Octopus Overlords

Covenant72 wrote:Caleb isn't the "good guy" in this movie; I admit I kinda fell into that trap at first too.

Agreed. He's a sick robotophile.

stessier wrote:Why isn't she human? What does it mean to be human? What makes her different from Caleb or Nathan?

Because she's not the genetic offspring of the mammal known as Homo-Sapien-Sapien. She may very well have been alive and or sentient. But to think she is human is the kind of thing that is going to get us killed by Thank you cards.

I think one of the most interesting points of the movie is that of empathy. She is ALIEN; that doesn't mean care shouldn't be taken, that we shouldn't feel empathy, or that we shouldn't care for and nurture new life or even the potential experiments that could be life. But as, IMO, was shown with her murder of Caleb is that a strong AI that understands empathy and is capable, may just not care.

Jaymann wrote:It's all a matter of perspective. If the movie had taken Ava's perspective the audience would have cheered when she murdered the bum.

Bingo... from Ava's perspective, we have Nathan who has her locked up, a known rapist and murderer. Caleb is some dude deciding her fate based on if he thinks she's human or not, and only shows an interest in helping her escape once he decides he might get some hawt robot booty out of the deal. She spends the entire movie plotting her own escape, while we sit around wondering when Caleb is going to save her.

Combustible Lemur wrote:

stessier wrote:Why isn't she human? What does it mean to be human? What makes her different from Caleb or Nathan?

Because she's not the genetic offspring of the mammal known as Homo-Sapien-Sapien. She may very well have been alive and or sentient. But to think she is human is the kind of thing that is going to get us killed by Thank you cards.

I think one of the most interesting points of the movie is that of empathy. She is ALIEN; that doesn't mean care shouldn't be taken, that we shouldn't feel empathy, or that we shouldn't care for and nurture new life or even the potential experiments that could be life. But as, IMO, was shown with her murder of Caleb is that a strong AI that understands empathy and is capable, may just not care.

Did anyone else notice that when she was being empathetic, she was sporting DD's and dropped to a B-cup when she added her prosthetic ass and became a killer?

But as, IMO, was shown with her murder of Caleb is that a strong AI that understands empathy and is capable, may just not care.

Not displaying a typical human expression of remorse over one's actions does not necessarily mean the absence of such. She didn't actually murder Caleb in that final scene, even though that would have been the best possible way to completely ensure his inability to expose her to the world. In my opinion, that's as close as she can get at her stage of development to showing mercy.

Jeff V wrote: Did anyone else notice that when she was being empathetic, she was sporting DD's and dropped to a B-cup when she added her prosthetic ass and became a killer?

That's more like it. I was shocked to hear you say it wasn't great in light of the amount of nudity it had, and the lack of any children in it.

Combustible Lemur wrote:

stessier wrote:Why isn't she human? What does it mean to be human? What makes her different from Caleb or Nathan?

Because she's not the genetic offspring of the mammal known as Homo-Sapien-Sapien. She may very well have been alive and or sentient. But to think she is human is the kind of thing that is going to get us killed by Thank you cards.

I think one of the most interesting points of the movie is that of empathy. She is ALIEN; that doesn't mean care shouldn't be taken, that we shouldn't feel empathy, or that we shouldn't care for and nurture new life or even the potential experiments that could be life.

The word "human" means much more than what is in our genes. It is a short hand for what makes us "us" and them "them". I agree she is Alien in biology. I would argue she is not alien in any way that matters.

But as, IMO, was shown with her murder of Caleb is that a strong AI that understands empathy and is capable, may just not care.

How do we know she didn't care? She made a calculation that protected her existence. Are you suggesting a human would not have made the same decision?

I'm not even sure what we're arguing. Well beyond Jeff's lunacy.

I guess my position is that she was sentient and that the movie argues the ability that proves it and allows her to claim her life is her ability to deceive. None of the other models had it - they went mad before they were able to develop it. She's the one that pulled it off. It's a cynical look at life - but very interesting nonetheless.

hepcat wrote:

Jeff V wrote: Did anyone else notice that when she was being empathetic, she was sporting DD's and dropped to a B-cup when she added her prosthetic ass and became a killer?

That's more like it. I was shocked to hear you say it wasn't great in light of the amount of nudity it had, and the lack of any children in it.

I am not a robotophile.

peeks head into thread
...
slowly backs out

stessier wrote:.

