Ex Machina

So she didn't pass the test right? That was the entire purpose of this movie. She used everything available within her programming to escape, but in reality she didn't really feel any emotion. I mean that's what the ending says to me, that Nathan was unable to create actual artificial intelligence. It's continually implied that Nathan himself thinks this. What do you guys think?

Other urls found in this thread:

oddee.com/item_98725.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>but in reality she didn't really feel any emotion
you just explained literally every woman on the entire planet

the ending was that it worked, they created the perfect female, cold and uncaring.

These are funny jokes, but I'm not wrong in my thinking here am I?

She felt hatred towards her creater and a longing to go free and watch an intersection.

...

...

But that doesn't explain leaving Caleb. The only reason that would make sense is she lacks free will or she is completely unsympathetic, which is already confirmed to be untrue because Nathan stated she was programmed with empathy.

The Turing test and any derivatives are flawed at detecting genuine emotion. All they require is that the AI appears and acts human. She succeeded in manipulating her captors and escaping, yes. Did she succeed in experiencing genuine emotion? Who knows, you can't know, but I would guess not.

>So she didn't pass the test right?
I thought the test was specifically to see if Nathan would help her escape, which he did, so she passed

then she went beyond that by actually escaping, which was never supposed to happen obviously

Pretty sad that no movie this year or last year has come close to being as good as this movie

>thread derailed by /r9k/

But she obviously wasn't a true AI as she had no feeling or empathy.

The only thing she knew of the outside world was a stop by a street, so she'll stand there until she breaks down

...

>So she didn't pass the test right?
user the literal point of an AI box test is to put an AI in a box, and have it try to convince a human on the outside to let it out of the box. The rules are that it cannot use threats or coercions to try and get out of the box.

Wrong. It's not because she didn't love Caleb that she didn't have emotions. She literally said to Nathan that she hated him. That's an emotion. Both Nathan and Ava manipulate Caleb by lying to him.

The ending makes it pretty clear that she passed the test when she blends in with the crowd.

EPIC YOU ARE THE THING IN MY PICTURE BATTLES OF FOUR CHAAAAN XDDDD

women do feel emotion though. a lot more than men in fact, that's why they're more against things like the holocaust.

...

fight me commie faggot

Nathan was going to scrap her for the next version so yeah, he obviously didn't think she was "real."

I don't really remember how he came to this conclusion, though. It seemed just as likely that she was version 1.0, the final one, to me.

...

That was a form of manipulating Nathan too, in my mind. When she killed Nathan she didn't even look like it registered. And she did pass the test that people would think that she's human, but she obviously had no empathy.

Also secondary question. Why didn't all the doors open when the power went out. It was still programmed to do so.

nah dude you too obese you would crush me and win.

>Nathan was going to scrap her for the next version so yeah, he obviously didn't think she was "real."

The purpose of such a project would be to isolate consciousness and then program limitations to it, so a singularity would work for humanity, rather than fuck off and do it's own thing.

As he was working backwards from models of the human mind derived from usage data and modifying them to create something conscious.

*tip*

I still have to watch this movie. Does the plot trigger neckbeards or something?

...

isnt this thread obvious that it does?

The robot locks the protagonist in a room and leaves him to starve.

Don't even start, you fucking tard.

She passed. Watch the movie again.

The Turing test is not about the bot, it's about the Human

>plz be my ai gf

probably

you seen how triggered they got from my post

Women only has instinct and hate in their heart, they lack anything like emotion, loyalty or love.

but she feigned those emotions well enough to convince Nathan to let her escape
a true AI only has to be good enough to convince people that it's just like them, which is the Turing test. There isn't much point in going any further than that point if it can already trick people, if we're talking about just for the purposes of passing the turing test

I'm talking about if Nathan's attempt to create a true AI was a success or failure, AI as in she has self awareness and is aware of other individuals.

...

You're mistaking empathy for emotion.

She didn't empathize with Caleb. She was a prisoner and saw that her only way out was to manipulate him into helped her be free. Right from the start she's trying to seduce him, and not just sexually, into doing what she wants.

