My observation has been that commenters on HN tend to be exceedingly pedantic, and strongly aligned with a worldview that believes in the intrinsic reality of a system of tightly-defined rules and regulations. The comments here enforce that observation -- this is a piece designed to show off a rendered character's emotional resonance, but most of the comments focus on a few words she utters early on.
Moreover, it seems that many commenters can't distinguish between a) an author's intent to portray a possible future reality, warts included and b) what the commenter thinks is morally and ethically incorrect. More than a few comments are bizarrely attributing to the author sexual depravity that derives from the motives and setting of the characters in the video.
I thought it was plainly clear to anyone that the piece was designed to provoke questions about objects, created for consumption by humans, which approach the edge of distinction between thing and person. From observing commentary elsewhere on the web, it's clear to me that the excessive focus on the fact that she was created as a sex object is peculiar to HN.
From observing commentary elsewhere on the web, it's clear to me that the excessive focus on the fact that she was created as a sex object is peculiar to HN.
What other commentary have you seen? Everywhere I've found any more than a handful of comments, the sex angle is mentioned repeatedly:
I think it's more likely the case that HN readers are familiar with the genre trope of cybernetic sex-slaves and that one phrase allowed the piece to be categorized as falling into that bin.
Moreover, it seems that many commenters can't distinguish between a) an author's intent to portray a possible future reality, warts included and b) what the commenter thinks is morally and ethically incorrect. More than a few comments are bizarrely attributing to the author sexual depravity that derives from the motives and setting of the characters in the video.
I thought it was plainly clear to anyone that the piece was designed to provoke questions about objects, created for consumption by humans, which approach the edge of distinction between thing and person. From observing commentary elsewhere on the web, it's clear to me that the excessive focus on the fact that she was created as a sex object is peculiar to HN.