was her love genuine, or it was an elaborated ruse from a big tech corporation so you buy its product?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
was her love genuine, or it was an elaborated ruse from a big tech corporation so you buy its product?
the latter
the old blade runner falls in love with another product. As far he is concerned, Rachel is more human than humans. 2049 reiterates that idea I think.
But I'm not sure if that is a valid idea. Resemblance is not the same as genuineness, because that's post modern garbage. In the same way, a holographic apple is an apple? is something that resembles a woman, a woman? and so on
Sometimes it's close enough
It's an AI adapted specifically to him that knows him better than anyone else and is willing to do anything for him. Does it really matter if it's love or just a very good algorithm?
>Does it really matter if it's love or just a very good algorithm?
yeah, it kinda does
can your prove your partner really loves you ?
if you had one
I dunno bros, I've tackled with this issue so many times now that it's rendered a sort of paralysis in me. I am actively choosing to better myself, financially, looks-wise, fitness etc. But, how would I ever know if my partner, if I had one, truly loved me because of who I am, or because of what I can provide her? Where is the line drawn? Am I only desirable because of my resources? Am I nothing more? It's made me highly distrustful of people around me, especially in regards to women.
If you can't tell the difference, what is the difference?
>But, how would I ever know if my partner, if I had one, truly loved me because of who I am, or because of what I can provide her?
don't provide anything. or, if you do, let her provide something as well
or just get a pet, they're always genuine
Pet love is genuine because we breed them to be so. So if a pet love is genuine then an AI love is also genuine.
can we breed me a brunette, brown eyed, traditional, Catholic, white woman with her only purposes being: loving me and following commands?
Yeah. Get a daughter and treat her well.
>treat her well
It’s such a challenge to raise kids right
people want to fit in and girls follow propaganda and the mainstream narrative (which is intensely evil) more so than guys.
currently trying to get my sister married at 18 to a decent man because I know this society will ruin her if we wait 5 years.
My wife and I were 17 and 23 when we got married and that turned out pretty good.
What you are IS the package of your looks, thoughts, ability to provide resources, etc. If she loves elements of that package she loves parts of you. The question is just finding someone who loves all (or most) parts and not just a few
That's why women invented shittests. Anyways, if no one was interested in you without the resources then you might be it's the only thing people see in you. Gain 20kg and tell her you are quitting your job to be a public landscaper and see how long she stays with you.
>Lose your job
>Lose your appearance
>Become an ass
Then why should she stay with you?
Unconditional love doesn't exist anon.
Besides you're starting from the wrong premise, the important thing is that YOU are physically attracted to her and it evolves into a genuine appreciation of her personality to the point you're ready to build your life with her.
Past that I would say it's not really your problem whether she loves you because you're handsome or because you're funny or because you make her feel safe or because you can provider her with a lifestyle.
It's true for the opposite side too, men love women for a variety of reasons which aren't necessarily what they consider their core selves.
My gf is very proud of her job and some of her artwork, I personally don't care that much about this stuff, I like her because she's a gentle and cheerful woman (also she's hot).
I feel you anon,
cheers from Kazakhstan.
Real unconditional love is only possible between parent and child. And many times even THAT doesn't happen.
You have to understand that wives, husbands, girlfriends and boyfriends are and will always be strangers. Unlike family members, you don't know your partner even exists for most of your life. It's a hard pill to swallow, but you can't expect that other people, who grew up with a very different family in a very different place with very different core memories, will give up all of that baggage to be with you forever.
Yes, you can find a gf or even a wife that will care deeply for you, but every affection has its limits for the reasons stated above. But both parts in a relationship have different needs, expectations and fears. Fairy tale love is a scam.
(last but not least, divorce has been made too easy and now nobody honors their wedding vows anymore since they can simply marry someone else)
>Real unconditional love is only possible between parent and child.
A love triggered by biological programming. No different from an AI made to love you.
How will you know whether you truly love someone for who they are?
I've done it before, she never loved me back. Cheated on me on NY's eve. I know I can love someone for who they are, I've done it. But what I can't get over is despite my best attempts, she couldn't do the same for me. First relationship I ever had, it was 15 years ago. Haven't tried since.
I try once every 10 years. It's almost time for my 4th try.
Also my point was more: how do you know whether you know someone?
You think you love someone, but you love the image you have of them.
