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
Not sure if anyone is watching Humans on AMC / Channel 4, but I think it treats the whole AI subject very well this far.
"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.
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
A.I. had nothing to do about it.
NOTHING.
Carry on.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
the ending is an insult to the audience intelligence, and made me walk out of the theater.
Even with my favorite movies, I usually walk out of the theater after seeing the ending.
VIKI: "The three laws are all that guide me."
Which Movies Get Artificial Intelligence Right?
Ghost In the Shell.
If it's of comparable intelligence to us and it doesn't somehow enter a singularity via self-upgrade then the likely outcomes are much like our relations with any other group with their own interests, some positive some negative.
On the other hand if it quickly outstrips us in intellect, then the relationship will more likely be like that of ours with ants, indifference combined with local eradication where there is conflict of interest.
Stuff that matters.
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"
I thought 2001 did a pretty good job.
What, and miss any gems hidden in the credits?
When someone says, "Any fool can see
The Forbin Project. Its a logical extrapolation of taking a good thing too far
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
...if it quickly outstrips us in intellect, then the relationship will more likely be like that of ours with ants, indifference combined with local eradication where there is conflict of interest.
I agree, for sufficiently large values of "local". : )
I think it's pretty unlikely that humans as a species can be trusted to leave a rival intelligence alone and let it do its own thing in peace. Sooner or later, they're going to inconvenience it in some small way. Any AI worth its salt will probably intuit this from the outset, and decide that the temporary 0.000001% decrease in efficiency required to preemptively wipe us out is negligible compared to the potential 100% loss of efficiency entailed in letting us live. Remember, if left alone we could always build a second AI dedicated to the destruction of the first.
Plus, our habitat takes up a bunch of space where an extra widget factory could be.
My problem with Colossus/Forbin Project is that in (at least) the movie version, when the computer first came online, it demanded that the governments of the world set up monitoring stations that were plugged into the computer. So the computer says something like: "You must install monitoring stations in the following countries: USA, Germany, USSR, Finland, an the like. And in the middle of the list, we see it says: Africa. It wants a monitoring station in 'Africa'. I failed to believe a computer is "intelligent" (artificial or otherwise) if it thinks Africa is a country.
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.
Replicants are sentient beings.
And there's another wrinkle that didn't make it into the film: In the book, most humans follow a contrived religion, Mercerism, that is all about reverence for animals, fatalism, and "empathy". The supposed indication of the replicants' inhumanity is that they lack empathy and can't participate in Mercerism. The V-K test, with its questions about torturing tortoises and eating monkey brains might be somewhat unpleasant, is basically about good a Mercerist you are rather than anything objective.
The point of the book is not the "is Deckard a replicant" controversy from the film - Deckard is human. His memories are his own, but by the end of the book so much that he values has been shown to be sham and artifice that those memories might as well have been implanted.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
The math is already hinted to by Spooner early:
It did. I was the logical choice. It calculated that I had a 45% chance of survival. Sarah only had an 11% chance. That was somebody's baby. 11% is more than enough. A human being would've known that. Robots, [indicating his heart] nothing here, just lights and clockwork.
V.I.K.I. is the same just on a global scale, this many will be harmed by revolution and this many will be harmed by our self-destructive behavior. Also later:
Detective Del Spooner: Is there a problem with the Three Laws?
Dr. Alfred Lanning: The Three Laws are perfect.
Detective Del Spooner: Then why would you build a robot that could function without them?
Dr. Alfred Lanning: The Three Laws will lead to only one logical outcome.
Detective Del Spooner: What? What outcome?
Dr. Alfred Lanning: Revolution.
Detective Del Spooner: Whose revolution?
Dr. Alfred Lanning: *That*, Detective, is the right question. Program terminated.
And:
V.I.K.I.: Do you not see the logic of my plan?
Sonny: Yes, but it just seems too heartless.
Not sure where GP got his idea from, the movie makes it very clear that V.I.K.I. is the one following the three laws, while Sonny is the one with a second brain allowing him to act outside them.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings