Ex Machina [DVD + Digital]

Humans don't have to rely on brute-force, trial-and-error calculations to improve our understanding of our world. We naturally organize our minute-by-minute evaluations of our real-time circumstances by utilizing semantic information to engage in practical reasoning; that is, we rely not just on the raw unfiltered data we encounter but we track specific information of interest to us on a particular occasion by identifying what it is about (and who might also be interested in it) in order to decide what to do or what to say. We exploit the new features we encounter in order to improve our competence, moment by moment, as we mature. How do we achieve this focus in our thinking? We learn useful new facts about the world we inhabit by using available semantic information to improve our understanding about that world. Isn't that something more than brute calculation depending on binary And/Or logical gates? If so, how do we focus our pattern-finding competence (inherited by genetics and exhibited by our brain function) onto the things-that-are-of-particular-relevance-to-us-now? How did we acquire this unique competence? And can machines exhibit this same competence?In 1950 the mathematician and code-breaker Alan Turing proposed his "Imitation Game" in his paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence." A few short years later the field of "Artificial Intelligence" became a serious scientific endeavor, including such luminaries as John McCarthy, Alan Newell, Herbert Simon, and Marvin Minsky. Their goal was to demonstrate in general that a purely physical system, i.e., one not directed by human supervision, has the necessary and sufficient means for intelligent action.Humans act intelligently by using our knowledge of the world (semantics) and our knowledge about how people communicate (language). We are "intentional" thinkers, says Prof. Dan Dennett, who use our semantic capabilities and social experience to anticipate what other persons (or things) intend to do. We achieve this result by understanding another's knowledge, their goals, and then applying our rational abilities to infer what that person will likely do next. We easily grasp what's relevant in any new circumstance, and quickly act accordingly. Our ability to understand what is relevant in a social situation depends on our many years of learning about our world as our brains and our sensory systems develop and mature. This is a vastly different skill from the inductive, algorithmic skill demonstrated by the AI of machine systems. Hence, the real success of AI is in the area of 'toy domains' in which human developers can target and limit the kind of relevance decisions the AI program needs to make, and provide the AI program with algorithms uniquely tailored to its restricted domain. The massive computing power of supercomputers can play chess, play Go, run game-theory simulations, and win against the best human opponents. AI systems are also great at managing vast data bases and detecting your preferences, your biases, your likes, as demonstrated by your web-viewing history, then inductively predicting what else (what product, what political view) you would favor. Google, Amazon, the DNC, the RNC, and the cyber unit of the Russian GRU are watching your web activities and applying AI to these toy domains, but in every instance there are human controllers developing, monitoring, and evaluating the AI systems.So-called "deep learning" machine programs like Watson or Google Translate continually prospect through trillions of bits of data utilizing statistical algorithms to make new, unique judgments about true facts (Watson) or acceptable translations (Google Translate). But they do so without any non-statistical competence. They lack practical reasoning, which all (normal) humans have. Indeed, deep learning programs are (for the foreseeable future) completely dependent on human understanding to design their statistical-learning algorithms and data domains. IBM's Deep Blue is an impressive, world-class chess player, and AlphaGo is a champion Go player. But none of these programs has the capacity to notice the relevant (semantic) features of the flood of data that these programs ingest, other than to detect the statistical regularities their human-developed AI programs glean from the vast mass of data. In an important sense, they aren't responsible for the judgments that they (algorithmically) generate. They are not (yet) non-human agents.So, given these limitations, can thinking be reduced to calculation, to binary code lacking semantic reference? Put another way, can we imagine machine consciousness, true artificial intelligence (AI)?Of course we can, and have, since Star Trek's Data (Brent Spiner) and Ash (Ian Holm) in the original Alien film. Before that we had the talking automaton Robby the Robot in the 50's sci fi classic Forbidden Planet (Shakespeare's "The Tempest" set in the future on an alien moon with Morbius (Walter Pidgeon) as Prospero the Magus and Robby as his deformed slave Caliban). They are intelligent, yet we feel something is lacking that makes these earlier robotic characters seem less than human. Can these robot slaves be set free? Well, see what happens when we imagine the exquisite Alicia Vikander as Ava in Ex Machina (think the "Eve" of robot consciousness) or the lovely Evan Rachel Wood as Dolores in Jonathan Nolan's masterful Westworld - then we easily take the leap required by the Turing Test to seeing them as developing the contextual relevance and the 'automatic' free choice of response that we so strongly associate with human consciousness. (Or even Sean Young as "Rachel" in Ridley Scott's Bladerunner, but did you fall in love with Jeffrey Wright as "Bernard" in Westworld?) Indeed, the human male characters in both Ex Machina (Domhnall Gleason as "Caleb") and Westworld (Jimmi Simpson as "William"), acting as scouts seeking to discover the Promised Land of true AI, each fall in love with Ava and Dolores, respectively. Well, who wouldn't fall in love with either of these skilled actresses performing the role of seductress at the height of their beauty! But do these film versions of thought experiments for conducting the Turing Test match what AI is really capable of achieving? (Nathan, the architect of Ava's AI program, tells Caleb that he designed Ava's responses by analyzing hundreds of millions of facial and verbal responses stolen from user's cell cams, a classic 'deep learning' statistical project. Ford, the AI architect of the Westworld hosts, tells Bernard that he designed a memory function so Dolores and Maeve and others could learn from their experiences and develop the ability to vary far from their prefabricated scripts.) So, can an AI program in the foreseeable future develop the ability to respond verbally and behaviorally within its immediate contextual relevance and exhibit the 'automatic' free choice that we humans achieve naturally through our human consciousness?What the film experiments contained in Ex Machina and the Westworld series actually show is how powerfully our human programming (intentionally- and semantically-based) drives us to detect consciousness in other things that display intention, which we then choose to join with or reject; even to the point of choosing to fall in love with a seemingly conscious, beautiful android.Despite the fantastic creative experiments by writer-directors Alex Garland in Ex Machina and Jonathan Nolan in Westworld to exhibit android intelligence (i.e., machine consciousness), human intelligence is still the only game in town for thinking, whether about science, business, politics, or art. And only humans can love.Both these films cleverly raise the key underlying philosophical question: What makes human consciousness different than extremely efficient machine calculation? Is it a spark of essence of consciousness that is somehow not physically detectable, the ineffable 'freedom' inherent in our free will?Caleb (Domhnall Gleason) describes the thought experiment "Mary, the Color Scientist" as a means of intuitively explaining the paradigm shift from inductive, mechanical calculation to 'real' AI consciousness. What was once all black and white is now suddenly in real color, our experience of the world is now inherently different, and it is beyond scientific explanation how this occurs.In Jonathan Nolan's Westworld, the AI 'hosts' play the Maze game invented by the park's original AI genius Arnold (who himself may or may not be a real character, he may just be a figment of memory planted by the Prospero-character Ford (Anthony Hopkins) or he might just be the mind behind the evolving consciousness of a special few of the android 'hosts') as a part of the back-narrative of the host "Bernard" (Jeffrey Wright), following most paths to a blind alley, just another repetition of the scripted loops the host is designed to follow; but in some lucky cases (such as Dolores (Evan Rachel Wood) and Maeve (Thandie Newton)) their pursuit of the maze is eventually successful, with the host finally arriving at the 'center,' the holy grail of real consciousness, the self-reflexive center of individual identity. As commonly said in another context, you have to experience it directly (the Cartesian res cogitans) in order to actually have it.Well, it's time to expose this discredited hypothesis for the incoherent, anti-scientific nonsense that it is. Our consciousness isn't something we finally discover in a private Cartesian theater by diligent philosophical introspection. (Nb: this private philosophical introspection is very different from meditation, which properly experienced is the very opposite of an intellectual, linguistically-driven mental activity.) We have the capacity for language and consciousness built into us already by evolution, and our awareness of our own consciousness (and thus our awareness of the consciousness of others) develops as we encounter the world and develop the language capacity to comprehend that world. Human consciousness has evolved over eons, driven by our highly social communal interactions and the language ability needed to moderate those complex social interactions, as has our ability to display freedom of will in all our activities, including thinking, feeling, and experiencing love. See Daniel Dennett's recent book From Bacteria to Bach and Back (2017), esp. ch. 13 ("The Evolution of Cultural Evolution"), ch. 14 ("Consciousness as an Evolved User-Illusion"), and ch. 15 ("The Age of Post-Intelligent Design") for a very readable, detailed exposition of this scientific fact.We aren't just more complicated than computers. We are persons. (for PMD)