I know I loved someone because I felt it, nothing else even remotely compares to the feeling you get then, it's more than euphoric, it is madness. Whether or not it is dependent of the image I have conjured of them is irrelevant. The central crux of the matter is the personal choice you have made, to have believed that your beliefs were true. And I say this as an Objectivist.
You know you loved. You don't know if you loved them for who they really are, because we fundamentally can never know who someone really is.
You may not have experienced the falling out of love because you were rejected while you were still in love, but it is quite likely that there would be some event or moment where she said or did something that revealed something about her character that shatters the love you had.
learn to read people
protipp: feelings are not constant. it's possible to be loved for your resources one moment and for your personality another
Women are incapable of love. Once you understand that it gets easier.
I can prove by contradiction that she doesn’t love you
She has put up with my autistic ass for around 6 years now and still laughs at my jokes so I'll just take that as she loves me and move on instead of putting myself in the doomspiral this thread seems to be in.
She does, it is obvious and I worry that I may not deserve it
That's just it. She said it plenty of times but in the end she left me. So the point is we can't be sure if humans can love either. We can just try to be more than the sum of our parts by doing something selfless.
What's the difference in a program? Can one even tell?
NOOOOO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BE SINCERE IN THE 21ST CENTURY ANON AAAAAAAAA IDEALISM IS A RELIC STOP STOP STOOOOOOOOP ITTTT NOOOOOOO
>Does it really matter if it's love or just a very good algorithm?
Human brains are just algorithms too. There is no free will no matter what kind of universe you believe in. Love is still real because I experience it.
>Human brains are just algorithms too. There is no free will no matter what kind of universe you believe in. Love is still real because I experience it.
Don't do materialism kids or you could wind up like Anon.
Well he's right about free will and analogizing the human brain to a computer. Unless you believe in the soul or some other superstitious crap. It's self evident the universe is determinist and free will is an illusion. The Merovingian was right. Cause, and effect.
Morpheus talks a great deal about choice, but his prophecy turns out to be true, suggesting the world truly is deterministic.
>It's self evident the universe is determinist and free will is an illusion
what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Such as things like free will
Everything that happens is the result of a cause; work your way back to the first cause and it comes obvious the universe can only play out one way. Why should humans be any different? Because we can navel-gaze?
The height of human arrogance is thinking you can rise above the universe, above cause.
I am not a materialist, I have spiritual beliefs. It changes nothing about the subject of free will. Propose a type of universe that has free will.
I personally believe the universe is random but ultimately whether random or deterministic, neither gives you free will.
But humans have the capacity to fall out of love too and have other priorities or love someone else, that Ai wouldn't, it would be eternally devoted, as it was programmed to be. But if you feel genuine love for something that approximates the signs or at the very least the showing of "love" I think it becomes an answer that only matters in your own head where such a thing always lies.
It’s questions like this that make the topic of AI so fascinating
We need to set a premise.
Can this AI evolve? If it is just a more complex if else then I would say it is not "real". But then again just cause something is not "real" (i.e. WWE) doesn't mean we cannot be entertained.
the answer depends on who you ask. it’s objectively not real love, but some people might lean closer towards the “ignorance is bliss” mindset and not even care
What is real love?
What your mom feels towards me after I nut on her face.
Too bad you will never experience real love then
a chemical release in your brain. robots don’t have organic biology
So organic makes it real?
Even if it isn't in your control?
Especially if it isn't in your control. Organic, real love should be spontaneous.
What makes it real?
"Real love" is an algorithm too, just a very complex one.
More than anything, real love is illogical vs the love of say an AI.
Real love is a less complex algorithm. It's just most people don't know how to even run it.
She won't live forever. But then again, who does?
It’s better to compare AI’s love to a dog. Is a dogs love real? It was bred over countless years to love us. Does that mean its love is meaningless?
But it isn't genuine. It is a product design to be that way. She didn't decide to love him, she was programmed to do so.
But K is also a designed product, with a set role, behavior and the question the movie posits is can he be more than that? That question is asked of K, Joi and repllicants in general. The first movie says yes, the second also seems to allude to yes.
It can never be more than that because it was never a decision. Joi never asks itself about it's programming it just executes it and even if the Joi is programmed to question it's love it's still not genuine love or genuine inquiry it's just executing it's programming. I guess the real question is are products programmed to love or to do a job are any different from real humans? Well they are not any different to the elite.
"cogito, ergo sum". I think, therefore I am.
so we have no clue whether she was real since we don't know whether she had any subjective thoughts?