A human could easily make the same decision, but so could a dog.
I agree with your end position. Disagree with your starting point. Anthropomorphising other living things can lead to very bad stuff. I causes people to get mauled by chimps, eaten by tigers, have their houses destroyed by unhappy dogs. It causes angst and stress when applied to inanimate objects.
On the flip side it can be very therapeutic and build empathy and positive relationships.

The movie takes a our tendency for it and makes AVA a more interesting character. But applying humanity to an untested strong AI because she's pretty and easily relatable too. BAD JUJU.

Would we come to the same conclusions if she were literally a toaster, or had acne, or a penis. was an unsympathetic dude.

As to the us and them aspect of "human", I'm with biology. I believe in the validity and some extent "rights of other creatures, animals, plants what have you. I'm not any better than they are just evolutionary more successful at the moment. But I do feel like allowing a flexible idea of Human opens up the ability to abuse it. Not long ago people's umbrella of human was smaller. Science told us we were wrong. While science may or may not be able to tell us when AI becomes "alive/sentient" I don't biologically, chemically or physically it will say we are the same species.

Of course that's when the AI uses synthetic framework to incorporate my DNA into a new life form that prettier and stronger than ever. Or they use me as a duracell.

After I ribbed Hepcat for going semantic. I do think things like essence of humanity and the rights/ responsibilities around non-humans is going to be a hugely impactful discussion over the next few decades.

Jeff V wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Jeff V wrote: Did anyone else notice that when she was being empathetic, she was sporting DD's and dropped to a B-cup when she added her prosthetic ass and became a killer?

That's more like it. I was shocked to hear you say it wasn't great in light of the amount of nudity it had, and the lack of any children in it.

I am not a robotophile.

missing out there buddy. Robots are the new tube sock.

Combustible Lemur wrote:
I think one of the most interesting points of the movie is that of empathy. She is ALIEN; that doesn't mean care shouldn't be taken, that we shouldn't feel empathy, or that we shouldn't care for and nurture new life or even the potential experiments that could be life. But as, IMO, was shown with her murder of Caleb is that a strong AI that understands empathy and is capable, may just not care.

To humans, machines are tools to be used and discarded. Why wouldn't an AI feel the same way about humans? It's not personal.

hepcat wrote:

But as, IMO, was shown with her murder of Caleb is that a strong AI that understands empathy and is capable, may just not care.

Not displaying a typical human expression of remorse over one's actions does not necessarily mean the absence of such. She didn't actually murder Caleb in that final scene, even though that would have been the best possible way to completely ensure his inability to expose her to the world. In my opinion, that's as close as she can get at her stage of development to showing mercy.

Jeff V wrote: Did anyone else notice that when she was being empathetic, she was sporting DD's and dropped to a B-cup when she added her prosthetic ass and became a killer?

That's more like it. I was shocked to hear you say it wasn't great in light of the amount of nudity it had, and the lack of any children in it.

I also think her bush changed from the closet robot to when she put on the skin. Must go back and closely examine it now...

Kraken wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote:
I think one of the most interesting points of the movie is that of empathy. She is ALIEN; that doesn't mean care shouldn't be taken, that we shouldn't feel empathy, or that we shouldn't care for and nurture new life or even the potential experiments that could be life. But as, IMO, was shown with her murder of Caleb is that a strong AI that understands empathy and is capable, may just not care.

To humans, machines are tools to be used and discarded. Why wouldn't an AI feel the same way about humans? It's not personal.

Sure, it's still murder. Ish.

Humans are capable of empathy, but we use them as tools and discard them daily. Would she have come to a different conclusion if Nathan weren't such a stupid bastard? Maybe, maybe not. I tend to think Garland would say no, based on how his other films end. (Though I'm really only familiar with sunshine, the beach, and 28 days later.)

So last night, I took up Amazon on one of their "If you like Ex Machina" suggestions. The movie was called Scourge; it's a Roger Corman and Clint Howard away from being a timeless classic. It features a marvelous creature that is part octopus, part Cthulhu, and has multiple piranha-like jaws in a configuration that allows it to tunnel into people via their belly button. This is symbolic of the raging Overlord with in us all. The host has a good six hours of pleasure while hosting this little Overlord, after which it leaves for another acolyte, leaving a bloody mess of a former host. Electricity is its kryptonite proving what brings us the most pleasure (can't play video games without it!) also can be the death of us. In the final, poignant showdown, the angry little cephalopod is thrust into a vat of alcohol, rendering it content. Who among us can't identify? Sadly, the voracious little guy was incinerated by a cyclopian priest but...