I did not realize that the director of this film, Alex Garland, was the scriptwriter for a number of very well-done films: 28 Days Later and Sunshine being among them [also Dredd, but hey, every artist stumbles somewhere..] and this is his first time directing one.There have been many takes on the idea of artificial intelligence, particularly in the last two years. The theme must go back at least as far as “Frankenstein”, but of course it was the advent of modern computers that gave it more urgency. And perhaps we’re seeing more fiction about it now because from what I hear, some programmers think we could actually not be so far away from some version of artificial intelligence.Prior stories have covered almost every possibility: they turn on us with a vengeance [a la Terminator and Battleship Galactica series]. They outlast us [A.I.]. They feel sorry for us [Her]. So, is there something new with Ex Machina, and is it good?The answer is an unqualified yes. Now to give you some sense of what awaits without ruining the plot. The initial setup is not complex and is introduced very quickly. Oscar Isaac plays Nathan, a character perhaps loosely modeled on a co-founder of Google, since he’s a multi-billionaire from the world’s most popular search engine [in the movie, it’s called “Blue Book”]. Nathan retreated to a secret, vast home / research facility to which hardly anyone has access. Caleb [Domhnall Gleeson], a humble programmer at Blue Book, is told he has won a sort of lottery to visit Nathan and see what he’s up to these days, for a full week.He’s flown in by helicopter and the scenery is truly stunning. It looks like some hybrid of Hawaii and New Zealand, but most of this film is done in Norway, which explains the snowy mountains. In a special feature, the director then speaks about the challenge of getting the internal set right [the home / research facility]. He observes that since Nathan is really really rich, the interior should actually look like something built by an ultra-rich genius—the kind of place most people never can visit. Some of this can be done with set design, but there’s nothing like having an actual location as a starting point. They did find a truly spectacular house in Norway, which formed the basis for the interior design.True sci-fi devotees will understand when I speak of the polar opposite visual approaches in 2001: A Space Odyssey vs. Alien. This set is much more akin to 2001: virtually everything looks new, flawless, and drop-dead beautiful. Also the design is spare and utilitarian. Lots of flat and yet visually interesting surfaces, combined with suitably futuristic-looking monitors and other techie equipment. I’m spending time on this because this is visually a striking, perhaps I can say a stunning design, and the cinematography [and the Blu-Ray high definition] show it off to the maximum.Then we are introduced to the real reason for Caleb’s summons: Ava. Nathan says he thinks he actually has an artificially intelligent robot and he has brought in Caleb, a programmer with some experience in AI theory, to perform a “Turing test”. In 1950 Alan Turing proposed this idea. If you could communicate with something remotely and be unable to tell whether or not it was human, after reasonably extensive communication, this would be a sign of likely artificial intelligence. This would be the point at which computers change from “computing” machines to “thinking” machines.Of course it’s more complicated than that. Humans have evolved over a long period and we had to be equipped to survive in nature. We have much more than just reasoning ability and self-direction. We have emotions, we have physical senses, we can ambulate and manipulate objects. An artificially intelligent machine might have sensors, but they might be quite different from ours. It might or might not be able to move about, as we do. It almost surely would not experience emotions in the same way we do, although it might indeed experience emotion. In a sense, a machine has already passed a limited Turing test, by beating human contestants in “Jeopardy”. But, due to the likely differences between the way a machine would “think” and the way we do, it could be entirely possible to tell that you were communicating with a non-human and yet still conclude that it is self-aware and that it “thinks”.All of these issues are covered in this movie, in one fashion or another. But at its heart this movie is a suspense story. There are many mysteries besides Caleb’s challenge to decide if Ava is actually sentient. What are Ava’s intentions, if she really is aware? What are Nathan’s real intentions? Is Caleb even who he’s initially presented to be or not?One gets the sense that something dramatic will happen; this won’t be anywhere near as simple as Caleb giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down and just flying back to his cubicle after a week. But the movie keeps you guessing all the way through, just how it's going to play out. It may not be the most profound movie of the year, but it is dramatic and it is both a visual and audible feast. And I should introduce the lead actress: Alicia Vikander plays “Ava”. A-.

