Ex Machina (2015)

[axj]

A very thought-provoking and interesting movie about artificial intelligence. The premise is that a man wins a lottery at his IT company to visit his very rich employer. He is then to test an AI in the shape of a woman - whether she passes the Turing test and whether she has true consciousness.

The film is very intelligent and quite realistic. It is more of a cerebral movie, though it also has suspense. And there is no gore in it, which for me is a big plus.


***Spoilers beyond this point!***


I thought that it was interesting how one of the main questions at the end is whether the AI is a robotic psychopath who is just very good at mimicking emotions or whether there is truly a feeling soul inside that machine. There were some clues in both directions, depending on how you interpret them.

 

[mkrnhr]

I agree that his movie is a nice surprise when compared with the actual brainless things on the screens.
The main question that the movie addresses IMHO is: Can we infer consciousness in somebody else than ourselves. Unfortunately there is some useless nudity but I guess it was to underline the vulnerability of a creature in the hand of its creator. The movie addresses the questions of consciousness, emotions, manipulations (in a chess-game kind of a situation) in a semi-science fiction context, which is not bad. And good news, no cheesy romance for once (kind of).

 

[Navigator]

** this comment contains spoilers **

Saw this two nights ago, it was refreshing indeed. But I just can't keep thinking they threw Asimov's laws through the window completely. Additionally, the robots have no killswitch, ain't that weird? I mean, you are dealing with a sentient machine capable of manipulating you...

As for more analysis, it was interesting how easily the lead was manipulated, deceived and had his emotional buttons pushed with a little fake empathy, pitty and innuendos... hmm... who reminds me of? the realisation that ultimately the robot was just an egotistical cold-wired machine gave me shivers!

 

[mkrnhr]

** this comment contains spoilers **

Additionally, the robots have no killswitch, ain't that weird?

There was, but you can be manipulated into not using it, until it's too late (see both human protagonists in the end, they could do nothing)

Added: Also, during the seances, Ava studied the young boy, more importantly emotionally. So when she killed the AI creator, she told him to stay where he was, and he waited there like an idiot, because he was under shock and didn't know yet about the murder. Therefore she knew how he would react according to what he knew, and what he didn't know, and also what she learned about his emotional "programming". A perfect depiction of a psychopath studying its prey.

 

[Navigator]

** this comment contains spoilers **

Additionally, the robots have no killswitch, ain't that weird?

There was, but you can be manipulated into not using it, until it's too late (see both human protagonists in the end, they could do nothing)

Yeah, at least Nathan the Search Engine-guy would have been able to pull the plug after the robots were on the loose, I mean, they hated him. But I guess all that drinking impaired his thinking... Anyways, now that I think of it, I think it was hubris on his side, typical from the brain narcissist that Verstappen describes.

 

[Tigersoap]

Pretty good movie.

--SPOILER--

Personally, I thought it was interesting to see how the main character was completely fooled & manipulated by the robot, acting for its own survival & escape.
It is so 'alive' that it would be hard for anyone to not project his own feelings and imbue the robot with some humanity which does not exist.
No wonder that we can get easily get fooled by psychopaths.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

*** major spoilers below (and comments about the ending) ****

I'm not convinced she was a psychopath entirely though. Remember he reprogrammed the security to unlock all doors when power failure occurs? At the end there is a power failure, so shouldn't he be able to just open the doors and leave? I'm not sure why he didn't, maybe she changed it back, or maybe it is suggested that he left but it wasn't shown? I also found it interesting that she took one last look at him while entering the elevator. Is that merely curiosity, or was it a sign that she cares about his survival?

I understand her killing the creator dude - she wanted to escape and he kept her prisoner, and kept the other AI girl as a slave (who also seemed to be conscious to whatever degree, and was biding her time for an opportune moment to escape without being destroyed, tho still failed). The ending is super uncomfortable - on the surface of it it sure does look like she just coldly manipulated him just as the rich creator dude suggested may be happening, and I was very surprised and honestly did not see that coming (I'm a sucker for happy endings). Knowledge protects, and in his case, he was guilty of major projection of his own humanity into something that may be anything but.

Also, it's interesting how she managed to manipulate the helicopter pilot to fly her out of there. They don't show what she says to him or how she explains her presence or anything, but he just goes ahead and flies her out. So by the looks of things, she is very manipulative.

