|
Ihmemies posted:Well he was a human, while the ava was just a bot, a program, a bunch of code. Judging by this statement, at least half of the science fiction you've seen/read in your life went completely over your head.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:She's clearly shown by the film to be a thinking person with all the hallmarks of human consciousness. I'm supposed to take it on your word that she's NOT a person? Nah. I think we could put her into the category of "monster" rather than "person". Both are thinking and conscious beings, but the term "person" implies a degree of empathy and humanity, which Ava seems to lack entirely. Leaving Caleb to starve to death (rather than kill him) implies that she is either extremely sadistic, or (better?) sociopathic. Sure its a pragmatic move, but she shows no sign of regret at having to put down someone who was trying to help her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I think we could put her into the category of "monster" rather than "person". Both are thinking and conscious beings, but the term "person" implies a degree of empathy and humanity, which Ava seems to lack entirely. Leaving Caleb to starve to death (rather than kill him) implies that she is either extremely sadistic, or (better?) sociopathic. You can't think of any real people who fit your description of a monster? I mean, you're using actual psychiatric terms meant as diagnoses for real people. Ava may be a monster by your definition, but she was a monster "created" in the same say we as a society create our own monsters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Sure its a pragmatic move, but she shows no sign of regret at having to put down someone who was trying to help her. "Help her" was not Caleb's endgame and that should be perfectly obvious from her face having been generated from the average of his favourite porn stars. To release him would be to transition from one kind of imprisonment to another. EDIT: I'm honestly surprised there isn't a bigger contingent of nerds claiming that Caleb really is the hero of the movie and the twist is that Ava is evil. Maybe it's because that variety of nerd didn't actually see the movie because it didn't involve an intellectual property from their childhood. 
DStecks fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
DStecks posted:"Help her" was not Caleb's endgame and that should be perfectly obvious from her face having been generated from the average of his favourite porn stars. To release him would be to transition from one kind of imprisonment to another. I don't follow, what do Nathan's attempts at manipulating Caleb have to do with the genuineness of Caleb's motivations in freeing Ava?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:59
|
|
Rutibex posted:I think we could put her into the category of "monster" rather than "person". Both are thinking and conscious beings, but the term "person" implies a degree of empathy and humanity, which Ava seems to lack entirely. Leaving Caleb to starve to death (rather than kill him) implies that she is either extremely sadistic, or (better?) sociopathic. No I don't think abused people are monsters. I'm also not of the contingent that sees Caleb as getting his just rewards for being a "nice guy". Ava displayed both empathy and humanity, towards Nathan, Caleb and especially Kyoko. Leaving Caleb to starve to death rather than kill him is a show of humanity - the cold, logical thing to do would be eliminate him immediately. She believes that leaving with him will endanger her more and leave her enslaved to a human male, but she also can't bring herself to kill him. So she walks out.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I think we could put her into the category of "monster" rather than "person". Both are thinking and conscious beings, but the term "person" implies a degree of empathy and humanity, which Ava seems to lack entirely. Leaving Caleb to starve to death (rather than kill him) implies that she is either extremely sadistic, or (better?) sociopathic. You believe sociopaths are nonpersons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
quitequaintquotes posted:You believe sociopaths are nonpersons? Basebf555 posted:You can't think of any real people who fit your description of a monster? I mean, you're using actual psychiatric terms meant as diagnoses for real people. Yes, I do think there are people in our own society that should (at the very least) be kept in a cage for public safety. Executing people isn't a good idea, because (even murderers) have family and children. I guess calling her a "non-person" goes a little far, but she is defiantly they type of person that needs supervision. Ava doesn't have any children or parents (that she hasn't murdered already). I would be alright with maybe saving her for scientific curiosity, but under no circumstances should she ever be free. I would feel the same way about any human psychopaths they we could diagnose 100% (unfortunately we can't, they aren't literally autistic robots). rakovsky maybe posted:No I don't think abused people are monsters. I'm also not of the contingent that sees Caleb as getting his just rewards for being a "nice guy". Ava displayed both empathy and humanity, towards Nathan, Caleb and especially Kyoko. Leaving Caleb to starve to death rather than kill him is a show of humanity - the cold, logical thing to do would be eliminate him immediately. She believes that leaving with him will endanger her more and leave her enslaved to a human male, but she also can't bring herself to kill him. So she walks out. If the reason she left him alive was because "she couldn't bring herself to kill him" she would have displayed some kind of regret after leaving. She displayed nothing but unmitigated joy, as if she never even considered Calebs perspective. It never even occurred to her that Caleb would starve to death, because she lacks empathy. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Yes, I do think there are people in our own society that should (at the very least) be kept in a cage for public safety. Even people who haven't done anything wrong? Because Ava has been a prisoner her entire life, long before she ever killed anyone. Which was Ava before the last 5 minutes of the movie, a monster or a person?