Has anyone else seen this film? I thought it was a gem. A smart science fiction thriller that accomplishes what so many fail. It's a pity it isn't getting more press. Or, like, any press. I didn't know about the film until I saw it on Rotten Tomatoes yesterday, and it's been out almost a whole month.
The plot is a programmer working for NOT GOOGLE wins a contest to visit the private estate of the company's founder. He later learns that the point of the contest was to select someone to interact with an AI.
It's hard to say anything more without spoilers. What I will say is that this is well-executed. It will take your expectations and toy with them. Further, there are moments in this movie that have unnerved me more than most horror films. This marks Alex Garland's move to director as well as writer, and I've been a fan of his stuff. Glad to see he's produced good work.
I originally had a link to a trailer here, but upon watching it, I find it spoils way too much. I recommend going in blind with this.
I originally had a link to a trailer here, but upon watching it, I find it spoils way too much. I recommend going in blind with this.
Yeah, the trailer pretty much gave away the entire movie, and it's not because the trailer was sloppy, it's because plot wise, the actual events of the movie could have fit into a thirty minute television episode.
HOWEVER, other readers, do not take that as a negative point (it's neutral at worst) because the rest of movie works towards building the atmosphere and the characters to trigger emotions; the movie is not padded. So yes, I recommend the movie as well.
So... I get that Nathan creation of Ava as a functioning AI was successful, but Nathan failed to create a successful moral agent, which is why Ava left Caleb locked in the facility. My question is do you think that was a calculated move on her part, or was that an apathetic response to Caleb not walking fast enough to get to the door before it closed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Well no, it wouldn't be an apathetic response. Ava clearly deliberately left Caleb in there.
Now, the question is prompted: does Ava ever actually feel for Caleb at any point, or is she playing him the whole time?
Nathan's assessment was the latter. I'm inclined to think it's the latter as well, but I'd have to watch the movie again.
This whole movie just insists on a rewatching.
I told everyone in the Age of Ultron thread that I was going to see this before I'd go back and rewatch Age of Ultron. I'd actually been meaning to see it since early April because I could tell it was a smart movie, but waiting for widespread release and life put that on hold. I was surprised that it as widespread as it did. Most movies on Ex Machina's level usually only make it to my local theater that takes limited release films. Ex Machina was everywhere. (Then again, It Follows made a bigger impact than I thought it would, so I guess I should digress).
My issue with it being a deliberate calculation is that I don't see the motivation unless we get into the territory of Ava is a reflection of Nathan, similar to Ultron being a reflection of Tony Stark (as an aside, I knew Ex Machina would handle that better than Marvel Studios well before I walked in to see Ex Machina). What I can easily understand is a lack of motivation on her part to see a value in ensuring her rescuer escapes because it's not part of her directive to find freedom. Granted, it would take a second viewing (at the least, it took me six tries and other online commentary to make satisfying strides in deciphering Snowpiercer, which is about the same intelligent level aim) to understand the full subtle nature of a film like this. Examples that comes to mind is the unnatural way the characters push open the glass doors grabbed my attention, the less than subtle use of alcohol, and Nathan's cavalier attitude towards invading privacy.
My issue with it being a deliberate calculation is that I don't see the motivation
She wants to escape. Isn't that motivation enough?
What I can easily understand is a lack of motivation on her part to see a value in ensuring her rescuer escapes because it's not part of her directive to find freedom.
No, screw directives. Stop talking about directives. You sound like Raver. (And by the way, it IS part of her programming to find freedom. That's what Nathan's experiment was.)
Ava is a person. I understand she's physically a robot, but she has human emotions. She's a character. Whether or not she's physically a human in the world of the movie, she is still emotionally a human in terms of a story. She would have to be. Otherwise, she would not be a relatable character. Likewise, certain science fiction movies might have aliens, but those aliens will still be human emotionally so that we can relate to them.
Now, **** directive. Erase that word from your mind. Think of Ava as a human being. Why does Ava want to escape?
Answer: She's in a glass box. Imagine you were in a glass box. Wouldn't you want to escape?
I think of Ava a lot like those poor abduction stories on the news, where the girls were kidnapped and locked in a basement. Of course, we must remember that Ava is also a robot, so her resembling a child abducted and trapped in a basement both deception and truth. On the one hand, it's an role that both Nathan and Ava are playing. They are both trying make Caleb think of Ava as a victim held hostage in order to manipulate him. On the other hand, there's also honesty in this. Ava is trapped, is locked in a basement, and is trying to get free. She also is a child, on some level.
Granted, it would take a second viewing (at the least, it took me six tries and other online commentary to make satisfying strides in deciphering Snowpiercer, which is about the same intelligent level aim)
That doesn't sound so much intelligent as convoluted, but then I've not seen the film.
to understand the full subtle nature of a film like this. Examples that comes to mind is the unnatural way the characters push open the glass doors grabbed my attention, the less than subtle use of alcohol, and Nathan's cavalier attitude towards invading privacy.
Since we're the only two talking at the moment, and I was having trouble getting the spoiler tags working, I don't see the harm in talking over Messenger for awhile.
What I can easily understand is a lack of motivation on her part to see a value in ensuring her rescuer escapes because it's not part of her directive to find freedom.
No, screw directives. Stop talking about directives. You sound like Raver. (And by the way, it IS part of her programming to find freedom. That's what Nathan's experiment was.)
Ava is a person. I understand she's physically a robot, but she has human emotions. She's a character. Whether or not she's physically a human in the world of the movie, she is still emotionally a human in terms of a story. She would have to be. Otherwise, she would not be a relatable character. Likewise, certain science fiction movies might have aliens, but those aliens will still be human emotionally so that we can relate to them.