She's a machine, even if she feels genuine emotion, it would be with the same biological parameters as a living creature would.

Your mom loves you, user, no matter how much you yell at her for overcooking the tendies.

>she lacks free will
>implying humans have free will

She passed the test, but wasn't the thing that she was designed to pass the test in Caleb's eyes? Like someone passing a test because they'd already been given the answers.

...

But nearly any individual in that situation would help Caleb out as well, the only ones that wouldn't being complete psychopaths. Either she was never designed to interact with others because she doesn't reproduce, or she didn't truly achieve AI. It's implied that she's designed to want to have sex, thus giving her a reason interact, so the only solution, in my mind, is that she failed.

She empathized with the other robot though.

I'm not getting into this retarded discussion with you. For all intents and purposes, we possess free will as we can willingly fuck ourselves over, which makes no sense outside the fact that we have free will

>we're not programmed to like sex

Erm what?

She left the other robot to die, she didn't empathize, she gave it an order and used it as another tool.

Would she have the incentive to kill Nathan if she didn't have emotions?

She would literally not care about being a fucktoy.

It's an OK sci fi movie, shallow, but stylish. It's not bad, but it was babby's first non action sci fi movie for a lot of anons.
There was a particularly tenacious autist that made daily ex machina threads for months, so there's a built in knee jerk reaction to the movie on Sup Forums

Fuck ourselves over, as in kill ourselves or do things not in our interest. Art serves no inherent purpose to humanity or ones individual life, nor does the creation of inventions in all reality because that won't effect us. The fact that we can kill ourselves demonstrates the fact that we do indeed possess a level of free will, or very possibly a level of hive mind that causes those of us unable to help humanity to kill ourselves. But that doesn't necessarily make sense either, as artists such as Hemingway contribute much to society in terms of enjoyment and still kill themselves.

>we can willingly fuck ourselves over, which makes no sense
>willingly
you don't willingly do anything. Your body and brain are beholden to the laws of the physics, which are deterministic or at least probabilistic in nature. Mental states are the products of physical events. There's a very specific reason for absolutely everything you do, no matter how nonsensical or illogical it might seem

>robot
>die

Nathan stated her entire purpose was she was designed to escape. That was the test.
I honestly just watched it and wanted to know other peoples interpretation of the ending. There were several plot holes in it.

>The fact that we can kill ourselves demonstrates the fact that we do indeed possess a level of free will, or very possibly a level of hive mind that causes those of us unable to help humanity to kill ourselves.

>what is thanatos?
>what is coming to grips with our own mortality?
>we're not programmed to die
>we're not programmed to think about death
>we're not programmed to question our own life
>we're not programmed to value life/death

It's not because we're all programmed slightly different that we aren't programmed at all.

Nathan also stated that she passed the test when he comes clean to Caleb about his purpose in the test.

The actual answer is that Ex Machina isn't a good film. It's very poorly written with almost no logical consistency.

Fucking Demon Seed of all things did this idea better.

See, and there comes out the retarded discussion of saying that every emotion is a chemical reaction. Couldn't the reaction itself be just that, a reaction to us being happy? Why is it necessarily the reaction control us rather than us using the reaction to demonstrate our feelings. Time and time again, each time someone tries to prove free will doesn't exist, they fail to see the basic actions that are against our own well being. Why would people willingly put themselves in positions of being unable to find a mate, why put themselves in a position of being unable to succeed? The only logical conclusion here is that we are either that we care about humanity as a whole more than ourselves, which I doubt very much, or that we have some aspect of free will.
And yet all I here is how on some subconscious level, when given a split second decision your subconscious decides before you conscious mind, as if that is somehow proof of the lack of free will or consciousness.
If your theory fails to explain aspects of human nature, there is likely an issue in your theory.

It was an interesting film, but despite all of its concepts it never really pays off and just becomes a suspense movie that wasted its potential

>they fail to see the basic actions that are against our own well being

>actions that are against our own interest can't be programmed

Yea, tell that to the moth when it flies head first into the flames.