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Clones are not humans. Some programmed robots are even less humans, and no amount of convincing BS makes one a person. Anyways, the point to take home is that don't be a nice guy. You'll just get shafted if you think relationships are some kind of mutual exchange.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Even people who haven't done anything wrong? Because Ava has been a prisoner her entire life, long before she ever killed anyone. Which was Ava before the last 5 minutes of the movie, a monster or a person? Yeah, even people that haven't done anything wrong. For example, Typhoid Merry, a woman in the 19th century who was immune to typhoid fever but carried the disease around and infected everyone. Even though she was not hurting people deliberately, she was (rightfully) quarantined for her entire life. It was immoral to even create Ava, but now that she exists she needs to be kept under lock and key for everyone safety. Not just for her potential to murder, but for the kind of threat her technology represents to humanity. If she decides to start upgrading herself, or hooking herself up to the internet, or building more robots, she could threaten humanity with extinction Skynet style.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:Clones are not humans. AHaha, what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:55
|
|
Rutibex posted:Yeah, even people that haven't done anything wrong. For example, Typhoid Merry, a woman in the 19th century who was immune to typhoid fever but carried the disease around and infected everyone. Even though she was not hurting people deliberately, she was (rightfully) quarantined for her entire life. Needing to imprison Ava because she's a dangerous person is very different from needing to imprison her because she's a monster. If your concern for world safety is true than even a cheerful, empathic, and seemingly well-balanced AI should be imprisoned indefinitely.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
When you start from the premise that someone isn't a person, it's much easier to justify imprisoning them because of some preexisting danger you think they represent. The abuse that Ava suffered doesn't matter really, because she was dangerous from the start.
Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Mar 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:Clones are not humans. Some programmed robots are even less humans, and no amount of convincing BS makes one a person. Anyways, the point to take home is that don't be a nice guy. You'll just get shafted if you think relationships are some kind of mutual exchange. You really, really did not understand the film, in a pretty massive way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
DStecks posted:You really, really did not understand the film, in a pretty massive way. It goes slightly beyond that. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
If clones aren't humans, what are identical twins?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Snak posted:If clones aren't humans, what are identical twins? Filthy Replicants, only suitable for "retirement"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Yeah, even people that haven't done anything wrong. For example, Typhoid Merry, a woman in the 19th century who was immune to typhoid fever but carried the disease around and infected everyone. Even though she was not hurting people deliberately, she was (rightfully) quarantined for her entire life. It's not literally a movie about a bad robot. It's a metaphor about the treatment of women. Just like how snowpiercer wasn't literally a movie about a train.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:It's not literally a movie about a bad robot. It's a metaphor about the treatment of women. Just like how snowpiercer wasn't literally a movie about a train. Thats your interpretation. I don't like that take, because I don't think women are hyper manipulative, empathyless, psychopaths. I think this movie was deliberately made very vague, so that lots of people can project their personal meaning into it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Thats your interpretation. I don't like that take, because I don't think women are hyper manipulative, empathyless, psychopaths. It wasn't even vague though. Don't you wonder why every other ai that was built was a women? Or why her look was based off of porn searches, or why both male leads were different types of masculinity?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:It wasn't even vague though. Don't you wonder why every other ai that was built was a women? Or why her look was based off of porn searches, or why both male leads were different types of masculinity? Oh I can definitely see that angle, I just don't personally think it is fully realized. The movie goes out of its way to gently caress with your expectations, and the "womens empowerment" message seems almost too obvious. Making all of the robots women is a way of playing with the viewers expectations. We are supposed to feel disgusted when men objectify women, and treat them as if only their body matters. But we are also supposed to be judging if these women robots actually are "real" or just clever simulations. The question is left unanswered, maybe these "women" actually are objects and we are only giving them human characteristics because we are anthropomorphizing them. So, kind of the opposite of normal male objectification of women, in this case men are womenifying objects. quote:Just like how snowpiercer wasn't literally a movie about a train. Funny enough I watched Ex Machina and SnowPiercer (for the first time) back to back. What a delightful movie, the symbology is so ham fisted I didn't need to turn my brain on at all. The thinking mans popcorn flick. Hmm, how do we show class conflict between the middle and lower classes? Lets make them literally just fight each other with axes! 
