5 Creepy Ways Humans Are Plunging Into the Uncanny Valley
Way back in 1970, a Japanese roboticist named Masahiro Mori came up with the term "uncanny valley", the theory that as robots get more human like, people will respond positively to them, but only up to the point where they still definitely look like robots. Once they cross that point, or the uncanny valley, real humans will be disgusted by their robot counterparts, because they'll look almost like people, but not quite. And there is nothing we find more disturbing than that.
But what we're finding today is that it's not robots we have to worry about; the uncanny valley is all around you. Just consider ...

While sex dolls have been around for decades, and men's desire to have sex with a woman who won't talk back or ask for anything has been around forever, it was an American who took them beyond a mere novelty and into the uncanny valley.

Artist Matt McMullen was trying to make art when he created his first lifelike miniature doll. He posted pictures of the little lady on the Internet, and surprisingly, somebody asked if it was, you know, doable. McMullen got an idea, and the RealDoll was born -- an incredibly realistic-looking sex doll complete with orifices, real-to-the-touch skin and hair, and, more recently, moving parts and programmable personalities in some models.
So what's the problem?
Other than the fact that you can now get rich selling life-sized masturbation aids (and they cost up to $10,000,) you have to ask what's the purpose of a RealDoll beyond what could be accomplished with the much simpler and cheaper Fleshlight (Google it -- or you can just figure out what it is by the name). Does making her look like this ...

... create a more human connection? Because she ... what? Fools you into thinking she's a real girl?

That's where it gets weird. There are some men out there interacting with their dolls in ways that prove emotional bonds can be creepier than the kind used by dominatrixes.
For instance, one guy recreated his dead lover in the form of a doll. Another carries a picture of his doll in his wallet and cuddles with her on the weekends while watching movies, just like he would with a real woman.
As the market grows, the technology advances, but only further into the valley. Take the recent revealing of TrueCompanion's Roxxxy. She comes with programmable personalities, all of which are sexist stereotypes. Then it was discovered that one of these personalities, called Frigid Farrah, will spurn and resist sexual advances.
In other words, for the right amount of money, a dangerous segment of the population can purchase pretend assault victims. There are some people who are seriously worried about the long-term implications of such lifelike sex toys.

Of course, verbal resistance won't stop any RealDoll from being forced into the doll porn industry quietly spreading across the Internet right now. Yeah, this is a thing too. No, we won't give you the link. Go talk to a real girl.

But what is chilling about these isn't the stiff, rubber skin monsters they have now -- it's the ones they'll be manufacturing 20 years from now. The ones your children will be bringing home, that you won't be able to tell aren't real people until you look into their cold, dead eyes.

At some point Japanese anime went from "a genre of cartoons" to "sexy cartoons" to "sexy cartoons men become obsessed with" to ... uh, this.
Kigurumi, in general, is about people dressing up as cartoon characters, but here we're referring specifically to anime characters. So it's like cosplayers, but instead of using your own face and makeup to emulate your favorite anime character, you wear a mask and a full-body costume.
So what's the problem?
You wind up with this:

Again, however, most costumes out there are female. Most players are male.

While we're not sure why there's a greater male-to-female ratio dressing as female characters, we do know that it makes the following video even more disturbing.
In the video, the masked kigurumi dances around with a bread stick, not really doing anything more than a few spins. What's the bread stick for? We've no idea. Probably to subtly indicate that he's got a dong in there.
Other videos, of which there are many, feature similar actions, including just lying around and a pillow fight that's lesbian or gay or neither. But creepy no matter the sexual preference.
But we digress. What makes the video and any other animegao kigurumi wrong to the eye is the stillness of the mask and the lack of facial reactions while the body moves. The only other living things that do this are dead people. Living dead people. The oversized eyes don't help much, either. Look at the image below for more than 10 seconds and tell us you don't feel your will to live being sapped.