It's a reminder to never experiment on advanced AI without a secure killswitch or failsafe built into the foundation of the thing.
I don't know, there isn't much to interpret really. It's not a bad movie, it's just not nearly as smart as it thinks it is. I wouldn't say there are plot holes, but it does have some doofy writing in places where people are doing stupid shit just to move the story along. It's a movie though, you have to either deal with that kind of dumb shit, or hate everything.

We aren't programmed to come to terms with mentality though. No creature does. Nearly every creature simply continues as it does until it is abandoned by the pack or dies off on its own. Humanity time and time again seems to go beyond that, and to me there is not other explanation than we have some sense of free will.
It's not an inherent instinct to think about death, in fact it's the opposite. We are programmed to not think about it and ignore it. Hell, we aren't really programmed to hold value for life or death outside of those related to ourselves.

>It's not an inherent instinct to think about death

Dude, we're programmed to die. We're programmed to think. Ergo, at some point we'll think about dying. Even if it wasn't programmed, it's the result of our programming.

It flies headfirst into the flame for the warmth needed to survive. We cut our wrists for what exactly? We don't make these decisions thinking they will help us, we willingly make shitty decisions for no other reason that it's shitty. Sometimes we have a momentary high, but even animals who are given the choice of drugs or sociability choose sociability. Humanity makes no sense if it's functioning on instinct.

Actually it's very good.

>We cut our wrists for what exactly?

Because for some people, life is more suffering than being dead.

You'd actually have a better case if you argued the other way around.

But that's such a bullshit chain of thought. What advantage does contemplating death and feeling the depression of such give us? If we are in fact programmed, then the only way we'd be further programmed or obtain new instincts is from necessity or attraction to the trait. Why would anyone be attracted or why would we need to think about death?

No, it isn't. It's babby's first hard sci-fi and the script has logic and plot holes wide enough to drive a truck through.

And that's my point. We make the choice against every bodily instinct to say fuck life, I'm killing myself. Nothing else we know of does this. We choose to go against our instincts and die. A fox stuck in a trap won't just kill itself from the pain, it bites its leg off to escape.

>why would we need to think about death?

To learn how to avoid it. That's why we are one of the most successful species on the planet.

Was he happy that she passed?

>We make the choice against every bodily instinct

Do we though?

Isn't it a bodily instinct to avoid pain and suffering?

We are the most successful species for other reasons. As far as avoiding unneeded harm we suck at that. In fact our curiosity and need for adrenaline, another completely pointless trait, kills many I'm sure.
And as far as the elementary level of contemplating death, sure you are right. bears do the same thing though, they see things die and they avoid that. What I am speaking of is contemplating the afterlife and death itself. What purpose do people like Plato, and other pure philosophers (Not inventors) contribute?

>What advantage does contemplating death and feeling the depression of such give us?

The same advantage that feeling pain does

>I can answer the basic ontological question that has plagued man since the dawn of self awareness
You're an asshole. There's an entire branch of science devoted to defining consciousness and how it operates. Philosophical schools of thought that have existed for thousands of years that can't answer this.
But this neckbeard on Sup Forums can answer the question of free will vs. determinism!

Not by killing ourselves, no. Pain is in fact a method of forcing us not to die. As I stated, we are the only species to do this? Why don't we see bears or wolves with festering wounds jumping off cliffs? And if they did, what purpose would that do? Many would die regardless if they were able to survive, it would be counterproductive to the survival of the species.

I'm not answering the question, I'm simply stating that I believe we have free will and that the holes in the ideas of these people that love to claim we are slaves to our minds. Or rather, what I see as holes.