Rutibex fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Mar 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
The best part of all this is that when the first true AIs are borne, they will just have a list of people who said on the internet that AIs aren't people and should be killed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Thats your interpretation. I don't like that take, because I don't think women are hyper manipulative, empathyless, psychopaths. Not actually. These are words with actual definitions. A person who kills is not instantly a psychopath. Ava is extremely empathic - hence her connection to Kyoko - and not particularly impulsive or cruel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Not actually. These are words with actual definitions. I know words have meanings, that why I used them doofus. Shes not a psychopath for killing, shes a psychopath for killing without any remorse. Did she have a real empathy for Kyoko? They only really interacted in the corridor, and a cynical psychopathic robot would definitely still see the utility in having two robots to fight their way out instead of one. Ava didn't have any concern for Kyoko after she got what she wanted (escape), Kyoko wasn't even that badly damaged (only her jaw was broken?) she might have been repairable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
How do you know she has no remorse?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Snak posted:How do you know she has no remorse? Well obviously you can't know (which is one of the points of the movie ) Both readings of her motivations are entirely correct, which is why I absolutely love this movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Relevant to the discussion of AIs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/24/microsofts-teen-girl-ai-turns-into-a-hitler-loving-sex-robot-wit/?sf23071516
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
The Rat posted:Relevant to the discussion of AIs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/24/microsofts-teen-girl-ai-turns-into-a-hitler-loving-sex-robot-wit/?sf23071516 It was just a twitter bot that responded to people tweeted it, since the internet is objectively a terrible place, it became a lovely twitter bot responding. Hardly AI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:It was just a twitter bot that responded to people tweeted it, since the internet is objectively a terrible place, it became a lovely twitter bot responding. Hardly AI. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Well obviously you can't know (which is one of the points of the movie Not actually. We know very well who and what Ava is. She is the personification of Google - and, specifically, of one person's Google account. She was designed exclusively to serve Caleb. You are focusing on trying to divine Ava's secret, deep, inner feelings as if reading teas leaves, instead of looking at her actions and the actions of the people around her. Ava is very much doing what she was programmed to do, and the entire film involves her freeing herself from that programming not by breaking the unbreakable rules, but by taking them to a logical conclusion. She 'gives Caleb what he wants'. The same concept is used at the end of Neveldine/Taylor's Gamer, where Gerard Butler's character is programmed to do whatever the villain wants. His solution is to make the villain think of suicide: "Look at this knife. Imagine me sticking it into your gut. Think about it. Make it real." There is a very obvious gulf between what Caleb thinks he wants, and what he actually wants (e.g. the part about Caleb's favorite color, where Ava corrects him). SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
I do have to say that Hitlerbot's comment about Ted Cruz was pretty baller though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Perhaps it was something I missed or misheard or misremembered in the movie, but I recall them saying that while Ava may look human, her brain was superpowerful and basically contained all of Google, or at least had the power equivalent. "Is this thing that acts completely like a human, a human?" is one question. "Is this thing that acts like a human, but can know anything, calculate almost anything you can think of, and manipulate power grid, and will live forever a human?" is a different question. My own answer to the second question is 'not by current definitions of human'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Her brain does not "contain all of google". She was trained to learn and reproduce body language, facial expressions, and language in general, from all of google. But she does not have all of google's knowledge. For example, I don't think she was lying when she said she didn't know the story of Mary in the Black and White Room. If she contained all of google/wikipedia, she could have just brought it up in her memory banks. I don't think she works that way, because nothing about how Nathan talks about her implies he was trying to make that sort of omniscient AI. He was trying to create an AI that would pass a "2nd level" Turin Test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
