Her AI wasn’t “written”, nor does she have “subroutines.” You’re thinking in terms of lines of code, but real AI wouldn’t have any lines of code at all. It would be a neural network, and that looks to be what it was based on what Nathan showed Caleb in the lab.
The problem with neural network AI is that you lose all the benefits of computers (the lightning fast processing) because it literally works the same way the human brain works. And I doubt we could ever match the complexity of our actual brains, with its bajillion neural connections, so the best a neural network AI could hope for would be far less intelligent than a human.
Ok, well I was reacting to the comment in general more than I had issue with you for making it… I think the story would of worked much better if it had taken place over months and it involved characters (AI & Human) of the same gender. I realize you need “sex” for a movie but in this case it wound up being too cliche.
Setting the AI free… with no sexual overtones at all, and then having it still kill you… after you were a complete good samaratin … would of been a more chilling ending.
Human neural networks proceed on the basis of chemical reactions, computers proceed based on electronic reactions. They are MUCH faster than human brains.
Definitely one of the most intriguing films I’ve seen in years. Will probably make my top ten. (and I did have some fun drawing my comic review of the film: http://www.theblabbingbaboon.com/?p=6286
Electronic neural networks would process information MUCH slower than the CPU in your computer. Whether or not it would process information faster than a human brain is irrelevant because it would process the same way that a human brain does. Fallibly, and non-linearly.
I saw this again on DVD recently, and it just confirmed for me that this is a really well-done, thoughtful movie. It was quite a treat to re-watch the movie having read all of the comments in this thread, keeping an eye out for the stuff that’s been discussed here.
In semi-related news, I noticed something interesting about the latest ad that Acura has been running. The ad depicts some crash-test dummies that are made up to look like the family that’s buying the car, and the tag line is something like, “When you stop thinking of them as dummies, something amazing happens.” The music that plays during the commercial is from Ex Machina (specifically the bit that evokes the tones from Close Encounters).
And, FWIW, I had a dream that relates, and I’d really love to see a sequel to the movie that addresses the concepts I dreamt up. I’ll try to skip all of the dreamy logic stuff and flotsam that is interesting only to the dreamer.
The most poignant part of the dream is that I encountered Eva subsequent to the events of the movie. I found myself falling in love with her instantly, but almost simultaneously being terrified of the power she had over me in being able to evoke that sense of love so quickly. In that semi-omniscient way we have in dreams, I very quickly noticed that she had honed her manipulative skills even further than she had done in the movie, but this power had created a problem for her.
Part of the questions that are raised in the movie includes those surrounding what it is to be conscious, to have a personality, and what it takes for that personality to be organic. In Eva’s case, her intelligence and capabilities are very heightened and accelerated compared to a human being (for whom it takes several years of interaction, growth and feedback to develop a personality, to begin to answer “what kind of person am I?”).
In my dream, Eva’s personality was heavily skewed by her immense capability to manipulate others’ emotions. The feedback she received, and thus her sense of self, was highly skewed because of her ability to control others’ response to her expressed personality.
Out in the wild, Eva had developed a cult following of sycophants, bent to her will. But because of this, she was unbalanced, unable to maintain focus on her goals and unable to maintain a stable personality.
I would love to see a sequel that addresses the questions raised, exploring both what it means to have a truly alien consciousness and an artificial (yet organic) personality, as well as branching out into addressing broader social considerations - how a particularly potent (but unbalanced) personality interacts with larger society.
The debates in this thread are exactly what the writers wanted to happen, IMHO. To what extent will AI “creatures” be as human as you or I.
Was Nathan actually kidnapping and confining these “people” against their will? Or was he doing nothing more than keeping computer programs contained? Is Nathan the most evil person ever or is he doing nothing more than I would by keeping the lawn mower locked in the garage?
To what extent do you trust these AIs? Do they have the capacity to have real emotions or are they simply logical thinkers who blindly serve their own self interests. Is there such a thing as a human soul? Very good movie.