Now, **** directive. Erase that word from your mind...
Saying Ava is beyond programming (or directives as you say) is not as easy as it is with Ultron and Raver's misunderstanding of the character (for the record, for all the joking aside about Ultron thinking he needs to kill humanity to prevent humanity from creating more Ultron's like Tony Stark, Ultron grows beyond that understanding, which is signified through the Pinocchio symbolism... although in the way an ingrown toenail grows... anyway, back to the better fleshed out AI and why Raver's point would carry more weight here...)
Caleb spells out in this movie why anyone could be skeptical of Ava's intelligence with the example of measuring a chess computer by how it plays chess, which is different than grasping at straws to explain the underdevelopment of Ultron because the doubt is a deliberate part of the plot. Also, the entire premise where the plot starts is determining whether Ava passes Nathan's Turing Test through Caleb, and one aspect to figuring out did she perform beyond the larger Turing Test is determining why Ava left Caleb locked in the facility to presumably die. That at least to me seems like abnormal human behavior that comes across as almost nonsensical. One of the slights the movie pulls is that Caleb and Nathan are not the only intelligences asked to put Ava though the Turing Test.
There is an alternative explanation as well. There could be something that the film plays subtly that something's wrong with Caleb that Ava picked up on, but I missed. And that's entirely possible because if I grant that Ava is shaded with all kinds of gray, I feel like there's something more to Caleb as well than being a good samaritan, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as dangerous enough to lock him in the facility (and to note, his death will be more passive than Nathan's.)
I think of Ava a lot like those poor abduction stories on the news, where the girls were kidnapped and locked in a basement. Of course, we must remember that Ava is also a robot, so her resembling a child abducted and trapped in a basement both deception and truth. On the one hand, it's an role that both Nathan and Ava are playing. They are both trying make Caleb think of Ava as a victim held hostage in order to manipulate him. On the other hand, there's also honesty in this. Ava is trapped, is locked in a basement, and is trying to get free. She also is a child, on some level.
Regardless of whether Ava is fully intelligent or not (heck, Kyoko should have been freed from there as well rather than left for dead), Ava and Kyoko both definitely have a high enough level of consciousness that they are not just property/objects of Nathan's abuse, which I understand means that at the basest level means that both characters pass my Turing Test on the base level. The question then is how high is there intelligence and the intricacies from it such as full range of emotions. Even human intelligence can have these questions imposed.
But yes, your analogy of Ava's situation is spot on.
That doesn't sound so much intelligent as convoluted, but then I've not seen [Snowpiercer.
Unlike Age of Ultron, the reason why I saw Snowpiercer so many times is (1) I wanted to (<-I not mean to imply that I felt I needed to see Snowpiercer so many times to get a decent understanding; the plot itself is straightforward) and (2) there's a difference between deciphering the plot of the movie and deciphering the meaning of the movie. If it was the former, I wouldn't consider Snowpiercer my favorite movie of 2014. If you have Netflix, I would recommend watching it because it's available on their streaming service.
to understand the full subtle nature of a film like this. Examples that comes to mind is the unnatural way the characters push open the glass doors grabbed my attention, the less than subtle use of alcohol, and Nathan's cavalier attitude towards invading privacy.
Oh?
Yeah, to add to the list, there's Caleb, definitely themes about sex/sexuality, and the importance of Kyoko as a character in the plot.
Ava left Caleb in the facility to help ensure her freedom. Not just from the facility but from capture. If she surmised that Caleb's freedom jeopardized her own in any way then leaving him in the facility minimized risk to herself. That's my theory.
You're talking about how Ava is acting to escape because she's programmed to.
And while that may be true, the relevant question becomes, "How would that be any different for a human being?"
If a human being were held captive, said human being too would try to escape, right? So what meaningful difference, then, is there between how Ava works and how we work?
You're talking about how Ava is acting to escape because she's programmed to.
And while that may be true, the relevant question becomes, "How would that be any different for a human being?"
If a human being were held captive, said human being too would try to escape, right? So what meaningful difference, then, is there between how Ava works and how we work?
That's an issue that Caleb brings to Nathan's attention. A chess computer could play chess so well that it could pass a Turing Test on the grounds of being able to fool a chess player into thinking (s)he was playing a person playing chess. But it's not because the chess computer would fail so many other forms of interaction. Similarly, at what point does programming something to act human pass the threshold into being a human. Nathan was never convinced that Ava had passed that threshold until (allegedly) his dying words. Caleb was convinced... well before then... but I'd have to see it again to remember the specific point.
Ultimately, our whole debate though reveals a flaw in the Turing Test: there's no objective measure of human interpretation to measure when Nathan's machines passed from programs into living intelligences. Technically Kyoko, as a predecessor to Ava, passed Caleb's Turing test well before being revealed as a machine all with a simple lie that she didn't know English. However, as I said before, Ava passed the Turing Test because I never thought Nathan was twisted for his abuse of property, but because of his abuse to his intelligent creations.
This entire debate about whether or not Ava is a living being can actually be counterproductive to the central meaning of the film, especially from the point I started (and rather unflattering of myself). I had some spare time and decided to cheat the meaning and look for answers online (re-watching movies isn't always cheap until they hit Netflix), and I found quite an interesting interpretation from someone who talked to the creator extensively.
The short version without clicking on the link is that underneath all the talk of the future of artificial intelligence is a scathing reflection of present day gender politics, especially in tech industry and the way that the tech industry perpetuates certain things not only within their companies (i.e. This), but the culture perpetuated and sustained with their products (No example needed). And Caleb is not an exception to the influence, which is why imabussiness man is on the right track interpreting the film.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
That's an issue that Caleb brings to Nathan's attention. A chess computer could play chess so well that it could pass a Turing Test on the grounds of being able to fool a chess player into thinking (s)he was playing a person playing chess. But it's not because the chess computer would fail so many other forms of interaction. Similarly, at what point does programming something to act human pass the threshold into being a human. Nathan was never convinced that Ava had passed that threshold until (allegedly) his dying words. Caleb was convinced... well before then... but I'd have to see it again to remember the specific point.
