Can you tell if she's a robot or a human? 'Life-like android' at a Tokyo gaming conference baffle

a reply to: Outlier13

Are we suggesting a perfect woman ? ok I am in I guess at my age I would need pre programming to eliminate the age bias ... :>)

I'll go with it being an actor, although the Japanese have been making some pretty cool AI robots, but of course those could have been actors as well.

I'd rather have this 'test' done with a white girl or boy. Japanese have very basic features, limited eyelid movement, coarse , straight wig- like hair. Can't see the hairline to study if it's a wig.

She turned her head like a robot, but I suppose with practice one could do that.

originally posted by: gort51
a reply to: CynConcepts

We are all getting older

, but she is human.

Did you ever think that Data from Star Trek, was a real android.......he was just an actor, and played the part well.

Yes, Brent Spiner was an awesome actor as Data! I am a Trekkie at heart! Lol. Truthfully, though, Japan has had outstanding success in expanding their robotics with more humanoid characteristics. 

Japan Robots 2014


Japan loves Robots 2016


Japan obviously is advancing their technologies in this area. I would not be amazed that they will be the ones to create a 'Data' in our future. Though, ATS being what it is, Have to adjust my tinfoil hat and say, the USA MIC may have a black project that has already succeeded...

For those who missed the link.

At first glance, Saya looks like your average Japanese schoolgirl.

However, there is something unique about her - she isn't real.

These incredible images are actually computer generated, showing off the latest in computer animation techniques.

I am calling fake on this one.

There is something called the uncanny valley that I doubt they will ever be able to bridge, and it gives the android away every time.

The idea is popular with science fiction from the Stepford Wives to Ex Machina, so we have seen the possibilities and the dangers if they are every able to build that bridge. I just don't think they can create an android that is sentient or that has a soul.

Maybe the point will become mute, as so many of us are seeming to be losing their souls that is already hard to tell sometimes if someone is really human.

a reply to: Outlier13

Pretty certain that is a real woman pretending to be a robot but if not then it is the TOKYO WIVES.

Sorry could not resist that old sci fi the stepford wives has a lot to answer for.

The camera was not close enough to see but I spent most of that trying to see any tell tale pulse in her neck, she blink's like any human though and I am convinced it is a woman, if not then the next generation of actors and eventually your neighbors will be robot's.

Actually if it was a robot I would say wow and my immediate thought is with that, advanced in medical prosthetic's but no that is human.
If not I'll eat my (I'll have to say something edible in case I am wrong) - erm Cookie.

The state of the art is not yet at that level and human's playing robot's is an old thing at Japanese convention's.
But the current state of the art is actually more like these older story's.
weburbanist.com...


Closest is perhaos the Chinese Robot Jia Jia, remember this is only external artistry and the work of human hands not AI or the underlying and probaby rudimentary robotic's.




This remember in these real robot's is only as deep as the human senses can be tricked, in reality they are still pretty rudimentary and have a very long way to go before you will have walking talking thinking LIVING machines, even our largest and most powerful supercomputer is not yet self aware and consciousness itself may never be imparted onto a machine only a simulacrum of it.

Remember also this has all been done before, Madam Tussaud's is a prime example, the only difference is that those wax work's do not move.

Robot, or real boy?

it`s easier for a human to act like a robot than it is for a robot to act like a human.

a reply to: Phage

micheal Jackson was neither a human or a robot he was just some kind of freak of nature.

a reply to: Joneselius

I agree ,give a biff to the mouth,then run either way. Or even better ask if she us at that time of month.....as above,then run.....and don't stop.

a reply to: Joneselius

Poking it with a stick might suffice LOL

It's a fake. While I'm sure we could build something like this, given enough resources... when it finally happens it's going to be the centerpiece product of a company. Not a prop a gaming company made on the side.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I believe the only thing standing between indistinguishable CGI characters and them being in movies and on the air is computing power, RAM and powerful enough GPU's to make rendering feasible. The tech is there already, but the costs of rendering the huge number of frames, polygons and believable lighting is just around the corner.

The detail needed to fool the human eye is extreme.

It doesn't take much to fool the eye. But yes, computing power is the big thing. There's also certain materials that we just don't know how to reproduce. Graphics are really interesting, the physical world has one set of equations to reflect light while the digital world uses a completely different set of equations (due to processing time), that are still incomplete.

Polygon count isn't much of an issue these days, it's more textures and lighting. Especially lighting.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, I fool around with it and have good software. Displacement and poly's still do matter though on an old machine like what I have. I only have an old 4 core i7 with 16 gigs of RAM and I'm using a GeForce GTX 970. I find the real killer to be transparency, refraction and reflection. I'd love to have a new work station to play with. Textures can be kept under control.

Actually it does take a lot to fool the eye. I don't think it's there yet as far as expressions go. I would not call what I've seen truly realistic, but some are damn close. Facial close ups are just not there yet. Still, it's not far away.

a reply to: Outlier13

Lol its johnny annonymous

originally posted by: Outlier13

The alleged automaton was unveiled at the Tokyo Game Show held in Japan
The PR prop was there to promote the new PS4 game Detroit: Become Human
Footage of the reputed robot has amassed millions of views and comments
Some believe it must be a person while others are sure she is an android

An incredibly 'life-like' android appears to show how the line between woman and machine is starting to disappear.

Footage captured at this year's Tokyo Game Show has already amassed three million views on one video-sharing platform alone, but not everyone believes their eyes.

A fierce debate has broken out among people who have seen the reputed robot with many believing it must be a person, while others think she is the genuine article

Can you tell if she's a robot or a human? 'Life-like android' at a Tokyo gaming conference baffles social media Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

IMO this is a PR stunt and she is real. When she turns her head back to the left you can see her eyes trying not to stay fixed on something in front of her and they move just like a human's. With that being said if she is an android then God help us.

Sorry to burst your bubble... we are not there yet.

www.instagram.com...

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, I fool around with it and have good software. Displacement and poly's still do matter though on an old machine like what I have. I only have an old 4 core i7 with 16 gigs of RAM and I'm using a GeForce GTX 970. I find the real killer to be transparency, refraction and reflection. I'd love to have a new work station to play with. Textures can be kept under control.

Actually it does take a lot to fool the eye. I don't think it's there yet as far as expressions go. I would not call what I've seen truly realistic, but some are damn close. Facial close ups are just not there yet. Still, it's not far away.

Transparency is a big one. I should probably clarify my polygon remarks. They matter to the hardware, but modern techniques are pretty good at conserving polys. If you have competent artists on staff, polygon counts tend to not matter a whole lot because most things can be made to look pretty realistic while staying under the poly budget.

Anyways, the reason I say it doesn't take much to fool the eye, is that we've had "realistic" graphics for years now, and people get immerse in it. While it's going to take a lot to fool the eye of an artist who makes digital graphics for a living, the general public is much more easily fooled.