I thought that was a red herring, the clues were so obvious, even I picked up on them.
I thought there was going to be an Autism or similar reveal, to explain away her 'oddness'

Shame they arnt Amazon

A couple of things (mainly in this thread) have made me think about autism in relation to this show but I don't think they'd go there. When some of the key ideas are around what makes us human - empathy, recognsing emotions etc - adding in autism would just make it far too messy.

When did she shoot Odi? I remember her shooting a neighbours synth.


From what we've seen so far I think standard Synths only have a relatively short life span; Anita with the other special Synths are clearly more 'bespoke' or 'handcrafted' and so may have significantly longer life spans.


Indeed, her view has changed especially after her attempt to hack Anita.

I thought about reactions to this one and think that if the robots were not much better-looking than the standard comedy inflatables or were 'obviously robot' then it would be viewed by everyone as having sex with a domestic appliance (switched off, is an inanimate object) i.e. really weird though with less risk of a visit to A&E.

But because these look so much like actual people, a synth - in particular one that you were just talking to and have just switched off - does not look any different from a human and I think that would cross the line in any case, regardless of whether or not one was aware of the machine having simulated (or even real) 'feelings'. An entirely inanimate shell I think would be different - still a bit weird though...


I suspect a case of mistaken identity - 'their kind all look the same' (etc) has a familiar ring to it, and certainly referenced and hinted at in numerous robot-related writings, even if that isn't necessarily the primary focus of this particular show.


A very definite wake-up call which on the one hand might be dismissed (after heart-rate goes back to normal) as a programmer's joke or easter egg but on the other would be disturbing enough to be the proverbial 'this changes everything'.

God I think you need to stop watching you weirdo

I've watched it properly now and it was actually quite good. (Though the Tom G-H knobbing Anita was still pretty yuk.)

Funny thing is the way I feel this evening, as I was watching it I thought I wish I could be a synth. Wouldn't it just be nice to not have to sleep, eat, be able to just switch off. And not have to deal with people's crappy emotions. That's what a week at work does to me.

I haven't a bally clue what you're on about here.
I'm talking about Female copper who's now been revealed to be a synth.
I thought the clues in her behaviour were too obvious and it would be a red herring and she'd turn out to be autistic.

Yes I understood what you were saying. I just don't they would go there.

I think it's mostly because one of them goes further in trying to emulate a whole person. Most dildos don't go out of their way to look like real penises, and don't bother at all with the rest of the man. They are mechanical surrogates rather than emotional ones.


I don't think it was sudden. She's changed gradually, largely though getting to know Anita. She knows Anita saved her brother's life. She knows Anita is different, and may suspect she has Mia inside because of that outburst. If even some synths have an inner life, that makes abusing any synth a risky thing to do.

I agree with your review of dildos, however I disagree that synths are emotional subtitles, they offer nothing themselves, any emotion is projected onto them by the owner.

We were talking about real sex dolls rather than synths, and those are even less good emotional surrogates. And that's why we look down on people for treating them as such. There's a feeling there must be something wrong with a man who'd rather have a doll than a woman.

agreed the choice of doll over woman is wrong, but when you dont have a woman, doll maybe considered a valid option.

for the record i have neither

Nothing to add to the discussion, other than that comment simply cracked me up (in the context of the conversation)

Who would have thought a thread on the Sci-fi sub-forum would bring about this line of conversation.


Me too. "I agree with your review of dildos" was certainly not something I had anticipated reading. The chances of anything beating that to post of the thread must be pretty remote.

i wonder why they haven't made child synths,they could be for people that can't have children or as a play friend for another child.

Gosh I don't think that is where they are going with it at all. That sounds very creepy.

im not going to try to.


I think parents tend to hope for the best with their children, that they will get friends, and develop social skills, to buy a synth for you kids seems like you think that wont happen.

We already have those talking dolls, complete with swearing and internet search capabilities even if they haven't yet made one that can run around screaming and burn down the shed. At what point does a child genuinely distinguish between 'real person' and 'talking toy'? If a child has always had a talking toy, they know it's different but if it's good enough, when do they start to realise that it's not a real person?

Even if they don't, if it's the source of knowledge and guidance instead of parents, nanny etc then what response does "Teddy, I'm going to kill a man" get...?

Who hacked your synth nanny? Why does your child suddenly think it's OK to shout "Bogies!" in the supermarket queue?

Exactly. And as for giving them to people who can't have children - bit insulting to suggest you can replace not having a child with something that has to be charged overnight. Anyway don't we have pets for that? And they have genuine interactions with their owners (so I'm told).

I love this forum

But surely it doesn't matter if the emotion is projected? If a person was choosing to have a relationship with a synth, instead of trying to have one with another human, I think it would be fair to say that they were using it as an emotional surrogate.



Agree with both these points. I can't see how there would be a big enough market for child synths to make them worthwhile, I think the vast majority of people would be unsettled by the very idea.

You were right Leo is obviously part synth as he was able to run the programme that was 'for a synth's mind'. (David was the dad.)

We've seen child robots done before, remember Haley Joel Osment in AI?

And they have a child robot in Extant.

Yes, but then the fact that no woman will have him is itself a reason to think there must be something wrong with him. All the more so as he has given up trying.

At the risk of being sexist, maybe there's an element of defensiveness about it. Maybe women feel more threatened by sex dolls than men do by vibrators; even more than pornography.