3 ms·

As a counterpoint, here's an amazing video making a convincing argument that "Uncanny Valley" isn't a thing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LKJBND_IRdI https://yo

As a counterpoint, here's an amazing video making a convincing argument that "Uncanny Valley" isn't a thing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LKJBND_IRdI https://youtube.com/watch?v=LKJBND_IRdI

klik99 6y ago
This feels more like “uncanny valley isn’t caused by what you think” rather than “it’s not a thing”. It’s simply easier to get proportions that we are most used to (IE average proportions of facial features across everyone we’ve met) when you go abstract, and when a lot of proportions look slightly off, it’s uncanny. And I bet it is close to the disgust reaction caused by a fear of disease as he states. I know he’s arguing uncanny valley isn’t a thing but my take away is that it’s more complex than how it’s usually stated
aaron695 6y ago
Misses the point. The "Uncanny Valley" only exists in two dimensions. In real life robots that look like "The Uncanny Valley" on the internet are fine. Artists since they advertise in two dimensions use this 'trick'. But their work, like Ron Mueck's still looks cool IRL, it's just a different experience without the Uncanny Valley. I'd like to know if anyone has actually made something that actually is the "Uncanny Valley" in 3 dimensions. I assume it's possible, but perhaps not. I'd be hard to advertise. Perhaps you need to tap the part of the brain that extrapolates from 2 dimensions to 3 to get the horror.
- grumbel 6y ago
  > The "Uncanny Valley" only exists in two dimensions. The original Uncanny Valley hypothesis came out of robotics back in 1970, its application to computer graphics came decades later. I don't even think 2D vs 3D plays much of a role, a realistic Luke Skywalker wax figure will look just as uncanny as CGI Luke in Mandalorian. I find deepfakes interesting in this regard, as while they look much more realistic than most CGI, they never go uncanny. They can go a bit glitchy, blurry and might not look like a perfect replica of the faked person, but they still end up looking like person, not like an uncanny CGI copy.

As a counterpoint, here's an amazing video making a convincing argument that "Uncanny Valley" isn't a thing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LKJBND_IRdI https://youtube.com/watch?v=LKJBND_IRdI

klik99 6y ago

This feels more like “uncanny valley isn’t caused by what you think” rather than “it’s not a thing”. It’s simply easier to get proportions that we are most used to (IE average proportions of facial features across everyone we’ve met) when you go abstract, and when a lot of proportions look slightly off, it’s uncanny. And I bet it is close to the disgust reaction caused by a fear of disease as he states. I know he’s arguing uncanny valley isn’t a thing but my take away is that it’s more complex than how it’s usually stated

aaron695 6y ago

Misses the point. The "Uncanny Valley" only exists in two dimensions. In real life robots that look like "The Uncanny Valley" on the internet are fine. Artists since they advertise in two dimensions use this 'trick'. But their work, like Ron Mueck's still looks cool IRL, it's just a different experience without the Uncanny Valley. I'd like to know if anyone has actually made something that actually is the "Uncanny Valley" in 3 dimensions. I assume it's possible, but perhaps not. I'd be hard to advertise. Perhaps you need to tap the part of the brain that extrapolates from 2 dimensions to 3 to get the horror.

grumbel 6y ago
> The "Uncanny Valley" only exists in two dimensions. The original Uncanny Valley hypothesis came out of robotics back in 1970, its application to computer graphics came decades later. I don't even think 2D vs 3D plays much of a role, a realistic Luke Skywalker wax figure will look just as uncanny as CGI Luke in Mandalorian. I find deepfakes interesting in this regard, as while they look much more realistic than most CGI, they never go uncanny. They can go a bit glitchy, blurry and might not look like a perfect replica of the faked person, but they still end up looking like person, not like an uncanny CGI copy.