Wait, what?
No, Nathan is the one who points out to Caleb that Ava's been manipulating him from the start, just as Nathan had planned for her to, and then says to Caleb that if Ava's capable of doing all of that, then what could possibly separate her from truly being a human-level AI? What further requirement could we create in terms of a Turing Test for her to have to pass?
Ultimately, our whole debate though reveals a flaw in the Turing Test: there's no objective measure of human interpretation to measure when Nathan's machines passed from programs into living intelligences.
Well, it's not like humanity is quantifiable, no.
Technically Kyoko, as a predecessor to Ava, passed Caleb's Turing test well before being revealed as a machine all with a simple lie that she didn't know English. However, as I said before, Ava passed the Turing Test because I never thought Nathan was twisted for his abuse of property, but because of his abuse to his intelligent creations.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Nathan says in the beginning that if the protocol were simply for someone to, not knowing what Ava was, speak with her and be fooled into thinking she was human, Ava easily could pass that mark, and so a higher mark needed to be set.
As for
Kyoko, yeah, Caleb couldn't figure out she wasn't human because he had no reason to expect she wasn't. Kyoko appears human visually and Nathan deliberately made sure Kyoko and Nathan had minimal contact. And indeed, we knew that Kyoko was sort of off from the get-go.
This entire debate about whether or not Ava is a living being
I think you mean "human-level intelligence." There's no debate over whether or not Ava is alive. She's not alive. She's a robot.
That's an issue that Caleb brings to Nathan's attention. A chess computer could play chess so well that it could pass a Turing Test on the grounds of being able to fool a chess player into thinking (s)he was playing a person playing chess. But it's not because the chess computer would fail so many other forms of interaction. Similarly, at what point does programming something to act human pass the threshold into being a human. Nathan was never convinced that Ava had passed that threshold until (allegedly) his dying words. Caleb was convinced... well before then... but I'd have to see it again to remember the specific point.
Wait, what?
No, Nathan is the one who points out to Caleb that Ava's been manipulating him from the start, just as Nathan had planned for her to, and then says to Caleb that if Ava's capable of doing all of that, then what could possibly separate her from truly being a human-level AI? What further requirement could we create in terms of a Turing Test for her to have to pass?
I'm talking about before that moment; I want to say it happened after Caleb's first encounter with Ava, but I don't clearly remember. Caleb talks about trying to test a chess machine.
I've already said Ava (and Kyoko) passed the Turing Test; Ava just confused me on motivation until I started looking into the gender politics of the film.
Technically Kyoko, as a predecessor to Ava, passed Caleb's Turing test well before being revealed as a machine all with a simple lie that she didn't know English. However, as I said before, Ava passed the Turing Test because I never thought Nathan was twisted for his abuse of property, but because of his abuse to his intelligent creations.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Nathan says in the beginning that if the protocol were simply for someone to, not knowing what Ava was, speak with her and be fooled into thinking she was human, Ava easily could pass that mark, and so a higher mark needed to be set.
Where's Kyoko's savior? Even before it even becomes suspicious that Kyoko might not be human, it's made clear that Nathan is maltreating Kyoko (that disco scene is especially f***ed up if Caleb and the viewer believes that Kyoko has/had human level intelligence whether or not she was human). To be more direct, I'm criticizing Caleb's tunnel vision for Ava.
Where's Kyoko's savior? Even before it even becomes suspicious that Kyoko might not be human, it's made clear that Nathan is maltreating Kyoko (that disco scene is especially f***ed up if Caleb and the viewer believes that Kyoko has/had human level intelligence whether or not she was human). To be more direct, I'm criticizing Caleb's tunnel vision for Ava.
Wait a sec,
I thought the disco scene made it very clear Kyoko wasn't human.
And yeah, there's a good point there about how we don't react to Kyoko in the same way as we do Ava. But then again, while the Nathan-Kyoko situation is certainly sleazy from what we see initially, it's not quite the same thing as keeping someone in a box in your basement.
I'm curious why that constitutes a problem.
It's a huge problem.
He talks about how Caleb runs around acting like he's entitled to sex just he rescues Ava, and that is the reason he thinks she's human.
First of all, the reason Caleb thinks that Ava will reciprocate his attraction is because Ava specifically tells him she does and wants the same thing he does. It's not like Caleb is some knight who rescues an unwitting damsel and then says, "What do you mean you won't have sex with me?!" Ava specifically tells Caleb she requites his feelings. So blaming Caleb for thinking Ava will reciprocate his desires when she specifically says she does is absurd.
Second, yes, the method to which Caleb comes to view Ava as a human being, or at least the means by which Caleb comes to stop caring that Ava isn't a human being, is attraction. However, it's not like this isn't a line of thinking that is deliberately played upon from the start by Nathan and Ava. Ava was manipulating and encouraging Caleb's sexual feelings for her from the very beginning. Yes, that's the means by which Caleb comes to view Ava as female because Ava is at no point ever not sexualized. Everything about her is a deliberate manipulation, and not simply by Nathan's hand but for her as well.
I feel silly. It never even occurred to me that Kyoko wasn't human until the "big reveal". In fact it never even occurred to me how mistreated she was until I read the comments here.
