(I know im using the clip here to mock the AI-bros but I actually think the video while a bit cringe is also really touching and genuine, like hope the guy still loves the sport as much as he did then, and gets as much from it. (And the story gets even more touching when you read more about it).
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
62 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1842 readers
125 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This post has prompted me to give a reminder that one of the authors of AI 2027 predicted back in 2021 that "prompt programming" would be a thing by now.
It was already a thing in 2021 so not much of a prediction.
It was a thing in the sense that the promptfondlers were trying to portray prompting as a matter of fine technique and skill (as opposed to dumb luck mixed with trial and error with a few general guidelines that half work). It was not a thing then and is still not now in the sense that prompting has none of the skill or precision or verifiability or reliability of actual programming.
Why does that humanoid robot have apparently metal breasts and a conventionally "pretty" face? Am I supposed to want to fuck it?
People have wanted to fuck robots for a long time!
But also costume design of Maria, the robot from Metropolis, has had a huge impact on the aesthetic of female presenting robots.
Being unsure of whether you want to fuck robo-Maria or be robo-Maria is a classic sign of bisexuality among reconstructors of lost film media.
Yes, it's a niche, but you know it's not an empty niche.
At least Maria has a name, and a face.
Sex sells obv. On the note of weird a bit out of place female-coded robots (for who I will be using she/her pronouns out of convenience). I'm still confused why rebel moon on netflix gets promoted with this image.
(also note this female coded robot has no face, but does have nipples (who does she think she is? Batman?)). Considering she is only in the 'people who visit prostitutes are disgusting' bar scene with the sexual harassing gay guy, she then walks outside in a weird catwalk like walk (she is in the background in other scenes where she acts normally) and then disappears. (What is it with Snyder being weird about sex workers (weird fetishization and some weird madonna whore like complex) and gay people (see the weird scene in the dawn of the dead remake), and making queer coded people evil/ugly (See the persians in 300 and the badguy of rebel moon is a monsterfucker)?)
Sorry for the derail, but I'm shown this image every time I open netflix and it always weirds me out (it gets worse in a way, as Zack created an expansive star wars like universe and everybody has an backstory which people all put into wikis and stuff, and I don't think this robot even has a name or backstory. Even the robot bartender with the candles has a backstory). I also have so many complaints about this movie I could talk about this for hours I think, it is amazing esp as the directors cut makes the movies worse (spaceships are powered by enslaved naked sentient giant women what? And of course the power usage also physically hurts them (and why, none of the other ships have a crying giant woman but they can travel intergalactic distances). Coal powered spaceships now replaced by bone powered spaceships, using pets as suicide bombs? Why does Zack think, seedy guy from bar is actually a seedy guy is subversive, esp as Solo (released 5 years earlier) already did this to show Han Solo is an exception, and you are making the 'edgy' version? I could go on).
But yes, think the pivot image is pretty tame.
I've already seen all the discourse surrounding that clipart fembot, but you want my take, that design can fuck off back to the dark depths of the uncanny valley. Give me someone like Aigis any day of the week:
The art is the way that it is because the artist made it that way. The image is not particularly sexual, and robot art can be woman-coded. If you want to project some misogynist angle onto some stock art that has no bearing on the article, that's fine, I guess.
Nougat wants to fuck the robot and blames the robot for this
Stupid sexy robots!
Oh, where to start.
Sexy woman coded, perhaps, unless you're saying that women who don't have prominent breasts and what appears to be makeup aren't real women
But this is a drawing of a machine. Machines don't have gender, biological or social or otherwise. Whoever created this image thought, consciously or not, "I'm going to make a picture of a robot, and I'm gonna make it a sexy woman robot." Not just a "woman-coded" humanoid robot - because that can be done without playing heavy on the sexiness, right?
So why? Why make a sexy woman robot? I ask again: Am I supposed to want to fuck it?
Sexy woman coded, perhaps, unless you’re saying that women who don’t have prominent breasts and what appears to be makeup aren’t real women
Why are you conflating “real”ness with sexiness?
But this is a drawing of a machine. Machines don’t have gender, biological or social or otherwise.
This is actually incorrect. Gender is a social construct. Anything can have gender if (a) society agrees upon it.
Whoever created this image thought, consciously or not, “I’m going to make a picture of a robot, and I’m gonna make it a sexy woman robot.” Not just a “woman-coded” humanoid robot […]
You have not proved this. Also, which is it? Machines don’t have gender, or this machine is a sexy woman robot? Your analysis and discourse are inconsistent and lacking.
because that can be done without playing heavy on the sexiness, right?
Again, the image is not particularly sexy. Just having large breast-analogs in the picture doesn’t make it sexy, unless you’re a stereotypical teenage boy.
So why? Why make a sexy woman robot? I ask again: Am I supposed to want to fuck it?
You have not earned the right to ask these questions.
here's another version of the same sketch
a machine is constructed in the form of a pretty lady to present you with a magical answer and the answer is a lie too
and the hand is empty and the style is retro pop art of a comforting past that never existed
now what could the incredibly obvious symbolism here mean, why all these choices
hope our poster never goes to an art gallery, could be fatal
I don't get it. It's like you're saying the sexy robot woman is a representation of seductive futuristic promises of a problematic technology. I don't see how that ties into the article at all.
we sincerely hope not
Are you saying that women who don't have prominent breasts or wear makeup aren't sexy?