If you're thinking that sexual obsession with anime can't get any weirder than that, hang on ...

Ulzzang, or "best face," is a Korean subculture in which girls alter their looks digitally, with a shitload of makeup and by any other means available to them, to get that perfect anime look. In other words, a ulzzang girl is going to have behemoth, circular eyes, a teeny little nose and mouth, flawless, pale skin and an itty-bitty body dressed up in perfectly coordinated outfits.
And once they get that creepily perfect look, they upload pictures of themselves for online competitions for prestige and Internet fame.
So what's the problem?
You tell us:

Altering your face digitally to the point where you look like a doe-eyed Disney alien is creepy enough, but what's really messed up is when kids mess with their real-world faces with real-world eyelid glue and real-world illegal contact lenses. Because fuck eyes. What do they do anyway?
So here's how ulzzang eyes work: First, you slab a shitload of makeup all over your face. Then, you jam some contacts designed to make your irises look huge into your eyes. Never mind that the lenses will prevent oxygen from getting to your eyes, which will lead to frequent infections and, in a worst-case scenario, will actually poke a hole in your cornea and you'll literally go blind -- those big eyes of yours aren't freakish at all!

You can also thank Lady Gaga for this.
Once your sight is in danger, it's on to the eyelid glue, which is kind of a putty that you use to get rid of that pesky Asian "monolid." Here's an actual quote from a tutorial on applying the stuff:
"Apply eyelid glue or tape to the eyes and using the pusher stick, poke into the lid what shape you want until you get a crease."
So, just to be clear, "pusher sticks" are a real thing, and what the sticks are pushing is the eye zone. And the people who are pushing their eyes with sticks are doing so because they want to look more like cartoon characters and less like human beings.
See if you can chart the circular cultural path of this phenomenon. It starts with artwork that creates crude caricatures of women (huge, innocent eyes, girlish figures with giant boobs, usually in schoolgirl costumes or some other fetish gear) and then becomes so popular that real, actual women want to alter their appearance to look, not like some real Hollywood actress but like a drawing. It's the fact that they're not human that makes them attractive.

That makes us rethink what we said before -- about how 20 years from now RealDolls will be so lifelike everyone will want one. Instead, real women will just start altering their appearance to look like RealDolls. Artificial people don't need to make it out of the uncanny valley. Real people will just meet them there.








