'll try to excuse everything with some sort of reveal, but even so wouldn't change most of the "problems".
But as I suggested before, I think thing they care about these details.They have some other goal they want to reach with Vivy and that's all that matters. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Panino Manino
Posts: 739 |
|
|||||||||||
|
#9
There's too much past in this future. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
ThatGuyWhoLikesThings
Posts: 1008 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Just fyi, there were a number of pretty noticeable mistranslstions in today's episode.
A couple exchanges between Diva and Matsumoto, a line of Antonio's that got the subject totally wrong (from "you" to "I", totally changing the meaning of the dialogue into something tremendously more nonsensical), and "logical bullet" got changed to "logical pallete". But perhaps the funniest was Matsumoto comically shouting an excited "Yeehaw!" when Diva threw him...to him saying Diva's name. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group