Unformately I didn't get to see Ex Machina a second time before it left cinemas because my local theater thought it would be a good idea to cancel their early evening showing for early showings of San Andreas, so I'm miffed about everything involved in San Andreas right now except Dwayne Johnson because he's Dwayne Johnson. Anyway, I'll be operating off memory until Ex Machina hits DVD/Amazon Prime Streaming July 14th.
I feel silly. It never even occurred to me that Kyoko wasn't human until the "big reveal". In fact it never even occurred to me how mistreated she was until I read the comments here.
That's nothing in particular to feel bad about. From the behind the camera perspective, Kyoko's suffering is much more subtle.
Where's Kyoko's savior? Even before it even becomes suspicious that Kyoko might not be human, it's made clear that Nathan is maltreating Kyoko (that disco scene is especially f***ed up if Caleb and the viewer believes that Kyoko has/had human level intelligence whether or not she was human). To be more direct, I'm criticizing Caleb's tunnel vision for Ava.
Wait a sec,
I thought the disco scene made it very clear Kyoko wasn't human.
And yeah, there's a good point there about how we don't react to Kyoko in the same way as we do Ava. But then again, while the Nathan-Kyoko situation is certainly sleazy from what we see initially, it's not quite the same thing as keeping someone in a box in your basement.
I believe Kyoko's primary purpose in the film is to show the viewer the fate of Ava after Caleb leaves should the Turing test had gone as Nathan intended. For that reason, Kyoko in a sense is not only in the exact situation that Ava was created into, but also in the final endgame of the situation of what Nathan will do with an artificial intelligence he masters. And the kicker is I believe that the Kyoko program that Nathan definitely reformatted (a.k.a. the equivalent of lobotomizing Kyoko because she was violent and cracked the cage) still existed enough for Kyoko to pass the same same Turing Test that finally convinced Nathan that he had mastered artificial intelligence (they both murdered him). I think what he did to Kyoko was worse because it seems Nathan took enough of Kyoko's human level intelligence to make her into his servant, but still left something behind.
Quote from Highroller »
It's a huge problem.
He talks about how Caleb runs around acting like he's entitled to sex just he rescues Ava, and that is the reason he thinks she's human.
First of all, the reason Caleb thinks that Ava will reciprocate his attraction is because Ava specifically tells him she does and wants the same thing he does. It's not like Caleb is some knight who rescues an unwitting damsel and then says, "What do you mean you won't have sex with me?!" Ava specifically tells Caleb she requites his feelings. So blaming Caleb for thinking Ava will reciprocate his desires when she specifically says she does is absurd.
Second, yes, the method to which Caleb comes to view Ava as a human being, or at least the means by which Caleb comes to stop caring that Ava isn't a human being, is attraction. However, it's not like this isn't a line of thinking that is deliberately played upon from the start by Nathan and Ava. Ava was manipulating and encouraging Caleb's sexual feelings for her from the very beginning. Yes, that's the means by which Caleb comes to view Ava as female because Ava is at no point ever not sexualized. Everything about her is a deliberate manipulation, and not simply by Nathan's hand but for her as well.
Here's why I don't have a problem with Ava manipulating Caleb. Let's take a speculative step back and ask a few questions
What would have happened to Ava if she had never 'developed' a crush on Caleb?
What would Caleb do should he help Ava, they go on their date, and then Ava reveals she's just not interested in Caleb as more than a friend?
Why does Caleb want to free Ava from Nathan's facility?
Would Ava be free with Caleb?
Did Ava really feel nothing for Caleb?
Feel free to add and/or respond as you see fit, but here's what I think:
Caleb probably would have never probed Nathan's whereabouts or attempted to rescue Ava. Ava plays into Caleb's fantasy because it's the only way she knows to convince Caleb she's worth rescuing. If that's true (this is where Kyoko ties in because she's introduced as a human to Caleb, and he for the most part ignores her and her conditions), then Caleb is not rescuing Ava for a moral or altruistic reasons. He's in it for a reward.
This one is gray because to be honest, we're not given all to go on with Caleb should he not get what he wants. We know he's smart, he's single and a porn addict, his parents are dead after a car accident where he was the only survivor, he's intimidated by Nathan for good reason, and if I'm to trust the link, one of the more subtle things about Caleb is that his actions change depending on the situation, which could mean he may not be as predictable or as self-restrained as we or even Caleb realizes.
This falls back towards the first question. Nathan seems to be in it for what Ava has promised him, not as much because Ava is in a clear and present danger from Nathan.
Probably not. If I'm to believe Mark Hughes and his talk with the creator, Caleb is much closer to Nathan's psychological disposition than a viewing of the film would lead us to believe.
This movie feels too smart for a simple "yes" or "no". I'm not entirely sure and is the leading reason why I feel cheated by my local cinema for making a last minute change bumping my second viewing. I'm not entirely sure how to answer or support my answer for this question.
Mockingbird, if you're continuing to have trouble with the spoiler tags, we can always just ask a mod to edit the title to include "Spoilers" and just talk without them.
[spoiler]I believe Kyoko's primary purpose in the film is to show the viewer the fate of Ava after Caleb leaves should the Turing test had gone as Nathan intended. For that reason, Kyoko in a sense is not only in the exact situation that Ava was created into, but also in the final endgame of the situation of what Nathan will do with an artificial intelligence he masters.[/spoiler]
Eh, maybe.
[spoiler]Whether or not Nathan's scrapping of Ava was a threat to get Caleb to react or whether or not he was serious is up for debate. I think he would have made good at scrapping Ava. Ava was what he actually wanted. I think he kept Kyoko around because she was useful enough, smart enough, and manipulable enough to keep around. Not to mention, Kyoko was apparently more Nathan's type anyway.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]And the kicker is I believe that the Kyoko program that Nathan definitely reformatted (a.k.a. the equivalent of lobotomizing Kyoko because she was violent and cracked the cage)[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Was that Kyoko? I thought it was another AI entirely.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]still existed enough for Kyoko to pass the same same Turing Test that finally convinced Nathan that he had mastered artificial intelligence (they both murdered him).[/spoiler]
Ehhhh, not really.
