5 Reasons Androids Won't See Paul Rudd's Throwback Commercial

The global quality assurance industry faces a unique set of challenges as we barrel toward a future increasingly populated by artificial intelligence. While QA teams are diligently working to ensure software and hardware meet stringent performance standards, a new question arises: how do we assess the quality of experiences designed for entities that may not even perceive them as we do. Take, for example, the hypothetical scenario of Paul Rudd recreating his 1991 Nintendo Switch commercial in 2025, a delightful dose of nostalgia for human viewers. But would an android, devoid of the emotional context and cultural references that make the original commercial charming, "get it". The answer, probably not. And that is okay. It is also inevitable. Let's delve into five key reasons why androids might not appreciate this particular piece of entertainment:

Androids, despite their advanced capabilities, lack the lived, embodied experience that shapes human perception. The humor in Rudd's 1991 commercial stems from the contrast between the cutting-edge technology of the Switch and the actor's youthful, somewhat awkward portrayal. Androids, existing solely in the digital realm or within artificial bodies, would miss the connection to the physicality of gaming and the cultural shifts of the past.

Nostalgia is a powerful emotion that relies on memory and personal connection. Androids, even with advanced data storage, wouldn't possess the same kind of emotional link to past events. The 1991 commercial holds sentimental value for those who grew up with the original Nintendo system, something an android could only process as data, not as a genuine feeling.

Humor often relies on subtext, irony, and nuanced delivery. While AI can be trained to recognize patterns in comedic material, it might struggle with the subtle cues that make Rudd's performance funny. An android might analyze the commercial as a series of data points rather than understanding the comedic intent behind it.

The way androids perceive the world could be fundamentally different from human sensory experience. Visual and auditory stimuli might be processed in a way that renders the commercial's aesthetics irrelevant or even confusing.

As AI becomes more advanced and ubiquitous, our societal priorities will evolve. The notion of assessing the quality of entertainment based on human appreciation might become secondary to optimizing efficiency, problem-solving, and other utilitarian goals. In this context, an android's lack of interest in Paul Rudd's commercial might be seen as a sign of its advanced development, not a deficiency. This disconnect between human-centric entertainment and AI perception highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to quality assurance in a world increasingly populated by non-human entities. It is not simply about ensuring functionality and performance; it is about considering the diverse perspectives and needs of all potential "users," even if those users don't feel or experience the world as we do. The future of quality assurance might well involve developing entirely new metrics and methodologies for assessing the value of experiences in a post-human world. We must be careful not to assume that they will "not be in the process of knowing", but that their form of "knowing" will be one that is very very different from our own. What is considered "Good" is not a static truth, and, as is always the case, is dependent on the agent in question.