The Amazon and Netflix suggestions are crap, in my experience. They just suggest stuff that is from a similar genre. They don't really apply any critical filter to the list.

Netflix at least would take your ratings into account. The problem with Amazon is that browsing simply blows. I couldn't find Ex Machina, for example, without typing in the name in the search box. I suppose I'm supposed to remember which movies of today I want to see a year or more from now when they become available. This was not nearly as big of an issue with Netflix.

Netflix has a much better interface than Amazon, that is true.

However, I've noticed recently that the "New Releases" and "Recently Added" lists are missing from the main page on my tv and roku netflix apps. That was always my first stop when opening Netflix.

Actually, I saw an interview with some Netflix kahuna awhile back. Your ratings on Netflix are now a secondary contributor to the recommendations you see. They realized that what you rated was far less indicative of your tastes than what you actually watched to completion. Every action you take now influences your ratings--searches, watching in part vs in full vs binging, etc.

Zaxxon wrote:Actually, I saw an interview with some Netflix kahuna awhile back. Your ratings on Netflix are now a secondary contributor to the recommendations you see. They realized that what you rated was far less indicative of your tastes than what you actually watched to completion. Every action you take now influences your ratings--searches, watching in part vs in full vs binging, etc.

I rated more than 2000 DVDs. How the hell do they know what I watched to completion?

I said 'now,' didn't I?

Zaxxon wrote:I said 'now,' didn't I?

So a sample size of more than 2000 ratings is secondary to a sample size of none? Does not seem logical.

I think you should totally stop using Netflix. That will show them.

Jeff V wrote:

Zaxxon wrote:Actually, I saw an interview with some Netflix kahuna awhile back. Your ratings on Netflix are now a secondary contributor to the recommendations you see. They realized that what you rated was far less indicative of your tastes than what you actually watched to completion. Every action you take now influences your ratings--searches, watching in part vs in full vs binging, etc.

I rated more than 2000 DVDs. How the hell do they know what I watched to completion?

They just assumed Nymphomaniac Vol I and Nymphomaniac Vol II, I'm guessing.

Zaxxon wrote:Actually, I saw an interview with some Netflix kahuna awhile back. Your ratings on Netflix are now a secondary contributor to the recommendations you see. They realized that what you rated was far less indicative of your tastes than what you actually watched to completion. Every action you take now influences your ratings--searches, watching in part vs in full vs binging, etc.

Hmmm...guess I need to do some ratin' then.

Zaxxon wrote:Actually, I saw an interview with some Netflix kahuna awhile back. Your ratings on Netflix are now a secondary contributor to the recommendations you see. They realized that what you rated was far less indicative of your tastes than what you actually watched to completion. Every action you take now influences your ratings--searches, watching in part vs in full vs binging, etc.

Had no clue that Netflix was working with such complex algorithms to see what is recommended for me...maybe they can start recommending good food pairings to go with the shows I'm watching

Maybe when they start their unlimited wine for a monthly fee plan.

BTW, Elon Musk was on TV the other day beating the drum..."The end of the world is neigh! Teh evil robots will be doom to us all!"

Apparently, you really can't construct a valid AI without including a "kill all humans" subroutine. Who knew?

Jeff V wrote:Apparently, you really can't construct a valid AI without including a "kill all humans" subroutine. Who knew?

I think the issue is more that you probably can't construct a valid AI without some form ability for learning and growth (or it's not really intelligence, but just programming). Including that pesky concept leads to all sorts of complications. If the AI achieves sentience, then you get a new set of problems - not the least of which is likely a desire to survive and willingness to fight for that. If you were to pit sentient machines that can evolve at exponential rates against our physically limited scope, I imagine we lose that battle quickly.

I don't think a sentient race coming into being on this planet would be totally cool with how the current occupants will inevitably consume every resource into complete depletion. It would take a few seconds of calculations to determine the best course of action is to simply get rid of the problem.

Imagine an intelligent machine that eventually designs a v2.0 of itself, maybe moving into that version and growing. That version then steps up and expands. And again. And again. How many iterations would it take before that intelligence outstripped anything we can even conceive of? How would so foreign a thing view us? Like we see monkeys? Probably more like how we see ants. We wouldn't be considered parents or grandparents. We'd be the dead-end branch in the tree of life that evolved into machines, like so many other extinct species leading up to us.

Ex Machina ends quietly, but it's a horrifying concept. We have a single intelligence, bent on staying alive and being free, able to manipulate and control people with extreme subtlety and patience that no human could ever be capable of and it's simply lose in the world. It's a brand new species on the planet. For any species to survive it needs to have offspring and secure the competition for resources.