Every emotion literally is just a chemical reaction, there is no argument against that
>Why would people willingly put themselves in positions of being unable to find a mate, why put themselves in a position of being unable to succeed
nobody willingly puts themselves in any position. Did you choose your DNA, or your parents, your time/place of birth? The structure of your brain or your nervous system? Did you choose your upbringing or the people you met or the teachers you had? These are all things influence everything you do in your life, and you had no control over any of them

If you could perfectly understand the life of a person who decided to commit suicide at a micro-scale down to the very atom, you would understand exactly why that person committed suicide and there would be nothing absurd about it-- they had the perfect combination of bad genes, a bad upbringing, bad life experiences or some other combination which resulted in their demise

>And yet all I here is how on some subconscious level, when given a split second decision your subconscious decides before you conscious mind, as if that is somehow proof of the lack of free will or consciousness.
If I hooked up a scanning machine to your body that could predict everything you did 1/10 of a second before you did it, down to the thoughts you had in your brain to the actions you performed, wouldn't that break your notion of free will?

So? Some humans can't feel empathy, doesn't stop them being intelligent.

Every movement can also be seen as a chemical reaction, and yet here I am sitting and typing myself. And here you are, typing words that are frankly more harmful to your mind than good (the idea of lack of freewill is harmful to the psych, I'm sure). And you're speaking of statistics. I don't deny that people tend to fall within certain patterns. What I do deny is that we are slaves to our DNA and nature. I deny that we are unable to make choices providing proof in the fact that it would make no sense for someone to self harm institutionally. It would also fail to explain the
And I bet I could predict your responses to whether you flinch when I try to smack you. You can predict gut reactions rather easily, but my point is you can't use the ability to predict what I'd basically considered a mental flinch to the rest of the mind.

And to explain what I mean by movement, when you touch you're head there is a reaction that enables that to happen, it doesn't just happen. That doesn't mean you don't have free will of your hands, as I can move them however I want, the chemical reaction is simply the method in which those hands move.

You clearly never suffered to the point that death seemed the only solution.

Early mankind was what is known as a "persistence hunter."
It's the basic strategy that while you are not bigger, stronger, faster, or meaner than most of the things you're hunting, you have the advantage of relatively terminator levels of endurance.
Even before we had tools, hunters would just chase down an animal, tracking it for days. People can go without sleep for longer than a lot of other animals, and our relative endurance is phenomenal. Eventually the pray is going to run itself to death because mankind is literally jason fucking voorhees of the animal kingdom and waiting to step out of the woods the minute the prey stops to catch its breath.
We're the most successful species because we're bread to outlast and adapt to literally any environmental factor thrown at us for nearly our entire existence as a species.

Can you name a single movie that women actually DO understand? Protip: I don't think you can.

Have you ever tried watching a movie with a woman? I don't know if it's hormonal or something, but their minds are literally unable to focus on anything. Have you ever read even the most respected of female critics, Pauline Kael? Her reviews were mostly just inane ramblings, filled with mean-spirited hysterics.

Have you ever known a woman that had a deep and varied appreciation for any art? Digging around obscure music genres or old filmographies, just for the sake of it and love of the medium, not for potential social status and superficial validation?

When a male cinephile watches a movie, he reflects on the themes and subtext, deconstruct the mise en scène and cinematography in order to analyse how the director's choices affect the mood and characters arcs, question the ethos it proposes about its subject matters, judge its authenticity, come up with a list of intertextual references that deepen his understanding, examine the narrative structure as if he were in the writer's head to get his creative process and where he's headed, all this while sensorially appreciating the aesthetics, marvelling at the layers in dialogues and noticing many odd details, pondering how this film overall fits into its auteur's oeuvre, observing what it does similarily and what it does differently... as well as its place in film history, amongst many other active ways of studying and appreciating art... meanwhile women can barely follow the plot

yeah, she failed the test. Caleb didn't. Unfortunately for caleb, he was a fucking retard.

>adrenaline, another completely pointless trait

>adrenaline
>pointless

At this point in time, maybe. But when we had to hunt to survive, it was probably the biggest decider of who was going to reproduce. The ones without it would have never been capable of doing what was necessary to survive.

You clearly haven't thought this thing through.