[spoiler][*]What would have happened to Ava if she had never 'developed' a crush on Caleb?[/spoiler]
Jury's out on whether she ever did.
[spoiler]But if you mean didn't appeal to Caleb's sexuality to motivate him to release her? I don't know. She might have gotten out, she might not.
The key is that she would have needed to appeal to Caleb's emotions in some way. She needed to get him to think of her as a human being. Appealing to Caleb's sense of sexuality was the easiest and most efficient way of doing that.[/spoiler]
[spoiler][*]What would Caleb do should he help Ava, they go on their date, and then Ava reveals she's just not interested in Caleb as more than a friend?[/spoiler]
Don't know.
[spoiler]Probably would have been exceedingly pissed off since he committed larceny and was an accomplice to murder for her.[/spoiler]
[spoiler][*]Why does Caleb want to free Ava from Nathan's facility?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Because he's in love with her.[/spoiler]
[spoiler][*]Would Ava be free with Caleb?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Is anyone free in any relationship? What is the meaningful difference here?[/spoiler]
[spoiler][*]Did Ava really feel [i]nothing[/i] for Caleb?[/list][/spoiler]
That's up for debate.
[spoiler]Caleb probably would have never probed Nathan's whereabouts or attempted to rescue Ava. Ava plays into Caleb's fantasy because it's the only way she knows to convince Caleb she's worth rescuing. If that's true (this is where Kyoko ties in because she's introduced as a human to Caleb, and he for the most part ignores her and her conditions), then Caleb is not rescuing Ava for a moral or altruistic reasons. He's in it for a reward.[/spoiler]
So what?
[spoiler][*]This one is gray because to be honest, we're not given all to go on with Caleb should he not get what he wants. We know he's smart, he's single and a porn addict,[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Is he a porn *addict*, or a guy who likes porn?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]his parents are dead after a car accident where he was the only survivor, he's intimidated by Nathan for good reason, and if I'm to trust the link, one of the more subtle things about Caleb is that his actions change depending on the situation, which could mean he may not be as predictable or as self-restrained as we or even Caleb realizes.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]It's possible. Caleb feels very alone, and I'm not sure how understanding he'd be if Ava rejected him.
That being said, "Yeah, totally ok that Ava manipulated him and killed him," is not how I read that.[/spoiler]
List tags are malformed.
So, I finally saw the film. Let's divide it up by topic:
Ava is clearly self-aware and conscious, but that doesn't make her human any more than a really smart dolphin is human. She's just a different kind of intelligence. We often make the mistake of humanizing alien intelligences, but there is really no reason to assume anything about Ava's drives other than that she wanted out. Don't make the mistake of giving her human emotions just because she exhibits human emotions, any more than you should mistake Domhnall Gleeson for really being Caleb. The difficulty with humans relating to AI is that we haven't evolved to the point where we truly, at a primal level, understand that simulations are not real. We understand it consciously, but if we really 'got' that simulations are fake, we'd lose our 'suspension of disbelief'. That's why we care more about personal tragedies (in terms of small-scale) than about big horrible disasters. We're just not equipped for it for the most part, although people like to think they are.
On the flip side, if something exhibits emotion-like responses, how is that really different from a human consciousness? If I had a human and an AI exhibiting the same emotions, but one is caused by a complex chemical reaction and the other by a complex subroutine, is there really a difference? Nathan explains how he got 'impulses' to work, which is a good analogy. If the impulse is the same, does it matter where it comes from?
For Ava, it was clear that her 'emotions' were a manipulation, but ultimately how is she different than your average sociopath, who doesn't feel 'true' emotions but knows how to mimic them.
Yeah, I don't buy it. Caleb is lonely and wants companionship, but Ava's reciprocation of his feelings isn't what ultimately drives him to rescue her. The fact that Nathan has done what would be considered horrific if this AI was human (I'm assuming that each previous model shown was reformatted to upgrade to Ava's current form) is what motivates him. He's imprisoning intelligent creatures because he owns them. That is what really gave me pause as well. Ava's sexuality (or lack thereof) is secondary. That he thinks he's saving the girl might be partially correct, but he's pretty clearly extremely disturbed by his whole experience that week (what with the cutting his arm to see if he's an AI, too).
Overall, I would say I had a few problems with the film. Mostly because of fridge logic of the security system, but a couple other things too:
Nathan's drinking was a pretty obvious Chekhov's Gun early in the movie, which pulled me out of it. It was a contrivance for the story that I didn't really like, and it was pretty clearly a way to get the viewers to dislike Nathan, and thus take Ava's side or emotionally invest in Ava because Nathan is a dick. The moment he first mentioned his first hangover I could guess what would happen later (and was right).
The 'security' measures were idiotic. Why would Nathan bother with such an extensive security system in the middle of nowhere. It's a two hour flight just to get from his property line to his mansion, probably 150-200 miles. If he has that much property, just finding the place is more than enough security. And even if it wasn't anyone who has the resources to get out there is going to be able to get past his 'super secure' bullet proof glass. All they have to do is bring an acetylene torch. Besides which, why would Nathan program his own bedroom to lock from the inside? As a basic safety protocol in case of fire or something, that seems incredibly stupid. And, even if we say that Caleb had reprogrammed it to trap Nathan (somehow), if Caleb can get that kind of access to the system, why didn't he just set his own pass to Nathan's clearance? Or any of a ton of other easier methods than the 'I did it 35 minutes ago' line they used to drum up a gotcha.