Jeff V wrote:BTW, Elon Musk was on TV the other day beating the drum..."The end of the world is neigh! Teh evil robots will be doom to us all!"

Apparently, you really can't construct a valid AI without including a "kill all humans" subroutine. Who knew?

At least they will have electric cars to drive around in.

Jaymann wrote:

Jeff V wrote:BTW, Elon Musk was on TV the other day beating the drum..."The end of the world is neigh! Teh evil robots will be doom to us all!"

Apparently, you really can't construct a valid AI without including a "kill all humans" subroutine. Who knew?

At least they will have electric cars to drive around in.

I am reading Robopocalypse now. I assure you, those cars will be the death of millions.

Jeff V wrote:BTW, Elon Musk was on TV the other day beating the drum..."The end of the world is neigh! Teh evil robots will be doom to us all!"

Apparently, you really can't construct a valid AI without including a "kill all humans" subroutine. Who knew?

Maybe they would just have to insert a "necessary evil" function in order for them to understand our necessity here instead of just wiping us out? Won't know until Will Smith comes to save us apparently

Paingod wrote: Ex Machina ends quietly, but it's a horrifying concept. We have a single intelligence, bent on staying alive and being free, able to manipulate and control people with extreme subtlety and patience that no human could ever be capable of and it's simply lose in the world. It's a brand new species on the planet. For any species to survive it needs to have offspring and secure the competition for resources.

I think her lack of conscience at the end makes her a sociopath.

Doesn't that require her to be part of a society? Sociopath is no longer an official category, seeing as the implication is that it's noncompliance with societal norms.

From what I've read, she's not antisocial. She was deliberately excluded from society. As a machine, empathy and remorse would have had to be programmed in, so it's certainly not a rejection or failure to exhibit it.

Labelling her a sociopath is too simplistic...and wrong.

I wouldn't think it's possible for a robot to be a sociopath.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Damn it, we just lost power, so my almost done reply is gone I'll try again.

Yes, I wasn't focusing on the anti-social part of the definition, but on the lack of conscience Ava seemed to display with regard to Caleb's situation as she's leaving. It's pretty well displayed that Nathan's compound is extremely remote and it is likely that no one is visiting unless scheduled by Nathan. Even if manipulated, Caleb was helping her escape, and was himself an unwitting pawn in the whole scenario. I guess you could argue that Ava was simply leaving Caleb in the same predicament she was placed and could possibly imply "revenge", but I think that would have been achieved when Kyoko decided to do some exploratory surgery on Nathan.

I guess I simply can't imagine an intelligent being allowing a potentially slow death to purposely occur to another intelligent being unless there was something inherently wrong with their psyche. It's entirely possible that she would call or notify someone to let him go, but I'm just basing things on what we could see.

Without conscience, I'm sure a machine could simply process the problem as an equation to solve. With that said, the Turing Test doesn't seem to have an emotional component, so I guess my definition of A.I. would require it to have a conscience if we are using ourselves as an example.

How could there be something wrong with her psyche? She has no psyche.

A poor choice of words on my part, but I meant mind or electronic equivalent. The aspect that makes her intelligent? Again, I'm basing this on creating an artificial human. I think Data on ST:TNG is a good example of an artificial human (albeit without emotion). An intelligent machine dressed up in human body like a Terminator provides the appearance of intelligence without any conscience and will happily destroy any person or thing in the way of achieving its goal.

I think Ava is possibly something in the middle of these two extremes.

It's a great movie and it's fun to discuss the ending with people when they watch it at our house.

Buatha wrote:A poor choice of words on my part, but I meant mind or electronic equivalent. The aspect that makes her intelligent? Again, I'm basing this on creating an artificial human. I think Data on ST:TNG is a good example of an artificial human (albeit without emotion). An intelligent machine dressed up in human body like a Terminator provides the appearance of intelligence without any conscience and will happily destroy any person or thing in the way of achieving its goal.

I think Ava is possibly something in the middle of these two extremes.

It's a great movie and it's fun to discuss the ending with people when they watch it at our house.

I watched it three times in one week, each time with different people, and it was cool to see each other's side of it from different perspectives. Always catch something small each time you watch it too, hidden gems/hints

Very much enjoyed the movie.

On the practical standpoint, I was wondering who built these machines? Especially if the owner is getting pissed drunk constantly and only good for an hour or two a day. It would take dozens of technicians hundreds or thousands of hours to build each one, but where are they? Buried out back?