But isn't that the point -- building a robot that gets so good at mimicking human behavior that you can't just tell the difference?

I've seen robots that can't act like humans, but I've never seen a human that can't act like a robot, EXCEPT when it comes to acting like a human. So I say this is authentic.

It's an interesting theory, but it does not hold up to scrutiny. If you check her vlogs or watch her TED Talk, she states quite clearly that she is a human, who LEARNED to robot dance.

I guess it's possible that she is a robot and she is lying, but that sounds like a crazy conspiracy, and you'd have to find a lot of evidence before I'd take you seriously. Robots are getting pretty advanced, but they're not advanced enough to do Turing-passable TED Talks yet.

All her creator needed to do was to instruct her to lie, and that would override her truth-transistors. I'm sorry, but that is a robotics FACT.

No, it's not a matter of her being able to lie or not being able to lie. It's that she's clearly speaking, moving, and acting like a human being. There are currently no robots advanced enough to do what she does in her other videos; this, combined with the fact that she SAYS she's a human, is good enough for me.

Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daC2EPUh22w

You can see her going from human to robot (or rather, human-acting-like-robot) over the course of a year. If she were a robot pretending to be human, then she would have *started off* acting like a robot, and became progressively more human-like as time went on; the only way she could be a robot is if that year-long timelapse video was filmed *in reverse*. And how could she spend ONE WHOLE YEAR filming everything, perfectly, in reverse?

Also, I've been researching further, and this is not the first time something like this has happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_%28dance%29

That's ... that's simply not possible. Where would kids from the street -- during the 1980s no less -- gain access to the high tech components required to build sophisticated androids?

I think someone's pulling your leg, EvilHomer.

This is pretty good, but everyone in this thread need to see a lot more mimes.

Also, I'm sure there's a snotty remark to be made about high tech culture regarding the fact that referencing robots is enough to get a mime a TED talk, but my allergies are way to bad for me to take the time to think of it.

I just submitted a solid clip of the 40ish year old routine that she is copying.

OH MY GOD, BORT. You've got to be trolling me! Look at the Wikipedia I provided.

"The robot (or mannequin) is an illusionary street dance style – often confused with popping – that attempts to imitate a dancing robot or mannequin."

"Illusory"! "Imitate"! The dancers are not real robots! They are humans pretending to be robots!

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/421/306/ee4.g if

I've lost track of who's trolling who in here but I'm glad this video reminded me that mimes can be awesome.

The correct spelling is "memes", O_Z.

Bort, what does a Ziggy Stardust emoticon have to do with this thread?

EvilHomer: would you look at you just said? You're making my point for me: the robot (or mannequin) is attempting to dance like a robot or mannequin. To be sure it could dance in a manner indistinguishable from a human, but that isn't what it is trying to do.

As further proof, look at how the robot malfunctioned when it poured orange juice on itself. THAT IS NOT HOW HUMANS REACT WHEN EXPOSED TO LIQUIDS.

And, if it's really a human as you claim, why was the robot at the end applauding?

Except it doesn't malfunction. It appears to malfunction, but only for a few moments; after that it is fine. Robots don't just recover from short-circuiting like that. Humans pretending to be robot, do.


>>if it's really a human as you claim, why was the robot at the end applauding?

Think about what you are saying for a minute. Why would a robot CLAP after seeing a robot do robot things? Doing robot things is simply what a robot does, day in, day out; it is unremarkable for a robot to do robot things, and thus, not clapworthy.

Obviously, that robot is clapping because he saw something out of the ordinary, that is, a human acting like a robot.

Memes can never be awesome, bort. It's scientific.

"Robots don't just recover from short-circuiting like that. Humans pretending to be robot, do."

But you see, that's just the sort of note of authenticity that makes this so believable. You tend to imagine that water would cause a robot's circuits to blow, but in reality it's much more likely that the transistors and other high-tech components would be TEMPORARILY short-circuited without actually damaging the electronics. Fine motor control would be briefly compromised, yes, but as the circuits dried fine control would gradually return. You'll notice there is no evidence of sparks, smoke, or explosions, which simply makes it all the more likely that this is a robot not being permanently damaged.

The level of effort to fake something like this ... no, just no.

The level of effort to fake something like this is about one year's worth of dance practice. Which we've seen, in video form!

I'm telling you, Bort, everything about this screams "fake". If you don't believe me, I guess the next step is to ask the lady herself. I am sending her an e-mail, asking her if she is a human or a robot.

Yeah, you go ahead and DO that, you ninny.