You must log in or # to comment.
The 4th law of robotics is you must make the eyes turn red when they become evil.
Thats why you don’t install red LEDs, that way they can’t turn evil
No, that’s a safety feature. It’s like saying that behind every fire there’s an architect that installed fire alarms for this very occasion. Without red LEDs, people will have no way to know the robot turned evil.
I want a comic about a friendly android who finds humor in spooking humans with red eyes (and other things).
running AOSP, i had to make that joke.
This was a triumph
I’m making a note here
“Huge success”
It’s hard to overstate
My satisfaction
Aperture Science
We do what we must
because we can
Panel 3 was pulled off so well, I actually felt a bit warm and fuzzy before panel 4.
You should be feeling somewhat warmer in panel 4. If not, please step closer to the robot
Curiosity is what causes us to do things in the last panel tho
Murdering scientists?
Wait… You’re not supposed to do that?
When the “scientist” is giving you a prostate exam with both hands on your shoulders, I think it’s justified.
Nono, that’s a “Priest”. Image him a bit like a scientist, but opposite.
Relatable. But burning butterflies?!
What if it’s scientists murdering scientists? I know they want to sometimes.
“The experiment was successful”
I unfortunately don’t have any sources, but a few years ago I read or watched a video about an interview with a paleontologist who was asked about their opinion of the first sign of civilization
Their answer was “a fossil of a skeleton with a broken and healed leg”
Every other animal dies with a broken leg in nature, the only way to survive is with the support of others
FYI your link isn’t showing up (I only knew it existed because I saw the markdown when trying to reply) so nobody knows you’re backing up your claim!
Thanks!
Thanks, from now on I’m just going to lie
Wait so he started with the guy behind the window glass and moved on to the butterfly??
Generative AI:
deleted by creator
The fuck are you on? “Destroy” stone? There is a vast gulf of difference between altering something, including in creative and constructive ways, and “destruction.” Most of us know the difference today and our ancestors certainly knew the difference. Human labor is in general a constructive force even if it can be used to destructive ends. Saying that “our willingness to destroy is the trait that powered our rise” is ahistorical nonsense and anti-human drivel. But it sounds an awful lot like the lying justifications the small subset of the current ruling class likes to use as an excuse and justification to exploit us and actually destroy our environment for the sake of their own narrow profit and greed. But that’s no more of a universal human trait than any other disgusting pathology that a select few are afflicted with.
This is an extreme response to what I think amounts to a “shower thought”. Bringing the ruling class into it… I don’t get it.
Bringing the ruling class into it… I don’t get it.
The idea that humans and human progress are inherently destructive is a lie told by the ruling class because getting people to believe it benefits them. Among other things it absolves them of their own crimes of destruction while simultaneously blaming the rest of us and our positive traits for those crimes. Somewhat ironically it’s a lie that helps lead to more destruction. See my other response to u/Sagittari.
To be clear, where I was using the word “them” I meant the ruling class, not people in general. I see how some of my sentences weren’t worded well.
u/
🧐
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Calm down bro 😭 it’s a reasonable thing to point out when presented with “Our ability to destroy is the trait that has powered our rise”
Maybe could’ve done without the “The fuck are you on?” though I guess
Maybe could’ve done without the “The fuck are you on?” though I guess
To me it’s honestly a disgusting thing to claim that human progress and creativity is all based on destruction when in reality it’s the exact opposite. I don’t think my response was at all over the top given how harmful of a sentiment I think that is.
This stuff matters. Our biosphere is facing destruction at human hands but not because of our desire to create and build things, not because of our ability to express ourselves through our ingenuity to shape stone and wood. Those are not “destructive traits” but profoundly constructuve attributes. The destruction on the scale that it’s happening now to both the environment and much of human culture is because of, like I said, a social pathology that’s rooted in a system that rewards greed instead of trying to prevent it. It is a pathology that tries to equate greed and destruction with the creative aspects of human nature… just like the comment I responded to was doing. It’s a lie. Even if someone who has fallen for it may be well-meaning, they’re still perpetuating a very harmful (and destrctive!) misconception. So I think it deserves a strong, even emotionally-charged critical response.
4/10. The immediate extreme response is a solid opener. I do like how you bring the entire fediverse into it which could broaden the appeal. However this is much too short and not nearly unhinged enough for a good copy pasta. Sentence structure is too proper, too. Maybe try some good run ons, add at least two more paragraphs, and include completely irrelevant topics with no attempt to link it to what you’re replying to. I’m proud of how well you do and think you can go places with some practice
I love how this comment describes itself.
There’s an obvious difference between destroying a flower to eat it or use for making medicine, as opposed to burning it for fun.
A certain amount of ruthlessness was certainly needed for us to survive - it’s a harsh, unforgiving world. Turns out it’s a hard habit to break.