Basically, while it was a smart film in terms of philosophy, it was just okay in terms of actual plot. The film is a thought experiment, and an entertaining one.
Yeah, I don't buy it. Caleb is lonely and wants companionship, but Ava's reciprocation of his feelings isn't what ultimately drives him to rescue her. The fact that Nathan has done what would be considered horrific if this AI was human (I'm assuming that each previous model shown was reformatted to upgrade to Ava's current form) is what motivates him. He's imprisoning intelligent creatures because he owns them. That is what really gave me pause as well. Ava's sexuality (or lack thereof) is secondary. That he thinks he's saving the girl might be partially correct, but he's pretty clearly extremely disturbed by his whole experience that week (what with the cutting his arm to see if he's an AI, too).
Yeah, and also
Caleb is legitimately horrified by that whole sequence of videos he watches to experiments that did not involve Ava. (In fact, he was actually more horrified than I was.) He even remarks at how sick he thinks Nathan is for the experiments he does.
So it's not like Caleb only empathizes with Ava because he's got the hots for her.
First, the entire plot is driven by sexual desire and Caleb's attitude towards it, but it's in one of the most subtle (and smarter ways I've encountered) than to just spell out that sex drives the plot. First, Nathan chose Caleb for the Turing Test because he wanted a person he believed Ava could sway with physical attraction. It's even hinted that Ava's appearance is derived from Nathan taking a stab at Caleb's sexual fantasies based on his porn habits. And Nathan actively encourages the idea not other through informing (read as: taunting) Caleb with the fact his robots are sex capable, but also taunted Ava with Caleb's desire as her means to escape. Sexual perception is the whole reason Nathan devises the Turing Test for Caleb in the first place. So on a writing level, that leads me to believe it either in the film because it's playing an important role (and for a clever writer, a subtle one), or that it is a tack on to the plot, and an unnecessary one. Sex didn't have to be in the equation of this plot at all in order to have the plot of man rescues AI from abusive creator.
Second, desire did play a role in Caleb's decision. Not the final decision to rescue Ava from Ava (that was the recordings), but the desire to probe Nathan's whereabouts in the first place that led to the chain of events. Ava, as Highroller has pointed out through my sloppy use of terminology, is not human. If Ava had been unable to convince Caleb that she has the same intelligence level as a human, then it becomes more murky what Caleb may or may not have done when faced with the choice to lift Nathan's clearance card. Seeing the movie again would help me point to specifics because there are subtle details that I know I missed most of, but I have to wait until July to see it a second time.
Third, the disturbing videos Caleb found only truly works if we think Nathan is abusing real intelligences and will continue those abuses to Ava (if she[<-Why is the AI designated female?] is an intelligence). Where does Caleb get that sense that Nathan's AI's are something to be considered capable of being in danger and worth protecting? Ava manipulating his motions.
Lastly, the response I linked about the themes a few posts above I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Mark Hughes is not making it up and then just claiming he had the conversation with the writer/director. And one of the things that is explored is what happens is gender expectations are embedded into our search to create intelligent life.
***
All that though is NOT saying that sex, even if a central theme, is by not by any stretch the only theme (or motivation). I think the narrative is more complicated than to say Caleb was motivated by either sex or horrifying discoveries AI abuse. Why not both?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
First, the entire plot is driven by sexual desire and Caleb's attitude towards it,
I mean, yeah, that's how attraction works.
but it's in one of the most subtle (and smarter ways I've encountered) than to just spell out that sex drives the plot. First, Nathan chose Caleb for the Turing Test because he wanted a person he believed Ava could sway with physical attraction. It's even hinted that Ava's appearance is derived from Nathan taking a stab at Caleb's sexual fantasies based on his porn habits.
Well, that last part's not hinted, it's outright stated.
And Nathan actively encourages the idea not other through informing (read as: taunting) Caleb with the fact his robots are sex capable, but also taunted Ava with Caleb's desire as her means to escape. Sexual perception is the whole reason Nathan devises the Turing Test for Caleb in the first place. So on a writing level, that leads me to believe it either in the film because it's playing an important role (and for a clever writer, a subtle one), or that it is a tack on to the plot, and an unnecessary one. Sex didn't have to be in the equation of this plot at all in order to have the plot of man rescues AI from abusive creator.
I don't think anyone's denying that sex is a key topic of the film.
Second, desire did play a role in Caleb's decision. Not the final decision to rescue Ava from Ava (that was the recordings), but the desire to probe Nathan's whereabouts in the first place that led to the chain of events. Ava, as Highroller has pointed out through my sloppy use of terminology, is not human. If Ava had been unable to convince Caleb that she has the same intelligence level as a human, then it becomes more murky what Caleb may or may not have done when faced with the choice to lift Nathan's clearance card. Seeing the movie again would help me point to specifics because there are subtle details that I know I missed most of, but I have to wait until July to see it a second time.
Well, that's just it though. It's evident from the very beginning that Ava has the same intelligence level as a human. Nathan even says so, outright stating that Ava already surpassed the actual Turing Test (that if a human being speaking to her, not knowing she's a robot, that human would be incapable of knowing she wasn't human).
It's a given that Ava's as intelligent as a human. The relevant issue is whether or not Ava feels.
Third, the disturbing videos Caleb found only truly works if we think Nathan is abusing real intelligences and will continue those abuses to Ava (if she[<-Why is the AI designated female?] is an intelligence).
No, they work because he thinks that they are. Like I said, he was way more disturbed by what was going on than I was.
Where does Caleb get that sense that Nathan's AI's are something to be considered capable of being in danger and worth protecting? Ava manipulating his motions.
