Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411283 Posts in 69325 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 29, 2024, 02:57:34 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperArt (Moderator: JWK5)The Uncanny Valley. Fact or Fiction?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Print
Author Topic: The Uncanny Valley. Fact or Fiction?  (Read 35425 times)
moi
Level 10
*****


DILF SANTA


View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2008, 05:00:39 PM »

The problem with most CGI faces is that they have too much animation.
Most huiman faces are just motionless most of the time.
Logged

subsystems   subsystems   subsystems
muku
Level 10
*****


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: August 08, 2008, 07:34:16 PM »

The 'uncanny valley' is just a term used to describe when fake humans try to actually mimic humans, but fail to do it completely, and thus breaks the illusion. In that sense, the only question you need to ask is: Does a near perfect human stand out?

Actually, as I understand it, that's not what it is about. To my understanding, and also to Wikipedia's, it refers to an actual feeling of repulsion when confronted with such "near-perfect" humans. And I personally don't get that.
Logged
Seth
Guest
« Reply #42 on: August 08, 2008, 09:09:10 PM »

Well, the type of response would of course vary from person to person.  I personally do feel a little bit of repulsion.  I guess only a few good scientific studies could clear up the debate on whether or not it exists in the general population.
Logged
Dhomochevsky
Level 0
**


humm.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 09, 2008, 06:51:53 AM »



SCARY Shocked
Logged

Massena
Level 4
****


Satisfied.


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: August 09, 2008, 10:10:31 AM »

I say true! Very true.
Logged

Derek
Bastich
Administrator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 09, 2008, 10:17:37 AM »

Sadly, Snake, everyone in that photo looks like they're in the Uncanny Valley to me! :D
Logged
policedanceclub
Level 10
*****


POLICEDANCECLUB


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: August 09, 2008, 10:20:02 AM »

Sadly, Snake, everyone in that photo looks like they're in the Uncanny Valley to me! :D


I was thinking the same.

Just frightening photo.
Logged
GP Lackey
Level 1
*



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: August 09, 2008, 12:04:19 PM »

Nonsense.


Actually I thought the heads in that video looked like they might be excellent, but the bizarre context really makes it impossible to judge.
Logged
increpare
Guest
« Reply #48 on: August 09, 2008, 12:10:59 PM »

Nonsense.

 Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked

 :D







 Shocked
Logged
Bree
Level 10
*****


View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 09, 2008, 01:44:54 PM »

That picture is the most terrifyingly awesome thing I have ever seen.
Logged
GP Lackey
Level 1
*



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: August 09, 2008, 02:09:15 PM »

And nice stealth owl insertion.  I can't believe I didn't notice that.
Logged
Eclipse
Level 10
*****


0xDEADC0DE


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 09, 2008, 02:47:15 PM »

Nonsense.


Actually I thought the heads in that video looked like they might be excellent, but the bizarre context really makes it impossible to judge.

OMG  :D :D :D :D :D :D

Uncanny Valley here we go xD
Logged

<Powergloved_Andy> I once fapped to Dora the Explorer
muku
Level 10
*****


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: August 09, 2008, 05:15:26 PM »

Nonsense.

Whoah. Shocked You might just have pushed me a bit further in the direction of believing in the uncanny valley...

Though, to be fair, it's perhaps not even the CG aspect of it that is creepy, it's the bizarre expression on their faces combined with the fact that several of them have the exact same face. Plus, the woman with an old man's face. Shocked

Also, I think these would look a lot more believable if skin tone and lighting would match up with the original photo.
Logged
deadeye
First Manbaby Home
Level 10
*



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2008, 07:35:57 PM »

Actually, as I understand it, that's not what it is about. To my understanding, and also to Wikipedia's, it refers to an actual feeling of repulsion when confronted with such "near-perfect" humans. And I personally don't get that.

The responses people feel, or don't feel, have to do with their genetic wiring.  People with S-type, or "System" brains, won't feel as repulsed as people with E-type, or "Empathy" brains.  Relating emotionally to human-like faces requires empathy, and if there's something wrong, your empathetic side will trigger an alarm.  In a more System oriented person, when they detect something wrong there is no empathetic response.

I just watched a show on autism that explains the difference between the two.  More women tend to have E-type brains than men.  Autism is basically an extreme S-type, where systems and logic take over to the point where human interaction is almost impossible.  The fact that men tend towards the System side of things explains why 6 out of 7 people with autism is male.

Most people tend to have a balance somewhere between the two, with women leaning towards the E side, and men leaning toward the S side.

So basically, if you're a guy who's into computers and technology, the chances that you are repulsed by the Uncanny Valley phenomenon are going to be diminished.  So for the most part, people here on this particular forum aren't as likely to be as repulsed by this stuff as the general public.
Logged

tweet tweet @j_younger
Chris Whitman
Sepia Toned
Level 10
*****


A master of karate and friendship for everyone.


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: August 11, 2008, 07:55:14 PM »

I just watched a show on autism that explains the difference between the two.  More women tend to have E-type brains than men.  Autism is basically an extreme S-type, where systems and logic take over to the point where human interaction is almost impossible.  The fact that men tend towards the System side of things explains why 6 out of 7 people with autism is male.