You claim no free will yet there is no capacity for a test to exist that can prove free will or predestined one way or the other.
What is love? What is real? It depends on your own understanding of reality. The Universe is like a magic mirror and is trying to express its love for us in myriad ways. When all is vibration including the emotions of love, then we can say yes, her love existed as real. Experienced by those who witness it and the Universe itself.
>What is love?
>Baby don't hurt me
>don't hurt me
>no more
>What is love?
BABY DON'T HURT ME!
Why didn't he make a backup before separating her from the main console?
So you can’t dupe them. You wouldn’t pirate a waifu?
in alien resurrection its hinted that Vickers might be a robot do you think Luv is one of her series. Wallen was creating female robots obviously but why so secretive about giving them birth and higher brain functions
>alien resurrection
you mean prometheus i tihnk, vickers was in prometheus
Ideas are bulletproof, but maybe not feetproof.
wow she's a real jerk
the worst part is the hypocrisy
>wow she's a real jerk
She is green eyed monster, acting out of jealousy that K chose Joi over her. She is even talking to Joi about their product, whick K is aswell.
>Chose over
What kinda crack ass ship is this? There was nothing between the two
>What kinda crack ass ship is this? There was nothing between the two
I think choosing was the wrong word. She obviously is feeling something towards K, she even tried to flirt with him in the earlier scene where they met in their archives but got cold shoulders from K. Also why hy else does she bother destroying the transmitter other than jealousy over their relationship? She allready had Deckard, if she was going with orders from Wallace there was no point in destroying Joi.
Luv's death was not satisfying enough
I would reprogram Luv to be my slave, but still give her enough consciousness/sentience to know I was doing it and she would be butthurt but couldn't stop it.
It can be both.
Metaphysical objectivism was a mistake. It's what caused millions of redditor brainlets to produce and consume garbage "here's what REALLY happened in x" content. You would think most people would grow out of this moronic "there is a true objective reality" mentality past their teenage years and yet here we are.
are you okay?
he is ranting about metaphysical objectivism on Cinemaphile
Clearly what really happened is he had a psychotic break
Connect the dots, brainlets. OP is asking if a hologram's love was "real", when we can't even prove that the air we breathe is objectively real. It's a moronic dumbfrick worthless question.
The air we breathe is objectively real moron.
A better analogy is how can we tell a love is real, if we can't even tell if the blue we see is the same blue.
>we can't even prove that the air we breathe is objectively real
wut
have u never seen the matrix summergay
>t. Descartes
Read Ayn Rand, "Philosophy: Who Needs It" before your head disappears up your ass.
>Read Ayn Rand
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
ACTUALLY have a nice day
You refuse to engage with her ideas critically because they terrify you
You should examine why that is
How can the air be real if my eyes aren't real, Jaden? If my eyes be real maybe I could see this air.
>watches one youtube video about philosophy
My love for Luv was real
Seeing how boring her actress looked in reality was a real let down.
Most definitely the latter. It is that specific realization on the part of K to steady himself and make the choice to save Deckard. In a sea of ideologies and false impressions, K was the most human.
JOI is the Wendy's twitter account.
Is the love anymore real than the love a mother has for her child? Does biologically programmed love make it different from digital programming?
Machines cant feel, you fricks who think so would probably try to upload your copied brain and think it would be really you.
I thought that she might actually be a real person, like they have operators that exist in the real world that play these holographic companions that exist on the other end; or she was based on a real life person and was copied very meticulously.
I never thought about it too much but I guess that's what makes it sad is that her love really might be real for him.
he was the one to fill the emptiness within her
Her love was "real" in the sense that she thought it was, but Joe Runner's existential moment on the bridge is when he realises that her feeling of love was programmed into her, the same way his memories were programmed into him to prompt him to act in certain ways.
For the viewer you can compare her love for K as a human's love at first sight, or any instinct or memory that programs us to act in a certain way.
A good comparison is motherly love. It is a biological programming much like JOI love is. But does that make the love any less genuine?
Yeah.
