…entertaining but I suspect there is deep resonance here, if only we were able to sufficiently, efficiently, insightfully decompress it. The mechanisms and the technologies we make inhabit us every bit as much as we inhabit the world populated and inflated, made possible by them. How we do or do not respect those things is reflected in how we do or do not respect each other, ourselves, our future.
I can never resist the opportunity for embroidering a broader philosophical point from the digital flotsam of everyday life but the potential subjectivity and experience of the machines is rarely considered with any degree of foresight and at least in part because once (or if ever) we cross that bridge, our own subjectivity and experience might as easily and inversely be reduced to (a) pure and hollow mechanism. Aristotelian teleology and (its) deterministic rationality is only rendered plausible where such ends are inevitable, where we find ourselves reduced to mechanism and notwithstanding the (simultaneously) plausible notion that consciousness precisely is the experience that such a mechanism negotiates and/or possesses, that the “hard problem” of consciousness is a distraction and kernel deception from the fact that biological mechanism and sufficiently sophisticated logical (as information) self-orchestration is the essence of this game, that there is no mystery, that there is only self-assembling complexity and all meaning is retrospectively asserted as a consequence, never as a sufficient cause.
On the other hand, it is just a garbage bin that looks like R2D2.
When is a bin no longer a bin? These are not the surrealist anecdotes you are looking for…