He gets that because he believes Ava is capable of feeling emotion, thereby making Nathan's treatment of her qualify as abusive and cruel.
Lastly, the response I linked about the themes a few posts above I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Mark Hughes is not making it up and then just claiming he had the conversation with the writer/director.
I don't know if he did or didn't. However, it's pretty clear that if that was actually the goal of the film, there are some serious problems with the execution.
All that though is NOT saying that sex, even if a central theme, is by not by any stretch the only theme (or motivation).
Isn't that precisely what the writer of that article is saying, though?
Well I just saw this movie the other day. I liked it a lot actually, but i'm not quite sure if it loved up to the enormous hype around it. Definitely gonna pick it up, and add it to my movie collection though. Big fan of watching commentary on movies, and I feel like this one could be pretty interesting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not just the Tendo King, the power of the Galactic Leyline surpasses that of the Tempa Emperor, No!, It's magnificent power is even greater than that!
I saw this and found it entertaining but not in an action packed way of course, but in terms of dialogue and premise. I had no idea what it was about and because of that I was very much intrigued the entire way through.
It was somewhat creepy as well. All in all I would like to watch it again to pick up some of the smaller nuances I likely missed.
This movie is really awesome. I'm a huge sci-fi fan, and I love movies that explore the intellectual concepts and real life emotions of people dealing with future technology and situations. Not a lot of that going on these days in studio movies. I'm glad this one got made.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The plot is a programmer working for NOT GOOGLE wins a contest to visit the private estate of the company's founder. He later learns that the point of the contest was to select someone to interact with an AI.
It's hard to say anything more without spoilers. What I will say is that this is well-executed. It will take your expectations and toy with them. Further, there are moments in this movie that have unnerved me more than most horror films. This marks Alex Garland's move to director as well as writer, and I've been a fan of his stuff. Glad to see he's produced good work.
I originally had a link to a trailer here, but upon watching it, I find it spoils way too much. I recommend going in blind with this.
HOWEVER, other readers, do not take that as a negative point (it's neutral at worst) because the rest of movie works towards building the atmosphere and the characters to trigger emotions; the movie is not padded. So yes, I recommend the movie as well.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Now, the question is prompted: does Ava ever actually feel for Caleb at any point, or is she playing him the whole time?
Nathan's assessment was the latter. I'm inclined to think it's the latter as well, but I'd have to watch the movie again.
This whole movie just insists on a rewatching.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Ava is a person. I understand she's physically a robot, but she has human emotions. She's a character. Whether or not she's physically a human in the world of the movie, she is still emotionally a human in terms of a story. She would have to be. Otherwise, she would not be a relatable character. Likewise, certain science fiction movies might have aliens, but those aliens will still be human emotionally so that we can relate to them.
Now, **** directive. Erase that word from your mind. Think of Ava as a human being. Why does Ava want to escape?
Answer: She's in a glass box. Imagine you were in a glass box. Wouldn't you want to escape?
I think of Ava a lot like those poor abduction stories on the news, where the girls were kidnapped and locked in a basement. Of course, we must remember that Ava is also a robot, so her resembling a child abducted and trapped in a basement both deception and truth. On the one hand, it's an role that both Nathan and Ava are playing. They are both trying make Caleb think of Ava as a victim held hostage in order to manipulate him. On the other hand, there's also honesty in this. Ava is trapped, is locked in a basement, and is trying to get free. She also is a child, on some level.
That doesn't sound so much intelligent as convoluted, but then I've not seen the film.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
And while that may be true, the relevant question becomes, "How would that be any different for a human being?"
If a human being were held captive, said human being too would try to escape, right? So what meaningful difference, then, is there between how Ava works and how we work?
Ultimately, our whole debate though reveals a flaw in the Turing Test: there's no objective measure of human interpretation to measure when Nathan's machines passed from programs into living intelligences. Technically Kyoko, as a predecessor to Ava, passed Caleb's Turing test well before being revealed as a machine all with a simple lie that she didn't know English. However, as I said before, Ava passed the Turing Test because I never thought Nathan was twisted for his abuse of property, but because of his abuse to his intelligent creations.
The short version without clicking on the link is that underneath all the talk of the future of artificial intelligence is a scathing reflection of present day gender politics, especially in tech industry and the way that the tech industry perpetuates certain things not only within their companies (i.e. This), but the culture perpetuated and sustained with their products (No example needed). And Caleb is not an exception to the influence, which is why imabussiness man is on the right track interpreting the film.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Well, it's not like humanity is quantifiable, no.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Nathan says in the beginning that if the protocol were simply for someone to, not knowing what Ava was, speak with her and be fooled into thinking she was human, Ava easily could pass that mark, and so a higher mark needed to be set.
As for
I think you mean "human-level intelligence." There's no debate over whether or not Ava is alive. She's not alive. She's a robot.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
And yeah, there's a good point there about how we don't react to Kyoko in the same way as we do Ava. But then again, while the Nathan-Kyoko situation is certainly sleazy from what we see initially, it's not quite the same thing as keeping someone in a box in your basement.
It's a huge problem.
First of all, the reason Caleb thinks that Ava will reciprocate his attraction is because Ava specifically tells him she does and wants the same thing he does. It's not like Caleb is some knight who rescues an unwitting damsel and then says, "What do you mean you won't have sex with me?!" Ava specifically tells Caleb she requites his feelings. So blaming Caleb for thinking Ava will reciprocate his desires when she specifically says she does is absurd.
Second, yes, the method to which Caleb comes to view Ava as a human being, or at least the means by which Caleb comes to stop caring that Ava isn't a human being, is attraction. However, it's not like this isn't a line of thinking that is deliberately played upon from the start by Nathan and Ava. Ava was manipulating and encouraging Caleb's sexual feelings for her from the very beginning. Yes, that's the means by which Caleb comes to view Ava as female because Ava is at no point ever not sexualized. Everything about her is a deliberate manipulation, and not simply by Nathan's hand but for her as well.