Paula Deen is sucking out my soul 0_o
ReplyEmily wasn't creepy to me until they started changing her face up to point out that she isn't real. Then my brain was like, "Oh Goodness Creepy!"
ReplyI had no idea that Emily was CGI until the article pointed it out! Granted, I have Asperger syndrome and bad eyesight so reading faces isn't exactly a speciality of mine.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesOn another note...I see little wrong with anything in this article. Sure, it might be off-putting to myself and other people but everyone has their own hobbies and preferences. Oh, I forgot; this is comedy. Never mind!
I actually figured she must be CG due to the article, & saw little hints here & there. But even knowing that, it's some of the most realistic CG facial movement I've ever seen.
I could tell because she had dead eyes... If you look during the half second when they show the model for the CGI, you can see the difference more easily. But yeah, the image's eyes look so very empty of everything, most especially empathy,
For me it's the hands... CGI hands are always a little too big, or the joints are out of proportion, and the animators never seem to know what to make the characters do w/them.
Both lady gaga and the picture below her used CG to get that look on their eyes. Just saying, I watch the makeup tutorials from the girl in the bottom pic of anime 2 section and she's not apart of that weird subculture. That tutorial was "How to look like Lady Gaga in bad romance"
ReplyIs it just me, or does the Conductor look like Theodore Roosevelt?
Reply"...all the while ignoring the nagging feeling that there's probably an easier way to catch a human on video."
ReplyThis. This line is made of win.
Great article.
ReplyI'm surprised they mentioned nothing of Second Life..
ReplySuch as?
I would say that has nothing to do with HUMANS plunging into the uncanny valley, but the same can be said for many of these so yeah sure, why not second life?
It has nothing to do with the uncanny valley but I guess we are making our species so f*****g stupid that they don't know what it means anymore that we can just slap the label on any game that disturbs us for any reason.
Hey could you hand me that revolver? The cyanide pills too, need to make sure this works.
The last image you used is of Michelle Phan, a world-renowned make-up artist who was asked to show how to make yourself look more like an anime character WITHOUT doing anything permanent and/or dangerous. She just used everyday make-up and false eyelashes to create that look.
Replyi don't believe that. everything looks 'real' except those huge irises.
The thing with Emily that doesn't sit right for me is the blinking. It seems like she blinks too slowly and deliberately. Her mouth also just seems to float on her face.
ReplyYou can always follow up that last one with an article about CGI movies that have aged really really poorly.
ReplyMeh, I think the main thing that sets me personally off about the emily girl computer thinger is that her movements seem almost too...unlabored. Like normally for people you can see muscles moving and all the little inner workings that go into something like facial and head movement, but when she does things like moves and tilts her head, she just kind of seems to move. It doesn't seem like she's the one moving her head, because you can't see all the twitches and movements in her neck that would normally result from that sort of movement. Her face itself looks really pretty good, I just think it's the more peripheral stuff that's a giveaway. Also, she's far too perfect looking; by that I mean not only does it looks like she would be wearing a ton of makeup, but also there are no wrinkles in her forehead when she makes expressions and no creases when she moves in certain ways where there should be. There are just a lot of really tiny things that alone wouldn't be that weird, but together start to add up.
ReplyThe thing is if I was just shown that video with no preface and she was made to be talking about something else, I would maybe think like "Why does she seem just a little off to me?", but that would probably be the extent of it. There are no dead give aways (I mean, they do use real actors to do it, so in reality they're working off of a real person originally), but they're still not at the point in which one would be completely oblivious to the fact that she isn't real.
I'm pretty sure the only thing that's CG in the video is her face.
Emily looks a little like my dad, who has some loss of nerve sensation in his face. Just enough to make it creepy until you get used to it (in both cases).
ReplyIf I didn't know beforehand that Emily was not real, I would've accepted that she was. Her mouth tilts a little too much too often, and she looks like she needs glasses because her eyes don't seem to move quite the way they should, but those could all be explained if she was born with some kind of speech or facial muscle impairment.
ReplyI just thought of what Porn can do with Emily
ReplyOmg in 4 the sad part is i know what some of the characters names are
ReplyThere is nothing "real-to-the-touch" about a RealDoll's skin.
ReplyAnd you know this.... how?
The Final Fantasy movie is wonderful considering it was released in 2001. It was *the* first feature length movie with photorealistic CGI, almost a decade before Avatar. Production was 4 years and the first scenes of the movie had to be redone because the technology had already become obsolete by the time the final scenes were rendered. Maybe it was too ambitious, but it was hardly a failure. It's a very underappreciated movie which I hope will be remembered along with Avatar as being a milestone in filmmaking.
ReplyI was pretty convinced by Emily. To me, the tipoff was not her expressions, but her utterly perfect complexion. Also, her face seems to almost float in front of her head at times. In reality, people have blemishes, scars, beauty spots, VEINS, etc., and makeup can only cover so much. The same applies to magazine covers. I'm not saying realistic is acne, but people pick up on all the details on another's face and this needs to be acknowledged for truly 'realistic' facial animation.
It had pretty s****y voice acting and writing, but other than that, it was kind of impressive.
I noticed the things that were wrong with Emily, but it wasn't creepy at all. Just because someone doesn't look perfectly human does not mean they are in the uncanny valley.
ReplyI sure had trouble telling the real person and the CGI version apart. I don't know what she's going on about in the end.
Emily looked really normal in that video and really human-like...even so, I got a horrible chill watching the whole thing.
Reply