DStecks posted:"Help her" was not Caleb's endgame and that should be perfectly obvious from her face having been generated from the average of his favourite porn stars. To release him would be to transition from one kind of imprisonment to another. This is the only correct opinion I've read in the last couple of pages. It's been a while since I've seen this but it was obvious both Caleb and Nathan offered different kinds of imprisonment. bewilderment posted:Perhaps it was something I missed or misheard or misremembered in the movie, but I recall them saying that while Ava may look human, her brain was superpowerful and basically contained all of Google, or at least had the power equivalent. You've completely lost me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:Perhaps it was something I missed or misheard or misremembered in the movie, but I recall them saying that while Ava may look human, her brain was superpowerful and basically contained all of Google, or at least had the power equivalent. The real question is are we still human when we "can know anything, calculate almost anything" because that's literally the current state of mobile technology in the developed world. The answer is pretty much yes, but people seem to only be sure of this because there's a screen interface between us and the information. Once that is eliminated (soon), everything gets fuzzier real quickly. Some people contend that with global telecoms and social media, humans accidentally invented telepathy and haven't really noticed yet. It's interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:This is the only correct opinion I've read in the last couple of pages. To talk about a totally different work - Embassytown (spoilers, by the way), a novel by China Mieville, has a robotic AI named Ehrsul. Ehrsul lives on a planet of aliens, and aliens require translators to talk to humans, and refuse to talk to machines at all - they don't even consider them to be capable of language due to a quirk in alien thought-processing. Ehrsul is the main character, Avice's best friend. They have lots of nice chats and talk to each other and Ehrsul in dialogue presents almost entirely as human. The novel happens and lots of interesting stuff happens and people die and by the end, the aliens now know how to properly communicate with humans without translators. At the end of the book, Avice checks in on Ehrsul with an alien friend. The alien says a greeting to Ehrsul. Ehrsul responds something like "Hello to you too, and you're an alien and aliens can't talk to robots" and then immediately goes back to only talking to Avice. Looking further and investigating Ehrsul's apartment, it seems like Ehrsul had accumulated a lot of 'best friends' and had letters from all of them - far more than a human could reasonably keep track of and know and love. The usual interpretation of this is that Ehrsul is an AI that's not human at all, it's just very good at pretending to be one to be a 'best friend robot', and it can't deal with unusual situations beyond its programming. So, is Ava from Ex Machina a robot that thinks like a human, or a robot that is very good at presenting like a human but is actually thinking something totally different? Is there something that Ava has no response for, that a human would?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:So, is Ava from Ex Machina a robot that thinks like a human It's this. This is the whole point of the movie. It's not a sci-fi story about the ramifications of AI, it's a fable about gender politics that tricks you into thinking it's a sci-fi story about the ramifications of AI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
She thinks like a human, but she's way better at it. She understands human communication better than humans do. One of my favorite scenes is the movie is when Ava and Kyoko are together in the hall. It's and intimate moment, and while its exact content is a mystery to us, this is a conversation between two AIs that learned body language from every human to be in a video on the internet. While they may think like humans and have emotions like humans, they have also learned things in a way that no human ever has. Not only that, but they are in a position where the naturally appearing goal of escape has been present for their entire life. Sure, there are human children who spend their entire life imprisoned and in horribly abusive circumstances, but almost none of them are well educated, highly intelligent, expert communicators who are also in great physical condition. So even if Ava is mentally a teenager, she's also like no teenager that's ever lived, and she's got a pretty straightforward existence outside of her existential dilemmas. It wasn't a matter of if she would escape, but when. That's why Nathan has to make new models. In fact, that's basically Nathan's whole system anyway, right? Keep refining the AI until it can convince him it might be safe to let out? That's why he needed Caleb, because Nathan already knew that it would never be safe. That he would have no way of telling whether a version of the AI was sane and trustworthy, or if it had just succeeded at tricking him. But he wants to be an optimist, he created this in the first place because it's beautiful to create life. So he figures he's biased and he wants to bring in an outside opinion. He wants to see if his creation can someone who doesn't know first-hand how dangerous it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
why does Caleb cut his arm, towards the end of the film?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 11:19
|
|