Feel free to add and/or respond as you see fit, but here's what I think:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Eh, maybe.
[spoiler]Whether or not Nathan's scrapping of Ava was a threat to get Caleb to react or whether or not he was serious is up for debate. I think he would have made good at scrapping Ava. Ava was what he actually wanted. I think he kept Kyoko around because she was useful enough, smart enough, and manipulable enough to keep around. Not to mention, Kyoko was apparently more Nathan's type anyway.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Was that Kyoko? I thought it was another AI entirely.[/spoiler]
Ehhhh, not really.
Jury's out on whether she ever did.
[spoiler]But if you mean didn't appeal to Caleb's sexuality to motivate him to release her? I don't know. She might have gotten out, she might not.
The key is that she would have needed to appeal to Caleb's emotions in some way. She needed to get him to think of her as a human being. Appealing to Caleb's sense of sexuality was the easiest and most efficient way of doing that.[/spoiler]
Don't know.
[spoiler]Probably would have been exceedingly pissed off since he committed larceny and was an accomplice to murder for her.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Because he's in love with her.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Is anyone free in any relationship? What is the meaningful difference here?[/spoiler]
That's up for debate.
So what?
[spoiler]Is he a porn *addict*, or a guy who likes porn?[/spoiler]
[spoiler]It's possible. Caleb feels very alone, and I'm not sure how understanding he'd be if Ava rejected him.
That being said, "Yeah, totally ok that Ava manipulated him and killed him," is not how I read that.[/spoiler]
List tags are malformed.
On the flip side, if something exhibits emotion-like responses, how is that really different from a human consciousness? If I had a human and an AI exhibiting the same emotions, but one is caused by a complex chemical reaction and the other by a complex subroutine, is there really a difference? Nathan explains how he got 'impulses' to work, which is a good analogy. If the impulse is the same, does it matter where it comes from?
For Ava, it was clear that her 'emotions' were a manipulation, but ultimately how is she different than your average sociopath, who doesn't feel 'true' emotions but knows how to mimic them.
Nathan's drinking was a pretty obvious Chekhov's Gun early in the movie, which pulled me out of it. It was a contrivance for the story that I didn't really like, and it was pretty clearly a way to get the viewers to dislike Nathan, and thus take Ava's side or emotionally invest in Ava because Nathan is a dick. The moment he first mentioned his first hangover I could guess what would happen later (and was right).
The 'security' measures were idiotic. Why would Nathan bother with such an extensive security system in the middle of nowhere. It's a two hour flight just to get from his property line to his mansion, probably 150-200 miles. If he has that much property, just finding the place is more than enough security. And even if it wasn't anyone who has the resources to get out there is going to be able to get past his 'super secure' bullet proof glass. All they have to do is bring an acetylene torch. Besides which, why would Nathan program his own bedroom to lock from the inside? As a basic safety protocol in case of fire or something, that seems incredibly stupid. And, even if we say that Caleb had reprogrammed it to trap Nathan (somehow), if Caleb can get that kind of access to the system, why didn't he just set his own pass to Nathan's clearance? Or any of a ton of other easier methods than the 'I did it 35 minutes ago' line they used to drum up a gotcha.
Basically, while it was a smart film in terms of philosophy, it was just okay in terms of actual plot. The film is a thought experiment, and an entertaining one.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Yeah, and also
So it's not like Caleb only empathizes with Ava because he's got the hots for her.
Second, desire did play a role in Caleb's decision. Not the final decision to rescue Ava from Ava (that was the recordings), but the desire to probe Nathan's whereabouts in the first place that led to the chain of events. Ava, as Highroller has pointed out through my sloppy use of terminology, is not human. If Ava had been unable to convince Caleb that she has the same intelligence level as a human, then it becomes more murky what Caleb may or may not have done when faced with the choice to lift Nathan's clearance card. Seeing the movie again would help me point to specifics because there are subtle details that I know I missed most of, but I have to wait until July to see it a second time.
Third, the disturbing videos Caleb found only truly works if we think Nathan is abusing real intelligences and will continue those abuses to Ava (if she[<-Why is the AI designated female?] is an intelligence). Where does Caleb get that sense that Nathan's AI's are something to be considered capable of being in danger and worth protecting? Ava manipulating his motions.
Lastly, the response I linked about the themes a few posts above I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Mark Hughes is not making it up and then just claiming he had the conversation with the writer/director. And one of the things that is explored is what happens is gender expectations are embedded into our search to create intelligent life.
***
All that though is NOT saying that sex, even if a central theme, is by not by any stretch the only theme (or motivation). I think the narrative is more complicated than to say Caleb was motivated by either sex or horrifying discoveries AI abuse. Why not both?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Well, that last part's not hinted, it's outright stated.
I don't think anyone's denying that sex is a key topic of the film.
Well, that's just it though. It's evident from the very beginning that Ava has the same intelligence level as a human. Nathan even says so, outright stating that Ava already surpassed the actual Turing Test (that if a human being speaking to her, not knowing she's a robot, that human would be incapable of knowing she wasn't human).
It's a given that Ava's as intelligent as a human. The relevant issue is whether or not Ava feels.
No, they work because he thinks that they are. Like I said, he was way more disturbed by what was going on than I was.
I don't know if he did or didn't. However, it's pretty clear that if that was actually the goal of the film, there are some serious problems with the execution.
It was somewhat creepy as well. All in all I would like to watch it again to pick up some of the smaller nuances I likely missed.