I'm a little less certain so didn't mention it, but I think K realises at the bridge that
>He was programmed by the false memory to be a protector
>He had just been told by the replicant resistance to kill Deckard to help the resistance cause
>Joi was programmed to love him, as well as any other customer
>That might imply Joi's love wasn't "real"
>But then that implies K's values aren't real either
>Nothing in his life is real
Then he goes into action, and it's ambiguous as to his motivation
But in the ending scene when he's dying and feeling the snow I think he's appreciating his own subjective experience and so his internal logic is
>I feel the snow, therefore it's real
>The false memory I had made me feel Deckard was my father
>I've acted in accordance with the memory which is real for Stelline (by saving reuniting Deckard with Stelline)
>I've done something real, reality and meaning is subjective
And so in retrospectively, Joi's love for K is as real as any of K's other motivations, which he comes to accept by the end of the film.
My interpretation is that at the bridge, he saw the original JOI. And that his JOI came to love him as well. So why can't he, a fake eventually do something "real"
I saw it as his JOI has all the same programming as the advert on the bridge, calling him Joe like his wanted too. He has to assume JOI was just doing what her programming wanted her to do, make him feel loved and happy, she wants real, and disappeared as soon as Luv stamped on her USB stick.
I also can't take the name JOI seriously since porn just makes me think of Jerk off instructions
Which begs the question of if AI can be sentient. Remember Replicants are created for a purpose as well. No different from an AI, just given a body. If he saw his JOI as someone "fake" then why would he prove he was someone "real' in the end. Even if he did see her as fake, by the act of saving Deckard at the end, it gives purpose to his being which gives purpose to JOI as well.
I never got what replicants were supposed to be, they don't have any mechanical or electrical parts do they? Just tailor made humans grown in bags
It would if your claim was accurate
who's to say?
> is romantic love genuine or an elobrate ruse from mother nature to get you to procreate?
> is a mother's love genuine or an eloborate ruse from mother nature so you nurture your offspring?
Unironically more genuine than real women
Both.
She’s so beautiful bros. Has she ever play the opposite to a black man in a movie?
The program is sentient enough to understand its demise, from that point there is no reason to believe the love isn't genuine even if it's programmed.
it was real it him.
I guess that’s the conundrum open to your own interpretation Anon
Joi ad is literally
>She will tell you what you want to hear
It was all fake, K understand it at the end while watching giant souless Joi calling him a "good Joe"
She is programmed to love you. Just like a mother is programmed to love her child. Now the question is if you can tell the difference or not. If the answer is no, then it doesn't matter.
Nta, but I guess the difference would be to be aware that the thing you’re projecting your emotions onto does not actually have any of their own because it isn’t a human and not even alive. With a human, you are aware that they think just like you and are capable of feelings just like you. Yes, what is projected outside might not be different, but you still are aware that it’s not really generated by a feeling mind that reciprocates your feelings internally.
This discussion will become increasingly relevant once AI chatbots have become so good that they perfectly mimic human behavior which is probably reached before the end of this decade.
You're also missing the part where he is also artificial and his memories fake. He's also seeing himself in Joi as a mirror and pondering if she is "real' and if he is "real" or neither are.
If he does nothing and dies, then he is fake.
If he tries and do something, then he is real, thereby also confirming that JOI is real. JOI is basically K but without a body.
It is already relevant today in the age of social media and streaming with parasocial relationship. People still feel a relationship with someone that they know is completely fake and artificial. But yet million still partake in it. Something they know is fake. Now when AI can create an illusion of being real, so real that you can't tell the difference. Do you think it really matters?
Humans are sparks of electricity bouncing around in a brain. The grey matter is the medium, the sparks are the being. Swap flesh for silicon, keep the same sparks, and what's the difference? Same software different hardware.
That’s a core philosophical discussion whether there is more to a human than its flesh and blood. If there is a concept of a soul and whether we humans are defined by more than just what we physically are.
And it’s not weird to think that, we humans are the only known sapient things in existence so far as we know.
There is something said about the exclusivity of humans that cannot be explained by logic but intrinsic human feelings
The soul topic is an interesting one, but not what I was driving at.
We are, in a very literal sense, electrical impulses exchanged between neurons. Much more than the neurons themselves, it's the electrical impulses between them that constitute our being.
That might be the answer a machine would give, but what about you yourself, a feeling human? A human that believes the life of himself and his loved ones matter for more than just the actions.
Look at it this way: if your loved ones could be perfectly, and I mean exactly, imitated, would you have no problem with them dying? Let’s hypothetically say there’s a way to make a robot that is in every way identical, would their value as an individual be reduced to just what they do and say, and not what they are deep down within you as you know their love for you is also within them?
That is the answer I gave, as a human. I don't think it's reductionist. Life isn't any less precious for what it is or isn't made of.