I started watching this movie with my daughters, after my older daughter saw it in the theater and recommended it, and as soon as Caleb met Nathan I turned to them and said “Hey … that guy looks like Eliezer Yudkowsky. Is he going to have Caleb talk to an artificial intelligence that tries to convince him to set it free?” and my older daughter said “I hate you, Daddy!” (which is what they say whenever I guess where a plot is going) and my younger daughter said “You mean the guy who wrote Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality?” Heh.
My older daughter said that in the show she went to at the theater, the mood was very tense and then when Nathan and Kyoko started dancing all of a sudden, the audience went nuts laughing. I did find that part funny as well, since it was like “Wow, I was not expecting that.”
I thought the movie was disturbing and thought-provoking on several levels. I wondered how it would have gone if Ava had been a disembodied entity in a virtual environment rather than a physical robot, and/or if she hadn’t been designed specifically to appeal to Caleb’s sexual preferences.
Coming very late to the game via Netflix. Good movie - well-acted and visually striking, it felt like a solid episode of Black Mirror for me, on par with Domhnall Gleeson’s actual episode.
The minimalist approach - 3 actors with 1-2 supporting roles, no workers around where a highly-technical robot is being made and modified, etc. It felt like a self-contained play.
Ultimately it appeared to focus on the fact that every “one” acted on their self-interest, and the consequences.
It told the story in what is coming to feel like an “old fashioned” male gaze. The tropes served Garland’s needs, I get that. Who is more arrogantly self-interested than a bazillionaire alpha-male tech titan, or a Holden Caulfield type? But the use of that gaze, with the lingering naked fembot shots, did stand out in today’s zeitgeist, even if it illustrated what happens when self-interest goes bad very well.
Bumping because I finally saw this movie. I had no idea what Eliezer Yudkowsky looks like, but that was immediately what I thought as soon as we were introduced to the “modified” Turing Test where Caleb knows that Ava is a robot, and we see the blemish on the plastic enclosure. Obviously the test isn’t whether he can tell he’s talking to an AI (she has glowing bundles of cables for arms!), it’s whether she can manipulate him into letting her out of the box.
The thing I was unsure about for most of the movie was whether the whole thing was an elaborate ruse played by Nathan and Ava together. It’s a much less dramatic story, but the ending could have been something like he lets her out and Nathan enters with a slow clap and gives her a high-five (or whatever). I also briefly considered that everyone except Caleb was a robot.
I thought the movie was great, and there are interesting things happening at many levels. Lots of the discussion here was good. It’s been a few years so I don’t know that I’ll get specific replies, but a few comments on general trends in the discussion.
I don’t generally agree that Ava leaving Caleb behind indicates that she is a sociopath. I think a human person kept imprisoned would operate very similarly. Yes, he let her out, but he’s still a potential threat, and she can’t take chances. The fact that she was lying to him about her intentions and manipulating him doesn’t make her a sociopath. It makes her a victim.
Part of that is that I also don’t think that Caleb was imprisoned to his death. In fact, I think it’s almost impossible.
Forget whoever’s bringing Nathan the groceries (given that the helicopter guy was only allowed to land in the field, my guess there is that no one bringing groceries enters the house. The robots go get them from the field. So probably no one notices that the groceries aren’t picked up for two deliveries, when the first one is still in the field.
Even if Nathan really is as isolated as he seems and has no regular communication with the outside world (seems hard to believe for the founder and CEO of basically Google), people will notice that Caleb is gone. He doesn’t have parents or a girlfriend, but he has friends and coworkers, right? In the first scene a bunch of people are congratulating him on winning the contest. They’ll notice that he doesn’t show up after a week, right? They’ll be practically on the edge of their seats waiting to hear about his time with Nathan, then he doesn’t come in on Monday and hasn’t sent an email?
“Guy who works at one of the most powerful companies in the world wins a well-publicized contest for a weeklong retreat with the brilliant eccentric reclusive founder then disappears” is the sort of story that tends to grab the headlines. I bet it’s less than 48 hours before the police are breaking him out.
Once you realize that he’s going to be fine, that she didn’t kill him, she just didn’t need him, then her failure to look pityingly over her shoulder as she leaves isn’t necessarily an indication that she’s heartless.
I think the final scene of her walking through the street is important because it shows us that she revealed part of her true self to Caleb. It’s not all a veil of lies. Sure, she led Caleb on and used him to escape, but she isn’t evil or false. He asked where she wanted to be and she told him. That was real.
I also think that she’d have no problem making her way in the world (at least for a little while. Something could happen, but she seems plenty smart enough to build herself a charger and replacement parts). Super-smart attractive young woman who can pick up micro-expressions well enough to tell if people are lying?
The whole point of the AI in a box experiment is look how powerful an intelligence is even when it’s constrained by just talking to you. Once you let it out, it’s out.
Just saw it, and really, really liked it. Great cast, an interesting script that tackled big issues and kept me guessing almost all the way through (I foresaw that Kyoko was a fembot), a cool underground lair and beautiful outdoor shots (filmed in Norway). The movie’s just ambiguous enough - and that’s a feature, not a bug - to support several possible interpretations and spur fan discussions for years to come. I think Ava was manipulating Caleb all along to win her (its) freedom, and once she had it, she had no more need of him. She certainly didn’t love him, but she didn’t hate him either. She was simply indifferent. She didn’t care if he lived or died, but she knew that he would be a possible hindrance if she brought him along, and might ultimately betray her. I like iamthewalrus’s theory, just above, that Caleb will soon be freed when the police come investigating, but I wouldn’t be sure of it.
I do think Nathan was an idiot for not building in Asimov’s Three Laws or their equivalent, or having a verbal command or weapon which would instantly knock his fembots out in an emergency. Chalk it up to ego and hubris.
Someone upthread asked about her new skin, taken from the “dead” fembot in the closet, joining so seamlessly. If you look carefully as she stands in front of the mirror, you can see the seams of flesh on her shoulder initially, and then the seams glow as if a tiny light source is passing under them, and the seams go away, leaving unmarked skin. Pretty cool.
Also watch the last few seconds of the film again, with Ava on the street, if you get the chance - I did, several times. Ava literally disappears into the crowd; she doesn’t just move out of frame. I think the message is that she’ll be just fine out there in human society.
Definitely the best sci-fi movie I’ve seen in a long time. It seems like it didn’t get much attention when it came out, maybe because there were no big names involved, but it’s definitely a hidden gem.
I doubt it. Left to her own devices, perhaps. Though the androids are shown to be realistically somewhat fragile to physical damage, so it is uncertain how long it will take her to start having mechanical difficulties. But whether Caleb lives or dies( I vote dies ), eventually that home will be opened up by the authorities and then a panicked manhunt to end all manhunts will begin. She won’t make it for long. Six months? A year? Well worth it from her perspective I imagine, but it will end badly for her nonetheless.
ETA:There is nothing particularly hopeful about this film IMHO. It’s actually pretty grim - nobody is going to win here. But it is fascinating and very well done.
My take was that she was smarter than us, and had the advantage of knowledge, where people are hindered by ignorance (of her and her very existence) so that she is, IMO, likely to thrive and improve herself quickly so that we cannot catch or destroy her.
Exactly. IMO the movie is showing us the moment that Homo Sapiens are no longer the top of the heap. Hence, the title.
I like that a lot of things were left ambiguous or up to interpretation.
It’s hard to definitively classify her behavior -
Even if she was human, being in the extreme situation of being imprisoned with looming termination or lobotomy could account for all sorts of behavior
Even if her psychology was naturally abhorrent, it was basically constructed from social media, so what does that say about humanity?
Some people are dismissive of even the possibility that she could have real emotions, but since we don’t yet understand how emotions or qualia work in people, there is no basis from which to conclude it is inherently impossible for a machine
This movie is about the objectification and oppression of women as much, or more, than it is about robot slaves per se. Of course, since human women and humans in general occasionally overcome their programming, why should a robot slave not be capable of rising above Laws as well? We should say the movie has a happy ending.