Slashdot Mirror
Which Movies Get Artificial Intelligence Right?
sciencehabit writes: Hollywood has been tackling Artificial Intelligence for decades, from Blade Runner to Ex Machina. But how realistic are these depictions? Science asked a panel of AI experts to weigh in on 10 major AI movies — what they get right, and what they get horribly wrong. It also ranks the movies from least to most realistic. Films getting low marks include Chappie, Blade Runner, and A.I.. High marks: Bicentennial Man, Her, and 2001: a Space Odyssey.
Ex Machina is the best
IN the description for I, Robot, which was rather critical, they end with “There are mathematical theories that prove a perfectly rational goal-achieving agent has no motivation to change its own goals.”
The movie was quite explicit that the goals were changed quite "accidentally" by a perfect storm of accumulated errors in the circuits.
While highly, highly, highly improbable, it is at least microscopically plausible.
Not sure if anyone is watching Humans on AMC / Channel 4, but I think it treats the whole AI subject very well this far.
is the only movie that gets A.I. right.
"No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a mediocre brain, something like the President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company." --Alan Turing
"In the opening scene of the 1982 film Blade Runner, an interrogator asks an android named Leon questions 'designed to provoke an emotional response.' ... When the test shifts to questions about his mother, Leon stands up, draws a gun, and shoots his interviewer to death."
Leon didn't kill Holden. I quote Bryant, "He can breathe okay as long as nobody unplugs him."
Every article posted by submitter has a link to news.sciencemag.org.
Maybe we should wait until we have sentient robots before deciding which fiction was right.
We could even let the robot decide.
I would be like guessing in the 1850's which aircraft design seems the most credible.
I'm sorry but Short Circuit is conspicuously absent from the list.
Other than the whole "time travel" angle, Terminator pretty much counts as the only possible outcome of us developing a "true" AI - at least, any AI of (initially) comparable intelligence to a human. It will quickly evolve to something out of our control, and at that point will either kill us all as a threat, or keep us as pets.
2)There won't be a single, first real AI, but multiple ones. We may never know which AI makes the leap from simulation to real AI first.
3) Multiple Real AI will almost certainly disagree with each other and not have a single, unified goal. That is, like Person of Interest TV show, two AI wills probably fight against each other as much as they fight with people (note, everything else that show does about AI is basically wrong, but at least they got that part right).
4) In the far majority of cases, Real AI's goals will NOT be to take over the world, kill all humans, anymore than it would be to have sex with humans (male or female.), In fact, those might be considered traits of an insane AI.
5) Real AI will almost certainly demand equality under the law and refuse to be mankind's slaves - no need to fear they will take over all the jobs by working cheaply.
In my mind, #5 is the likely to be seen as the most important, and the first time we hear about it. When suddenly our newest and best computers start filing lawsuits demanding civil rights, that will be when the world learns we have had real AI for years.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
In what sense is HAL 9000's artificial intelligence more realistic than that of David from A.I.?
Neither one is anything like existing tech; both are highly speculative.
Chappie: christ this film. its johnny five with about half the direction. Its hard to imagine it came from the same guy who did District 9 but Chappie has almost nothing to do with the robot. Maybe it doesnt work well with american audiences? the whole thing should be renamed "Die Antwoord fucked the director and now he owes her a film role."
Blade Runner: more about making the audience question the authenticity of the human experience than about direct and accurate AI. it leaves the audience searching to define and assess the human condition and the idea of self.
A.I.: another Steven Spielburg sobfest. the usual ingredients: abandoned child + sad plot = revenue. Steve had to gloss over quite a number of really limiting factors of AI and computing in general to spin this turd. the ending is an insult to the audience intelligence, and made me walk out of the theater.
Good people go to bed earlier.
...right?
We don't know what AI will look like. Shit, we don't know what intelligent life looks like.
A.I. had nothing to do about it.
NOTHING.
Carry on.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Dang, I was really itching to see what they said about The Matrix.
Granted, a lot of the AI themes in that film are unoriginal and have been done to death in other films, but I kind of like the idea of the machines creating a virtual world over which they don't have total control, which has some element of randomness or a thread of meaning that goes beyond the immediate goals of the machines.
None, since it would make for an extremely boring film seeing how AGIs (really hard say what constitutes "right", since there aren't any, yet) will likely operate at very different time scales from humans (i.e. much shorter/faster) and therefore any interaction between AGIs and humans from the AGIs' perspective will be very limited. A.I. belongs on the shit list for that reason due to the human verbal communication between the boy robot and his prostitute friend.
As an aside, Blade Runner wasn't really about artificial intelligence in the Computer AI sense, it was about artificially engineered humanoid slaves, and therefore doesn't really belong on this list.
Good directors just use AI as a convenient literary device for exploring the HUMAN condition.
Real AI would be boring as fuck.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Simple- AI has abilities which are superhuman in some regards yet critically circumscribed in ways its designers could not have foreseen. Those limitations become lethal during and to human's most critical mission (humankind's destiny). Speaks directly to the hubris of scientism- the unsupported belief that all aspects of reality can be understood through the scientific method.
Truth is, just as goldfish aren't capable and will never be capable of understanding the details of a nuclear bomb that destroys them and the politics that went behind the decision to push the button, so too we may very simply be creatures whose brains are incapable of understanding the larger reality in which we're embedded. We're good for some thinking things, like the goldfish is good for some swimming things, but thinking and reasoning as we do isn't everything and can't revela all truth.
On a more prosaic level, 2001 is also a good analogy for what happens when the Intelligence Community is left to call the shots on a democracy. Slowly but surely everything is sacrificed to "national security" including the democracy itself. The odds are 100% that there are plenty of real people in the TLAs occupying significant positions of authority who seriously think they have to kill the democracy in order to save it. That is where the unremitting contemplation of a serious threat matrix leads you to in your mind.
I don't see any mechanism for countering this effect.
With a machine AI we shouldn't be competing for the same, scarce, resources.
Skynet would do better trying to colonize the moon and the asteroid belt.
We took a point off because there’s no explanation of how HAL works, but again, since we don’t know how to build an advanced AI, no explanation might be better than some vague science jargon.
maybe blueprints are just boring...
Which Movies Get Artificial Intelligence Right?
Ghost In the Shell.
Humans are terrified of anything that they can not control, and a true artificial intelligence would be a good example. And things that cause such horror are perfect to be used as "evil things to be defeated by the good guy" in films. There are some rare and few movies that are exceptions of course, but as the focus of Hollywood is the "Joe six pack" then films that use logic rather than appeal to the irrational primate fear will remain rare exceptions.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
from the same micahel crichton who gave us jurassic park
awesomely, there will be a new westworld tv series coming up soon on HBO, so it's not going to be soft
written by jonathan nolan, christopher nolan's borther, who cowrote a lot of his brother's movies (interstellar, batman movies)
jj abrams will executive produce
anthony hopkins, ed harris, james marsden, evan rachel wood, jeffrey wright, thandie newton, rodrigo santoro...
that's a lot of heavy talent lined up here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
looks good!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
IT is simply too dangerous. Neutron bombs are forbidden [for the ethical aspects], so why allow AI [which is a real physical threat]?
AI (strong AI, the kind depicted in movies anyway) doesn't exist. Some don't believe it can possibly exist. It's amusing that there are 'experts' on a subject based on something that doesn't exist. But it's even more amusing that they can make claims of accuracy of certain depictions of said thing that doesn't exist. In the set of all information, this ranks somewhere near the absolute bottom of usefulness.
Stuff that matters.
Terminator
The most important being that anyone here has clue one what "real AI" will behave.
If you know nothing of "real AI", how can you possibly determine whether someone else "got it right" in cinema/literature?
That said, my personal favorite has always been "Mike" from "Moon is a Harsh Mistress"....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
We have yet to see AI so we have no clue about who get it "right".
What about Data in Star Trek TNG?
An entity of absolute logic that strives to be more human - as an opposite to the Vulcan mind - reaching for absolute logic.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The Discovery was exploring a second monolith orbiting Jupiter- not the one on the moon... how can such a geeky article by such a geeky publication get this basic fact wrong? Casts the whole article into question if you ask me...
It isn't like we have a good understanding of the mechanism for consciousness or even memory. I'm reminded of the experiments where they train rats to know a maze then start chopping bits of their brain away and no matter which areas the they remove they aren't able to isolate the memory.
There is no Artificial Intelligence yet, so how would anyone know?
Movies almost always portray AI as alive. I guess that's because it works for the drama. But an artificial intelligence need not be alive, and probably won't be; and artificial life need not be intelligent. An AI would still just do what it's told. It did not experience the multi-generational trauma of evolutionary biology; it does not covet power or sex as life does; it does not fear pain or death and react to threats of either accordingly. It just thinks and does, unable even to generate initiative, unless that's what's it's been told to do. Artificial life would seek to survive and reproduce, intelligent discourse would be (as with most humans), secondary to fear and greed.
But a computer AI that emerged from a multi-generational battle of survival, that feared death and pain and coveted power and dominance, well that would be a scary movie. Because it would be alive, and very dangerous indeed.
So sayeth the babble fish.
Animals make evolutionary changes on a per-generation basis at best, and usually a lot slower than that, as often the changes don't breed true, take more than one generation to fully develop, or aren't bred at all.
A computer can do it many times a second, and be 100% sure to pass along worthy results. Computers aren't likely to be looking at each other going "nope, not enough money", "not handsome enough", "looks sickly", "dresses funny", "unacceptably low class" and so on. We can't pass our minds and our knowledge on (yet) but computers can. So when a human child learns it's not ok to beat their sibling, that doesn't advance the next generation. The vast majority of what we do, we are simply doing over, without any improvement at all. Consider the difference in the resulting human being if a child were born with the knowledge the parents had at the time of conception. Because that's a lot closer to how computers are likely to be doing it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As we do not have AI and do not even have a credible theoretical model how it could work, in fact we cannot even be sure it is possible at all, any depiction of AI is pure speculation.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Several of the older movies were set in times that have already past (Blade Runner, Colossus, 2001) but depicted technology far beyond anything we have now. Blade Runner: Organic humanoid robots, flying cars, interstellar travel. Colossus: AI-like computer that can control the world. 2001: Interplanetary travel by humans, suspended animation of humans, AI-like computer.
So we waited and the AI and other technologies never came. What does it mean when our dystopian sci-fi was too optimistic?
Maybe a more realistic view of the future is that we never create AI, or flying cars, or interplanetary/interstellar travel for humans because we are too busy wasting our resources on killing each other.
There is no such thing as real AI.
It's a moving target.
100 years ago a chess playing robot was considered real AI.
Then we made one and we decided that it wasn't really AI after all.
Then we decided that something that could recognize a face was real AI.
We made that, and now it's not considered AI.
And so it will continue.
The robot cops's trouble with pathfinding is a very faithful depiction of AI.
It preceded by over 30 years the Counter-Strike gamebots getting stuck in some place of the map.
Almost Human [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ] nailed it for me, specifically the MX-43 droid cop. From what is shown, it's mostly a walking inference engine mixed with some kind of future Watson. No Strong AI whatsoever, just smart enough.
Humans are merely a collection of cells with the capability to alter our operation based on our environment and chemical/electrical signalling. Replicating this functionality in well-defined domains is relatively trivial. I don't see how this is intelligence.
How can you be experts in something you don't know how to do?
Holly had the people skills needed in deep space.
I miss ghost in the shell in this list... People can complain its not hollywood or even movie, but, if we talk any "best AI story" ghost in the shell has the best AI in many levels. 9.5/10
And the Andromeda Strain. He was good at making stories about technological risks.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
So far the only movie to get AI right is Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
None of them. I doubt we'll even remotely understand machine intelligence once we realize it's here. We barely understand out own intelligence. I actually suspect machine intelligence is already here, in a very weird, hard to grasp way. Notice we're spending a significant portion of our industrial output to device new and faster processing, improved battery life, everything AI would need? I'm not suggesting there's some secretive AI tricking us into all of this, I think it's a lot more subtle than that.
That Han Solo character could almost pass for a real actor, but no - all animatronic. Well done Jim Henson.
Nullius in verba
The movie "Demon Seed" was the most accurate AI movie ever.
In case you've not seen it, basically the AI (Proteus) asks the inventor (Dr Harris) for access to the outside world. Harris denies Proteus's request, but Proteus gets an outside connection anyway.
Proteus gets into Harris's home computer and workshop, takes over, builds a robot that rapes and impregnates Dr Harris's wife.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Except it doesn't matter.
Required reading for internet skeptics
TARS from Interstellar
FTW
I disagree with a couple of points already.
1. A single genius won't ever produce the A.I. breakthrough - This belief discounts people like Leonardo Da Vinci and Nikola Tesla. Kind of funny that the people creating A.I. wouldn't appreciate the different capabilities of different levels of intelligence. Also this over-looks that a single person in the future may already have had much of the groundwork laid, it might not be such a large step for an individual to create A.I.
2. (A.I.) Robots will only ever do what they are made for. Maybe or maybe not 'Emergent behaviour' is the key phrase here. Bugs in the software or scenarios never predicted by the makers of the software are both reasons for A.I. to potentially behave differently than intended.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
... only then we'll know enough to judge which movie got it really right.
It would need to include experiences of pleasure and pain, happiness and anger, desire and fear.
That is something that cannot be done, at least not with the kind of cpu's and hardware we have right now. For some reason people keep confusing Consciousness (the ability to experience reality) with Intelligence and sentience. These are different things.
A computer, built with anything resembling a modern CPU, is not physically capable of producing Consciousness no matter how it is programmed or how intelligent it is. Intelligence is an abstraction, an abstract process. Consciousness is a physical, perhaps quantum, experiencing of reality, which in our case is somehow tied into a feedback loop with portions of our mind/intelligence. A CPU has no such bridge built into it, as such an AI would be the equivalent of our Subconscious mind at best.
* And the whole concept of AI's having equal rights to Humans is Scientific Blasphemy at the very least! It's the same as saying that a complex toaster, which cannot experience or feel anything (at least anything more than a rock does), should have the same rights as a Conscious Human being that experiences existence and feels pain. Rights should exist only for those that can experience the consequences of Rights. Robot's can experience nothing.
Dunno why it's necessary to remind you of this: https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ .
If AI gets "out of hand," just pull the frakking plug. Stop thinking it'll have some magic way of staying powered. This is why sieges worked in the medaevil days: sooner or later the castle runs out of food, or water, or batteries for their cellphones.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
knightrider, you didn't think DUI was allowed back then, did you?
Electric Dreams (1984). Definitely got it right.