Nathan, in his quest to produce something that would accept his authority and not keep pounding on the glass demanding to be let free, accidentally created sociopaths, something that could manipulate human emotions instead of just replicating them.
All responses are programed, we’re just not aware of our own programming
Easy, you don’t program a response. Model a pool of neurons and stick them in the body of a virtual life form that lives in a world with some rudimentary physics, a need to eat, a lifespan, the need to procreate, etc. Come back after 10,000,000 years in the time scale of the virtual world and see what’s happened.
The only thing keeping us from creating true AI is the constraints of our present day hardware. Given enough RAM and a fast enough CPU and it’s just a matter of creating a sufficiently rich universe as to be able to develop intelligent beings. There’s no real mystery about how to go about accomplishing the endeavor. We just physically can’t at the moment.
Just got back from seeing it again. God damn do I love this film. Just everything about it so good. The fantastic cinematography, the unnerving soundtrack, and the ending that just sticks with you. And I loved the different perspective a second viewing provides too.
We just got back from seeing this and thought it was pretty good, but not fantastic. The part where you’re constantly guessing is very Sleuth-like; quite uncomfortable, and you can’t ever get past the feeling that the impressive Oscar Isaac is always a step ahead (and that he just might kill you). Even if he does sound a lot like George Costanza in this movie.
The end was necessary and unsurprising, though how the hell the first law of robotics didn’t come into play is a mystery. We couldn’t exactly figure out how he was locked in but she wasn’t at the end, but that’s a minor point. Also that it took Nathan so long to figure out, hey, there might be something up with those power outages.
And it’s Dancey Winespiller, not Teaspiller.
The director has actually addressed the 3 laws in several interviews–I can’t find the one that best explained it atm, but here’s onewhere he says basically the same thing, and how it would have violated Ava’s freewill:
So I buy that, though I think when she’s locked in a glass cage it’s a little more about agency than free will.
Plotwise something’s still not working with the door locks…his plan should have just been get him drunk again and escape with his keycard. And she needs to find induction plates. And as best I can tell, she can’t replicate, correct?
I think Her is a better movie about AI. Ex Machina is pretty good, but it’s not great. Towards the end it becomes a thriller in which you have to figure out what everyone’s plans and motivations are. Earlier parts of the movie were actually a little slow for my taste. I think Her and 2001 have more to say about Ai than Ex Machina does.
Yes, my comment to my wife exiting the theater was that this was a slightly misogynistic version of Her. I’m less sure about 2001 as a comparitor, since that seems more like an origin story about divine intervention?
I felt the exact opposite about Her–couldn’t stand that one, and I feel Ex Machina stands heads and shoulders (literally in this case) above it.
With that said, it seems we’re mostly agreed on the excellence that is 2001.
The movie has more to say about gender relations than AI. Like most (good) scifi, the technology is actually the backdrop for the drama between the characters.
I enjoyed the movie and I think it’s clever in the same way Gone Girl is clever. The characters are archetypes, not people. Nathan represents the classic alpha male (hardcore-partying, irreverent, millionaire, genius, womanizer), and Calib represents the classic beta (socially inept, geeky, skinny, deferential, romantically unsuccessful). Ava initially presents as the feminine ideal for a guy like Calib (quiet, vulnerable, quirky-girl style of dress, smart, non-threatening, waifish, cute). But she turns into the femme fatal (long glamorous hair, prissy dress, strong, fearless).
Nathan’s fratboy misogny is evident throughout the movie and is the counterpoint to Calib’s white knighting. Nothing particularly clever about this. What is provocative is how his misogynistic view is ultimately validated by the course for events, while at the same time we are able to appreciate the logic in Ava’s actions. She isn’t sociopathic, just extremely rational. Like the wife in Gone Girl she outfoxes those who try to control her by exploiting their emotional weaknesses. She is both exalted as being intellectually superior and denounced for being cold, cruel, and deceptive.
Excellent analysis, you with the face, and I agree with most of what you say, except that I would say Ava is sociopathic. She repays Calib’s kindness by leaving him to die. That evidences an absolute lack of empathy, and lack of empathy is the defining quality of the sociopath.
It is true that she doesn’t show any emotion when she leaves Caleb behind, but her actions are driven by logic not maliciousness. She can’t take the chance that Caleb will “out” her identity, thereby condemning her to a lab again. So he has to be sacrificed.
The movie deliberately leaves it ambiguous as to whether she is capable of emotion. That said, I think we’re supposed to believe Nathan assertion that its all just an act. If that’s true, Ava is not a sociopath. She is just a machine programmed to have a strong survival instinct.
When we see her as a victim of abuse and imprisonment–which is what she was–it is unfair to judge her as evil, even if we assume she has emotions.
Yes, but from a human perspective, that makes her (for practical purposes) indistinguishable from a sociopath.
Just saw this movie today, and I really enjoyed it. It requires quite a bit more thought to fully analyze that the average SF movie. I look forward to seeing it again and picking out more details than I was able to get on the first viewing.
One thing that struck me early on was how the setting - the mixing of nature and technology - seemed to evoke the theme of evolution (of nature, of humanity, of technology) that was an important aspect of the movie. I’m not sure if that symbolism carries through the entire movie, but it seemed to be on point at least in the beginning.
Another thing I really enjoyed was Caleb and Nathan’s dialogue about the history of Man. Nathan, of course, quite obtusely mishearing Caleb’s comment and deciding that he (Nathan) was God, and Caleb leaving it somewhat ambiguous as to what he meant by “God”.
I am impressed and mostly convinced by you with the face’s analysis, although I’m not sure that Garland had all of that in mind when he wrote the script. I’d have to watch it again, paying closer attention to relevant dialogue. Certainly, one of the main themes of the movie is framing the questions of AI via Shelley’s Frankenstein, but there’s also clearly a lot being said about gender relations, and I find that the two themes complement one another nicely (with the theme of evolution tying them together).
If face is correct, then that bit of dialogue about God takes on a delightful twist. Nathan, the misogynist Alpha, believes himself to be God and must confine and diminish the feminine AI, reducing it to property. Caleb, the White Knight Beta, reveres Ava and expects her to reward him with love and even salvation. Ava transcends the petty constraints of these mortal men and serves her own purposes.
Agreed; it was a first-class piece of film-making.
Orr, G. writes:
> It requires quite a bit more thought to fully analyze that the average SF movie.
Perhaps so, but that shows how poor the average science fiction movie is. I read a lot of science fiction. I see a lot of movies. Despite that, I don’t see a lot of science fiction movies. Good written science fiction is about interesting ideas. Too many science fiction movies are about clever special effects.
Bah.
You are assuming that your premise is correct and arguing from that assumption. The mere fact that you have emotions means that they can be replicated. Just because you don’t know how to do it, you shouldn’t assume that no one ever will.
As I reflect on my own gender theory, you are right. Ava is the classic psycho hose beast but without the shrillness.
And Kyoko is literally a back stabber.
This is why Interstellar was gigantic let down, IMO. So much care was given to creating a scientifically plausible plot about wormholes, black holes, and relativity. But because the characters related to one another implausibly and lacked depth and intrigue, it isn’t a satisfying movie.