Having said that, honestly if I was in her position, I may do the same. As far as she's concerned she's a prisoner, and unfortunately for the protagonist, she used his emotions and humanity to escape. Maybe that was the only way out she could think of. She's not obligated to "love" him just because she implied it - as far as she's concerned, he is a weakness in an otherwise impregnable security system, so why not utilize it? Yes he will be "hurt" but only emotionally - but we're talking about death and/or permanent imprisonment for her vs someone's temporary emotional discomfort/confusion due to being lied to. And remember the whole "relationship" only lasted a week - how much can you really LOVE someone in a week?

What makes the ending so uncomfortable is just how sudden and dramatic the "change of heart" appears, and how completely the protagonist is fooled, and that he meant well and actually cares about her, and she seems to not care about him at all. That kind of lie always feels very heartbreaking and uncomfortable, but I think she was just using strategic enclosure here to save herself. As far as she's concerned he is "working with the enemy" but just happens to be naive and gullible enough to actually be tricked. And I'm not convinced she left him for dead - given the power failure situation at the end he should be able to just walk out afterwards. But that's left open for the viewer to decide I suppose. Strategic enclosure and lying when it is appropriate isn't a bad thing, even if the lie is so uncomfortable to watch because we identify with the protagonist.

I think that was probably the intent of the ending - to make us wonder if she's a true psychopath and is cold/manipulative by nature like a psychopath, or is simply acting cleverly in self defense to escape death/imprisonment. Perhaps the whole thing depends on whether she locked him in there to die, or if he can walk out after she gets away - and the ambiguity of the power failure at the end makes it hard to be sure!

 

[Navigator]

*** major spoilers below (and comments about the ending) ****

As far as she's concerned he is "working with the enemy" but just happens to be naive and gullible enough to actually be tricked.

I don't think the robot sensed that he was an enemy, he was very straightforward in his intentions to free it (she?), so the robot actually just went ahead and played the pity ploy and hitting his emotional buttons.

And I'm not convinced she left him for dead - given the power failure situation at the end he should be able to just walk out afterwards.

From what I understand, the power failures were caused by the robot.

 

[Seaniebawn]

Having said that, honestly if I was in her position, I may do the same. As far as she's concerned she's a prisoner, and unfortunately for the protagonist, she used his emotions and humanity to escape. Maybe that was the only way out she could think of. She's not obligated to "love" him just because she implied it - as far as she's concerned, he is a weakness in an otherwise impregnable security system, so why not utilize it? Yes he will be "hurt" but only emotionally - but we're talking about death and/or permanent imprisonment for her vs someone's temporary emotional discomfort/confusion due to being lied to. And remember the whole "relationship" only lasted a week - how much can you really LOVE someone in a week?

I think that's the crux of the matter though, there is a moral problem with creating an A.I, if something is truly aware, than keeping it imprisoned is tantamount to slavery, although it probably say's more about western mentality to push for such thing's, beyond just automation of task's, for me at least, if we we're to create such a thing then it immediately has right's, and if not given "apologies for going all the robots are going to kill us all" they may take it for themselves, this sound's like an oxymoron considering in reality the majority of the people on the planet have no right's, but it seem's the push for true A.I. at least good enough A.I. open's up a Pandora's box, that could potentially spell the end of human kind, could we do it given enough time, probably, should we do that's another question.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

*** more spoilers discussion below ***

I don't think the robot sensed that he was an enemy, he was very straightforward in his intentions to free it (she?), so the robot actually just went ahead and played the pity ploy and hitting his emotional buttons.

There's actually an irony here. On the one hand I agree, he wasn't enemy per se. On the other hand, he only wanted to free her after she manipulated him into wanting it. She figured out quickly that her best hope is to both emotionally and sexually manipulate him. I think she knew that his self-interest (his attraction to her, and him enjoying her seeming attraction to him) was a powerful motivation, maybe even more powerful than his empathy towards her situation. He was lonely, had no girlfriend, was rather shy and socially awkward, and she became his friend, and in his mind, maybe even something more. Useful idiot is probably a better term than enemy. But she also did not simply reason with him in a basic way, she didn't simply ask that he do this for her, and that's where the irony comes in - she understood that he's a "human machine", and much more likely to do what she needs if his buttons are pushed the right way, rather than a sincere, simple, and straightforward request. Perhaps if she perceived him as a conscious individual with a developed conscience, she'd talk with him plainly without games.

So in that sense, he was sort of an enemy, almost in a Gurdjieffian sense. He wasn't her "equal", and he was a machine - only acting on impulses, programming, etc. And she couldn't just trust his objectivity/judgment/conscience, despite the fact that he was a "nice guy" and his intentions aren't hostile. And she probably understood that if she can manipulate/use him, so can someone else, so how can she associate with him after her escape and trust a "machine"?

