How should sentient computer viruses act like? [closed]
Closed by System on Dec 3, 2018 at 19:52
This question was closed; new answers can no longer be added. Users with the reopen privilege may vote to reopen this question if it has been improved or closed incorrectly.
OK; I'm obsessed with Toonami and their event Trapped in Hyperspace features the computer virus antagonist Swayzak, who I base almost all my computer virus characters on.
Swayzak behaves like a one-dimensional, stereotypical, over-the-top villain. He laughs, says cliche lines, etc. Yet people don't like him and I don't know why. His personality is just fine. All the action in the TIE was in the online game, which I'm very close to finding (after an associate of mine repaired the corrupted beta a developer gave me, and said developer will look on old CDs for the full game) and Swayzak had a New Zealand accent and infected TOM in. Now TOM's always dying; this game was the first time we ever saw him become evil, and Swayzak having a New Zealand accent was a nice, unique touch to an otherwise "stereotypical" character. (Never mind the fact that now I give all my computer virus characters New Zealand accents because of that.)
The reason Swayzak does what he does is in the first place is "for fun." I like to think of this as an equivalent to viruses being programmed to be bad. Because they were programmed to be evil, they act like the most overwrought villain imaginable.
But Swayzak is self-aware, so he can make decisions for himself. Why is he evil for the sake of being evil, then? Simple: he finds it amusing. I've written a few scenarios where he reforms, but I always follow the status quo and make him evil again in every Toonami fanfic I write. He finds being evil something he enjoys. Or maybe it stems from his programming, what he was intended for when he was first written or something. However, we never see his origin; so finding being evil amusing is what I'm going with.
I know there were a lot of sentient computer virus characters before Swayzak but I consider him the archetype for his kind. Will computer virus characters tend to act like over-the-top villains? Is this the most likely way for them to act? With reasoning or not?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/40486. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
Basically anything that is a virus is infecting a host in order to reproduce and survive, and by its nature doesn't really care what harm it is causing the host. Just like we don't care (not enough to stop) if we are destroying plants to eat them, or even destroying animals to eat them, it is part of our survival, and most of us actually enjoy eating, and meat eaters (including me, but in general animal exploiters, including non-meat eaters that will still eat eggs, honey, milk, cheese, etc) still enjoy their meals.
Our own human sentient enjoyments are often directly linked to survival skills or traits; nearly all adults (of any gender or sexual orientation) enjoy sex and find it fun. Our sports and games are competitions and often thinly disguised, formalized warfare or pursuit. Childhood games like "hide and seek" and "tag" are correlated with hunting behavior, a survival skill. So are most physical games. Mental games are about strategy and planning, also (for humans) survival skills.
I think perhaps your sentient virus finds "fun" in things related to their original purpose, infecting hosts, taking control and manipulation. These come across as "evil" but are just its nature, doing these things activate its pleasure senses, built to reward its success in replication.
Kind of like sex IRL, for most people it is fun and it feels good even when we know there is zero possibility of it resulting in reproduction.
0 comment threads
I'll try to answer your question:
Will computer virus characters tend to act like over-the-top villains? Is this the most likely way for them to act? With reasoning or not?
Eh, no. There is no reason for every "viral" character to behave like the "Swayzak" you are referring too. I understand you like the character and the archetype, but that's all there is to it. The evil AI has been done already ad nauseam, but there is no reason why it should stick to the "over the top, one dimensional, chaotic villain".
Other media have portrayed evil virus-like AI differently (e.g., Agent Smith in the Matrix or Ultron in Avengers 2, even if I would not take the latter as a good example).
As CortAmmon mentions in the comments, "evilness" may rather stem from the lack of a moral compass, rather than a sentient choice of evil over good. Another widely used trope is being evil due to "an excess of logic".
In the end, we're still in fiction. You can characterize your character however you like, if you are consistent about it. It's fine if you want to keep characterizing your virus that way, but I'd ask myself: if he does it for "fun", what is his definition of fun? It would be nice to see an evil AI who does it for a innate sense of curiosity (e.g. "I want to see people react to bad things") rather than for being evil per-se.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads