I started working on a story some years ago and I still think it is worth pursuing to a conclusion. But when I started it, the term for human-like robots was android. Now, in addition to being an operating system for cell phones, it seems a dated term. So do terms like cyborg, robot, Ai, and the like. I'm looking to a different term to use for these entities. I am considering MOBI's for Mobile Binary Intelligence. Anyone have other suggestions for different terms to use?
I don't think android is outdated. (a cyborg is not a robot, btw) Marvel used LMDs, Life Model Decoys. You could conceivably use Replicant.
If you want one that goes off the rails: Machine Advanced Learning With Algorithmic Rectified Enhancement (MALWARE)
I don't think android is outdated. (a cyborg is not a robot, btw) I really did know that. It snuck through my brain while I was typing. Marvel used LMDs, Life Model Decoys. You could conceivably use Replicant. LMD is interesting. I think they used Replicant in Alien. Designated Utility Digital Entity. D.U.D.E. Now THATS original! If I write something with humor in it, that's going in. Puts a new spin on Bill and Ted too. I recently saw the term Aggregate too.
Replicant was in Bladerunner, which is part of the Alien/Aliens/Predator multiverse (not sure if Predator is 'canon' or not). Maybe Bishop and David were technically Replicants but in the book (which the movie Bladerunner deviates from a lot) Replicants may not be the type of robot in your Universe. They were so close to humans the only way of identifying them was through the Voigt-Kampff Empathy Test (which the movie shows) or a bone marrow analysis. So replicant really fits that type of 'android'. A cyborg isn't a robot per se, but to me, and I could be wrong, the biggest difference is cyborgs are organic beings (people) with robotic augmentation but still have a human brain. I don't see what's wrong with android or bot. You could make something up like 'Sentient Anthropomorphic Machines', or SAMs.
From a slightly different but perhaps loosely relatable perspective, in Never Let Me Go by Ishiguro, the term "originals" is used to refer to the, well, not clones. How original. Sometimes it's best to not overthink it. Star Wars is famous, widely acclaimed, renowed, etc etc., and George Lucas called the clones, uhhh, Clones. And the droids? Droids. Have people call the androids Andy as a slur. "My. Name. Is not. Andy. I am AA-1-11-ROB-OTT."
I like MOBIs, although one’s mind immediately springs to the musician, despite the different spelling. If I were you, I’d be sticking firmly to the acronym idea. Maybe SIs (Synthetic Intelligents).
Of course, android is not the correct term anyway if the robot has a female form. That would be gynoid.
Huh? I mean, if people want to think of that way, that's fine, and obviously there's the Ridley Scott connection, but stating this as a matter of fact seems kind of strange. And I think the sooner we stop talking about "canon," the better- it's just a way for corporations and estates to build walls around their IP.
I'm not aware of anything that connects Bladerunner and Alien. There is another film that connects to Bladerunner, Soldier, starring Kurt Russell, but there are no androids in that.
Ridley Scott, I'm guessing. Not sure what Predator has to do with either, though, other than the stupid combo movies they made. I guess that makes sense, then. That Star Wars (1977), Alien (79), Bladerunner (81?) run did change cinema forever.
My point was that Replicant is from Bladerunner, but that Ash, Bishop, and David could be viewed as Replicants, but that the name doesn't really fit them since they are different, despite possibly being in the same universe. I don't care if they are or not in the same universe, just that Replicant is a good word for Bladerunner/DADOES androids as they are physically indistinguishable from humans (other than endurance, etc.) but may not be best for a Terminator style android. I can't remember if Bladerunner ever showed the android's inner composition or not when they were out down.
No, it was never shown that I recall, though in an earlier version of the script Tyrell was a replicant (the guy who runs the whole Replicant show) and when Batty squeezed his head springs and gears were supposed to come out. Glad they never went that way. However in Alien they're filled with milk apparently, and their insides are a mass of spaghetti-like tubing with little spheres attached. So not really biological. But maybe that was an early iteration? Who knows?
That's actually one of the main points people use to connect the two franchises (which again, is not really a concern of mine): in Alien, in the Captain's bio displayed on screen, it says he worked for the Tyrell Corporation. There's another visual connection with the docking screen but that being reused in Bladerunner could be due to budgetary reasons alone.
Replicants are supposed to be made out of organic matter that is almost identical to humans. Only a post-mortem bone-marrow analysis can tell them apart. In the Philip K. Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" that Bladerunner is based on, the replicants are explicitly called androids.
Basically Ridley Scott decided long after the fact that the two worlds are connected (as he also decided after making the original version of Bladerunner that Deckard is a replicant).
Any artificial humans and power-hungry corporations in that one? In both I believe the artificial humans represent the idea that in these corporate-controlled future dystopias (representing the present world projected to its likely conclusion) people aren't allowed to live natural lives anymore. Nobody is really sure if they're human or not, and in such a world, what's the difference anyway? So they are powerfully linked thematically.
Thank you. I always thought of the replicants from the movie as some kind of clone. I thought I was losing my mind with all this talk about androids and ro-butts and such. But I suppose eventually all those moments will be lost in time, like, you know, tears in the rain or something.