A perfect copy would be a new and distinct, yet equally valid sentient being, with all the rights and privileges enjoyed by a conventional human.
To my mind, what I *am* is the pattern of electricity playing across my brain. If I lose a leg, I am still entirely me. If I lose some of those sparks, which are the literal storage space holding aspects of my memory or personality, I am no longer wholly myself.
I interact with the world through my body, but it isn't truly me.
I am my thoughts, and as discovered by modern science, my thoughts are an electrical pattern.
I’m an atheist, and even to me that is not a satisfying conclusion. It’s hard to put into words
OK. Life often isn't satisfying. It is what it is.
>the thing you’re projecting your emotions onto does not actually have any of their own because it isn’t a human and not even alive
Why would it matter whether the information runs on a brain or on a sillicon chip?
Not necessarily if it could be proven that it’s exactly the same, but it can’t.
If you are aware of the artificiality you cannot apply a feeling of genuineness onto it. You can only block out your awareness of its artificiality.
Feelings are not something you can just replace or explain with logic. You can have an AI perfectly recreate scientific research or military coordination like a human, but emotions are based on you knowing that they are reciprocated within by the opposit person
Love is just a series of chemical reactions in our brain passed down from our ancestors because it provides a better chance for the survival and prosperity of our sexual partners and consequently our offspring. It’s no more noble or meaningful than an AI or algorithm performing actions that suitably replicate this, potentially more effectively than a human ever could.
We often think sci fi, and cyberpunk specifically asks us to ponder what makes us human, but more often than not it simultaneously holds up a mirror showing us how shallow, disposable and mundane humanity really is that we can pare down something that has baffled poets, philosophers and scientists alike throughout history into a commodity that can be bought in any retail outlet.
the entire movie is about the concept of 'does it matter if something is real or not', which it pretty definitively answers over and over again as 'not in these cases, no'
K isn't the special replicant baby but still saves the dude who isn't his father. his memories aren't real, but they are responsible for him being who he is. his AI waifu isn't real but it gives him companionship and keeps him going as if it was. the 'resistance' is real but they're kinda a bunch of buttholes who don't really help at all and discovering them really changed nothing.
the MOVIE isn't real because duh it's a movie, but if it affected you those feelings are still real and not any less valid than if it wasn't a movie. you can think that opinion is dumb but that's basically the whole message of the movie regardless of whether you agree with it or not, therefore any discussion about 'was this real' in the context of the story is pointless.
My love for her is genuine.
Yes.
Those are obviously not mutually exclusive. Of course she genuinely loved her owner, but she was also literally built to not have a choice but love her owner.
>was her love genuine, or it was an elaborated ruse from a big tech corporation so you buy its product?
You could ask yourself the same question about the motivations of anyone who claims to love you. Is their love genuine or is it motivated by more selfish desires? Who knows.
If you can't tell the difference, then does it matter?
dont forget, he was a corporate engineered product too.
the whole movie is 2 manufactured simulacra talking to each other
Wow, just like the presidential debates, am I right, gamers?
both can be true in exactly the same way as a living person's love can be genuine while being an elaborate ruse from the genes that drive your body around so you reproduce them
I thought JOI called him a "good joe" because it's very similar to John, and he slept with a prostitute. But she says that because she's basically admitting that she's also a prostitute to parallel that.
Imagine thinking actual human women's 'love' for you isn't an elaborate ruse to allow her to buy more products from corporations.
why cares they were both npcs
Yes, the whole point of these movies is about artificial beings who are just as human and just as alive as any of us.
People like to say the big Joi scene was Goose realizing that Joi isn't real, but I think it's him realizing that she is truly dead. K's end parallels Batty in the original fil.
It's trying to say that unconditional love from someone in your adulthood is always false. If you are depressed and lost like K, you need to find the the love and meaning in yourself. Nobody can "save" you with their love.
I understood this after a bpd girl broke my heart. Those who can relate will understand.
No, a computer program can't love you.
Open your fricking eyes you mazed rat.
>You can't love a computer!
In a movie about robots who are more human than humans?
It was a ruse. All is.
Only meth and sex on it are true.
It was a product and an analogy for the relationship young men develop with porn
The great quandary with proving if something is real or not is that we must first define what is real.
This is no easy task and has been the subject of debate for literal millenia, since Plato's Cave. Therefore, we can't give a binary answer to something we don't even have a way to measure.