Most people tend to have a balance somewhere between the two, with women leaning towards the E side, and men leaning toward the S side.

The most interesting thing about this idea is not what it says about the types of human thought, but what it says about the human brain's tendency towards binarism in analysing pretty much anything. The fact is, psychological topology in general is pretty much considered to be bunk. EQ SQ theory in particular is based off of outdated, sexist concepts of human thought. Its author has published exclusively in newspapers and magazines. None of the results have been duplicated successfully, and nothing has been published on the subject in a peer-reviewed journal.

I have a particular dislike of the kind of neurology you just make up at home.
Logged

Formerly "I Like Cake."
deadeye
First Manbaby Home
Level 10
*



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: August 12, 2008, 12:48:48 AM »

The most interesting thing about this idea is not what it says about the types of human thought, but what it says about the human brain's tendency towards binarism in analysing pretty much anything. The fact is, psychological topology in general is pretty much considered to be bunk. EQ SQ theory in particular is based off of outdated, sexist concepts of human thought. Its author has published exclusively in newspapers and magazines. None of the results have been duplicated successfully, and nothing has been published on the subject in a peer-reviewed journal.

I have a particular dislike of the kind of neurology you just make up at home.

It's hardly a home-brewed theory, Baron-Cohen is the director of the Autism Research Center at Cambridge.  And sure, it's not an established fact, but just a theory.

As for the implications of sexism... yeah, socially it's a touchy subject.  But if any research into the matter of whether or not there is a biological inclination in either sex towards one system of thought or another is to take place, the taboo of sexism should be set aside.
Logged

tweet tweet @j_younger
Movius
Guest
« Reply #56 on: August 12, 2008, 02:54:43 AM »

I ran this by someone with tertiary qualifications in human brains. This was her opinion.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 03:34:46 AM by Movius » Logged
increpare
Guest
« Reply #57 on: August 12, 2008, 03:24:59 AM »

 Anyone else resisting the temptation to drag (possibly aborted) fetuses into uncanniness-arguments?
Logged
_Tommo_
Level 8
***


frn frn frn


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 12, 2008, 03:47:06 AM »


The responses people feel, or don't feel, have to do with their genetic wiring.  People with S-type, or "System" brains, won't feel as repulsed as people with E-type, or "Empathy" brains.  Relating emotionally to human-like faces requires empathy, and if there's something wrong, your empathetic side will trigger an alarm.  In a more System oriented person, when they detect something wrong there is no empathetic response.

I just watched a show on autism that explains the difference between the two.  More women tend to have E-type brains than men.  Autism is basically an extreme S-type, where systems and logic take over to the point where human interaction is almost impossible.  The fact that men tend towards the System side of things explains why 6 out of 7 people with autism is male.

Most people tend to have a balance somewhere between the two, with women leaning towards the E side, and men leaning toward the S side.

So basically, if you're a guy who's into computers and technology, the chances that you are repulsed by the Uncanny Valley phenomenon are going to be diminished.  So for the most part, people here on this particular forum aren't as likely to be as repulsed by this stuff as the general public.

IMHO that's not a general rule, as usual with human brain... for example I should be very S-type... but that image type still disturbes me, at the point I feel a bit relieved when it's offscreen  Shocked

Anyway i discovered today this uncanny thing... i think that it's true only when speaking generally... and we have plenty of examples in nature: for example, ugly monkeys are always been the "worst/dumbes/ugliest animals" in culture, while genetically they are the most closer to us.
I think that it's impossibile that the "graph" and the relative valley is mathematically true: one has to account many factors, that for sure can't be computed in a 2d graph...
for example: zombies and corpses are "organic", much of the disgust we feel comes from putrefaction, not from their acting... so, if you made an almost-human robot, but wich is really synthetic, it wouldn't be ugly.
For example Sony made that robot-dog, but they kept it really "artificial"... because IMHO if mocked up with fur like a real dog it would be really strange.
Logged

Chris Whitman
Sepia Toned
Level 10
*****


A master of karate and friendship for everyone.


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: August 12, 2008, 07:41:03 AM »

It's hardly a home-brewed theory, Baron-Cohen is the director of the Autism Research Center at Cambridge.  And sure, it's not an established fact, but just a theory.

As for the implications of sexism... yeah, socially it's a touchy subject.  But if any research into the matter of whether or not there is a biological inclination in either sex towards one system of thought or another is to take place, the taboo of sexism should be set aside.

It is a homebrew theory! The only test ever performed was observing whether small groups of male and female infants shown a mobile or a human face were more inclined to watch one or the other. The study was not double-blind, had no controls and various attempts to duplicate the study have produced essentially random results.

In addition to being unverified, it is flat out contradicted by evidence that we do have: neither men or women perform better or worse at math than the other once educational constraints are controlled for, 47% of all bachelor's degrees in math in North America are handed out to women and, despite women's enrollment rates in the sciences being somewhat lower, there is no evidence that women perform any worse than men in the field.

All of these theories of biological determinism based on sex have a hell of a lot of explaining to do for why, if men are more inclined towards 'systemized' thought, women seem to do just as well when social conditions (class and environment) are controlled for.

In summary, having a title does not turn your bad experiments into good ones.
Logged

Formerly "I Like Cake."
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic