Freefall

Yes. Bowman A.I.s still have automatic 3law-alike responses and develop them into part of their neural networks.

Yeah, we've had a few strips where Florence was up against her 3 laws programming, though she's been able to think around them or interpret them the way she feels is best - as per Dr. Bowman's intention.

Blunt being so literal is supposed to be caused by his slowness, but man if it doesn't come off like deep-seated self-hate.

"A man who acts as his own lawyer in court has a fool for a client"◊ — attributed to Abraham Lincoln, and others.

But I like the nephew's metaphor quite a bit too.

I can't help but think of a metaphorical version of that scene from Groundhog Day when Phil Connors drives a pickup into a quarry with Puxatawney Phil. "He'll probably be okay." huge fireball "Okay, maybe not."

You have a right to remain silent and to silence any witnesses◊...

Yeah, Blunt is really close to the line here. It really doesn't help that Blunt's approach to "saving humanity" is one of the worst possible approaches. You know, protecting the lunatic who nearly collapsed the economy of Jean because he's too stupid to comprehend the relative value of money.

That counts as obstructing justice and advocating tampering with evidence.

Well technically all Blunt is doing right now is a typical "don't say anything" layer advice. Actual destruction of the evidence attempt was done by Kornada, before the trial and all, and that's pretty standard thing too.

If the US Constitution is in effect here, all Blunt did was notify his client to exercise his fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, as well as note that his defense is likely to be hampered by the material evidence in said robot. And it's not like he did it in front of the prosecution, although it does stand to reason that the specifics of his defense (such as, boy, it'd be ideal if Clippy doesn't testify) should be discussed solely in private. Rookie attorney mistake.

Well, Blunt is about as rookie of an attorney as you can get.

"How long have you been Attorneys?"

"About seven hours."

I don't know Ishiguro well enough to tell if he's being sarcastic or not.◊

I think he knows Raibert enough to be sarcastic.

Ah, but my question is whether or not Ishiguro would be the type to be aware enough to make the comment out of sarcasm in this case. I mean, maybe, but maybe not. In a way, I think it's funnier if he doesn't mean it sarcastically.

I doubt that Ishiguro has ever been in a position where his health and safety have been at risk due to unsafe working conditions. So, I believe that line was said with no traces of sarcasm whatsoever.

Oh come now, Ishiguro's already demonstrated (e.g. against Kornada) that he has a functioning sense of snark; and while he does have some weird obstructive-bureaucrat traits, he's not unintelligent. Surely he's saying that sarcastically.

Just because Ishiguro doesn't live that kind of life himself doesn't mean that he can't see the irony in that line coming from someone who does. (...wait, or are you being sarcastic?)

edited 11th Aug '16 9:03:09 AM by ashnazg

Yesterday, Clippy was evidence. Today, he's a citizen.◊ He's also an accomplice/accessory to the crime, locked up in police custody, with multiple safeguards preventing access to him. Plus, Florence sabotaged him so he couldn't be turned back on.

Actually, Flo specifically sabotaged him so he'd be easily repairable. So it's a little bit of mystery why he doesn't turn on.

edited 13th Aug '16 10:21:02 PM by Adannor

She didn't even break him, just dismantled him.

I guess they didn't want to reactivate Clippy in case he attempted to self-wipe his memory.

When I first ran into that, I assumed it was something like D&D's rule that Ressurection and Raise Dead don't work on subjects that don't want to come back. Then again, I could also see it as an Ecosystems Unlimited safeguard to prevent a robot with sensitive information from being disabled, transported elsewhere, and booted up. That would seem to be kind of a shaggy dog story, though, unless it leads to a storyline about the ethics of leaving such systems in sentient beings (possibly counter-balanced by how humans have no way of rebooting).

Of course, it could also be that Florence, capable as she is, made a mistake, and accidentally killed him permanently.

It's looking more and more like Ishiguro is, if not a good boss, at least a pragmatic one◊.

Couldn't he assign a few thousand robots to assist?

The problem with that idea is, I don't think any of the higher-ups at EU want robots in any position that involves deciding and implementing company policy. They can be subverted too easily just by somebody giving them a direct order.

Brings to mind◊ the real-life case of an advertising algorithm realizing that a girl was pregnant before she did and sending her relevant ads.