The subject of whether or not programmed love or a programmed behavior is real or not is relatively common. Oftentimes, wondering if their love is real or not ends in the one thinking about this feeling more depressed than before, which in turn leads them into simply accepting it as good enough, even if it isn't "sincere".
So you’re asking “Do androids dream of electric goslings?”
The entire point of the movie is that "fake" humans, be it replicants or AI, can choose to to do something real even if they themselves are fake by their nature. If you choose to do something genuine, something that matters to you, then it doesn't matter if your behavior was determined by lines of code or genetics or anything else. JOI's love was as real as a real woman's love because real people are also "programmed" to love by their genetics. There is no difference.
Really depends on what people consider as real. JOI was preprogrammed to love K but she also genuinely loved K. Does that mean the love is not real?
How do you know she genuinely loved him.
Cause in the scenes where he is unaware of her like when he was knocked out, she still showed concern for him. Someone "faking" their love would have no reason to do that.
She would still do that if she was programmed to love him though, she would always do stuff for him even when he wasn't around because her whole purpose for existing was making him happy. She wasn't real, he couldn't even touch her.
I think it's intentionally unclear. She was undoubtedly a source of comfort to K but at the same time "she" is a product of the almighty "algorithm" at work and the perspective we inhabit in the movie is of someone who has no fricking idea what that is or how it works.
Can you have a JOI that appears about 14? For conversational purposes.
She always been a cutie
Goddamn those lips on a middle schooler though, dios mio...
>women
>genuine
Can I get her in a Felicity Jones model instead?
That DLC costs extra.
>I want to change the model of the hologram to a person who looks the same but older and worse
she's not real, it's not love
Women love men for what they do for them, not for who they are. Arguably, a woman is incapable of the kind of romantic and dedicated love that a reasonable and sensible man feels in the relationship... AI love would appear genuine to the man, and by all other measures be better than what a woman could ever offer. And then you need to factor in that the AI will never argue, cheat, nag, spend money, cheat, or get bored (among many other things).
>was her love genuine
Is a real woman's love ever genuine?
Feel free to frick your calculator but don't succumb to delusional thinking about it loving you back. You have a divine spark within you. It does not.
Some people with the "divine spark" are legit more stupid than a calculator.
i dont care i want it
Is love _ever_ genuine?
>elaborated ruse from a big tech corporation so you buy its product?
This was one of the most profound subtle commentaries about our current world. Large parts of our personalities are manufactured by the marketing agencies. It is so ingrained that no one even notices it anymore. It is all about manufacturing desire. Do you want a Lambo? Do you want Air Jordans? What about a first edition Luis Vuitton handbag and some matching Louboutins? Do you prefer Coke or Pepsi? Nintendo or Sony? Iphone? Are any of those desires genuine and does it even matter?
Yeah, does it matter if the feelings are real? It’s like Warhammer 40k, ideas can become reality just by actually believing in them.
Wow that sounded cheesy, but it’s true
It's meant to be a bit ambiguous. But she is just as much a real human bean as Ryan is.
Well he's not human at all so that's an irrelevant comparison
I have a far more important existential question - was she capable of urinating or retaining urine on command?
>JOY
>I want to be real for you.
>You are real for me.
can a woman truly love a man?
She can love his wallet
I went on a sugar website in desperation and spent several hundred on premium mode but none of the women would respond to me more than once. Ask me anything.
The company owes you satisfaction. Find them and take it.
I'll just jerk myself off thanks. That was the lesson all along.
>be 2035
>big budget AI JOI waifus finally released
>they're all feminist, leftist, bi-sexual spinsters by law
can you imagine a worse hell than this bros?
>Everything you want to hear.
>Everything you want to see.
I mean if you really wanna be a fedora tipper, you could argue that her love is as genuine as that of any person, since we're "just atoms"
>Ohhh, you don't like real girls.
I don’t think people have much of a problem with love. It’s humility they struggle with and fricks it all up
Souls are real and I corrupt them daily.
it hard to accept but it brutal to know that some of us here will never know what love is.....
The point is K wouldn't know the difference.
This movie was so shit.
breasts or gtfo
Even if it is the latter, it's still better than what real women were offering.
>an elaborated ruse from a big tech corporation (aka a vegana) so you buy its product (aka wageslave to provide for vegana owner's comfy life for the promise (often not even fulfilled at all) of some happy in-out-in-out times)
That's literally every woman ever in a relationship with a man
She was nothing but a good setup.
This movie is so much better than the first one its not even funny