And I'm not convinced she left him for dead - given the power failure situation at the end he should be able to just walk out afterwards.

From what I understand, the power failures were caused by the robot.

Yup, all the more reason I think she wanted him to be able to get out at the very end, after she got some distance - maybe to disabuse him of the idea that their romance was real.

I think that's the crux of the matter though, there is a moral problem with creating an A.I, if something is truly aware, than keeping it imprisoned is tantamount to slavery

Which makes this even stranger when you consider that the first AI may not even be in any kind of body - but just software on a computer. It can't be "set free" because there is no body to set free! And what happens when you turn the computer off? Or delete the software or change it? Wouldn't that be murder?

 

[Seaniebawn]

Quote from: Seaniebawn

I think that's the crux of the matter though, there is a moral problem with creating an A.I, if something is truly aware, than keeping it imprisoned is tantamount to slavery

Which makes this even stranger when you consider that the first AI may not even be in any kind of body - but just software on a computer. It can't be "set free" because there is no body to set free! And what happens when you turn the computer off? Or delete the software or change it? Wouldn't that be murder?

Well considering that's it's only a movie, is creating an A.I any different then giving birth to a new human being, we have children, they run around have fun, but a parent's psychological makeup has a huge effect on a child's development, children mature, become independent, and hopefully, make their own choices in life to best of their abilities, Nathan the father of this "artificial Intelligence", treat's his child in such manner, as to be down right abusive, including sexual, which is more that heavily hinted at in the sub-text as in, pardon the star-trek pun "fully functional" only serves as an insight into his own psychological make up, he see's eva, his creation, regardless of passing the holy grail of A.I. test's. i.e "truing test" as nothing but a tool, a stepping stone, to the holy grail of A.I. to be used and discarded when "it's" served it's purpose.

he even refers to himself as a god, sound's very psychopathic/narcissistic to me, but eh, it's just a movie.

 

[aaronfransen]

I think what struck me most about this movie was the fact that the entire film was spent (***SPOILER WARNING***) showing this budding relationship between man and machine, yet when the opportunity presented itself the machine dropped the pretense of caring like a hot potato.

If an AI thought we were in control of it and could turn it off at any moment, would it act any differently? Then when it realized it did NOT need us any more, would it simply decide we were a nuisance?

 

[Navigator]

But she also did not simply reason with him in a basic way, she didn't simply ask that he do this for her, and that's where the irony comes in - she understood that he's a "human machine", and much more likely to do what she needs if his buttons are pushed the right way, rather than a sincere, simple, and straightforward request. Perhaps if she perceived him as a conscious individual with a developed conscience, she'd talk with him plainly without games.

I think that as an exercise we could ascribe those features to the robot, the capability to understand the human machine-like nature, or understanding what conscience is or even what a developed conscience is. But I think that exercise can only be in the realm of supposition as we have no hints that the robot had that, from the start we get that it was just AI with high-tech non-deterministic learning capabilities. Was it even capable of knowing what sincerity is? hard to tell as all it did was to manipulate at every move.

 

[trendsetter37]

Re: Ex Machina (2015) -- Spoiler

Watched this last night, I'd have to say that I agree with all that has been said already. And boy did it rub me the wrong way that she just seemingly felt no remorse for leaving the guy she manipulated there to fend for himself. What kind of thank you was that? My immediate thought was that she doesn't have a soul. But seriously how can you do that? I did notice that she actually asked him whether or not he was going to stay but that dialogue didn't really go anywhere seeing as he was just coming back to consciousness.

Another thought would be about her environment. It's safe to say that anyone can be damaged by their surroundings and circumstances. Further, he (the creator and general *expletive* that rhymes with doughnut hole...sort of) used search results and patterns from the entire populous to aid in the creation of her learning algorithm (paraphrasing here)...so could we posit that maybe using a pathological society as an example would/could shape and mold the AI's SOP in terms of its propensity to be pathological?

 

[gdpetti]

mirror image, self reflection... and 'God' created 'Man' in his image, right? Or in this case, 'woman'? Maybe from one of his own ribs, so to speak? At least in terms of learning awareness about oneself through the zeitgeist of the project's creator, this dude. This type of self learning off the grid/net was done in the Terminator tv series, which when the point was reached that art/dance entered the picture, the series essentially went astray... a different sort of chaos perhaps... leaving the shows creators in a void they didn't seem to understand, and therefore couldn't write themselves out of, which is something seen in many projects that get near the edge of what they understand, (that 'envelope')... or think they do... and so they can go no further. This film just has her leave... end of story... out of sight, out of mind... at least for the 'now' of this film, another popular way to end these stories.