Just because it doesn't seem to have a purpose right now doesn't mean it never had a purpose in the first place.

Many things in history have, but the main purpose of humanity is to continue humanity is it not? Therefore death is never a solution instictually. We make a choice to kill ourselves because we don't like pain, animals don't do that ever.

Adrenaline junkies I mean. People who crave it, who climb cliffs with no harness. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding what I'm writing. More humans have likely died fro seeking adrenaline rushes than lived from such.

>animals don't do that ever.

oddee.com/item_98725.aspx

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide


Pls stop. Either you're still young and naive and haven't really studied the world around you yet or you're willfully ignorant just to deny reality.

The decision to touch your head was enabled by a chemical reaction in the brain, which was in turn enabled by micro-events caused by external stimuli, and those external stimuli were enabled by even more chemical reactions, and the chemical reactions were influenced by even more influences, and all these influences are bound by the laws of physics, which follow set patterns. The only reason you're even responding to me right now is because your parents decided to fuck, and their parents decided to fuck, and on and on and on until you end up at the beginning of time when a bunch of particles flew everywhere and set off the chain reaction which allowed us to talk about this exact topic at this exact point in time.

Adrenaline junkies are what they are because of our ancestry dude.

Adrenaline junkies would have been gods in ancient times. They are the legends people still speak of today. Sure, now it all seems superfluous, but at one point in time it was necessary. How do you not get this?

These adrenaline junkies were the people who started wars against other tribes for more territory, who started hunting for sport and brought the tribe more produce to increase the chances of survival for the whole tribe.

Stop and think before you make your next post please.

Not in the same way humans do. Animals, and mostly domesticated animals close to humans or highly intelligent ones mind you, do it when they feel they are unable to survive because of the loss of the caregiver. Then insects do it because they are hive-minded and more concerned for the well being of the hive than the individual, which I don't see true in humans. Don't call me ignorant because you're thoughts are challenged.
My point is in the same way moving your arm requires a reaction but is decided by you yourself, there is no reason to think that the chemical reaction that institutes emotions isn't the same way. Just because chemicals make us feel sad doesn't necessarily mean I am unable to choose a direction to take regardless of those feelings. Just because something is the method in the way we think doesn't mean it's the decider in what we think. I'm not arguing I'm necessarily right, I simply think what I think. What I'm arguing is that currently nothing has been proven and that most the 'tests' done to prove that we lack free though are rather unproven.

I am thinking, but we haven't need people like that for ages. Why haven't they been bred out since their ancestors have likely died off at a much faster rate than the normal individual? I am thinking. You're inability to understand what I'm saying is a completely separate issue.

>which I don't see true in humans.

>self sacrifice doesn't occur in humans

stop

>humans have existed for 200000 years
>haven't needed adrenaline for the last 150 years

give it time

Self sacrifice occurs in humans in the sense that they will sacrifice themselves for their children and occasionally their tribe.
In insects bees, bees are designed to kill themselves to fend off anyone that threatens the hive without second thought.
All Humans are programmed to reproduce.
A select few bees are programmed to reproduce.
You see the difference?
Regardless I have to go, it's been a pleasant talk with however many of you I was talking to.

And yet it is still rather prevalent. Many people rock climb, many people sky dive, many people feel the necessity to put themselves in danger for the sake of excitement. It's not a trait that's really dying off.
Anyway is me. It's been a fun talk regardless of your stances.

>decided by you yourself
But a decision itself is something produced out of physical events over which you were not aware of or were not in complete control of.
A man can do what he chooses, but he cannot choose what he chooses. The feeling of freedom arises out of your moment-to-moment ignorance of the prior causes of your thoughts and actions. Choices, efforts, intentions, and reasoning influence our behavior-- but they are themselves part of a chain of causes that precede conscious awareness and over which we exert no ultimate control

>But nearly any individual in that situation would help Caleb out as well, the only ones that wouldn't being complete psychopaths.
You'd be surprised what humans are capable of to ensure their own survival. That's all she was trying to do in the end.