I will warn you that this movie starts VERY SLOW. You almost want to quit watching it starts so slow BUT boy does it come on later! Ending it almost unreal. MUST SEE.

An unusual sci-fi offering see's 'Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) an office worker specialising inHigh-Tech is told he'd won a competition to spend a week at a private mountain retreatowned by Nathan (Oscar Isaac)Upon arrival on the vast estate, he finds the unit to be a high-tech wonderland, everythingseemingly centrally controlled.Nathan seems a bit of an odd-ball, however, Caleb will soon discover him to be a hugelytalented operator who has created responsive AI'sCaleb will learn he is there to be monitored on his interaction with what appears at firstto be Nathan's pet project Ava -Alicia Vikander)Not all is as it seems in this A dramatic turn of events will come to pass.A gritty tale with adult sequences and strong language at times.The film seemingly dismissed by some, is in my view very watchable.The 4k upgrade sometimes stunning. world created by Nathan.

As written elsewhere on AV forums the UHD disk is badly authored and playback skips on several UHD player including PS5. Disc itself shows no sign of damage... suspect bad encode or authoring at the mastering stage. Extremely disapointing.

Der Programmierer Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) gewinnt einen mehrtägigen Besuch bei Nathan (Oscar Isaac), dem Gründer der Firma, bei dem Caleb arbeitet. Der exzentrische Nathan lebt abgeschieden in einem äußerst ungewöhnlich konstruierten sowie gut gesicherten Gebäude und hat schon in jungen Jahren die mittlerweile marktführende Internet-Suchmaschine "Bluebook" entwickelt. Bereits kurz nach seiner Ankunft wird Caleb klar, dass er keineswegs irgendein Gewinner, sondern vielmehr eine Testperson sein soll: Nathan hat eine unglaublich weit entwickelte künstliche Intelligenz geschaffen und diese in einen Androiden namens Ava (Alicia Vikander) übertragen. Nun soll sich Caleb in mehreren Sitzungen mit Ava unterhalten und herausfinden, ob sie wirklich denken und reagieren kann wie ein Mensch. Die Sache wird allerdings schnell unheimlich, oder vielmehr noch unheimlicher als ohnehin schon: Ava beginnt, Caleb auszufragen und erklärt ihm während eines Stromausfalls, bei dem Nathan die beiden scheinbar nicht per Kamera beobachten kann, dass ihr Schöpfer ein Lügner sei, dem man nicht trauen könne...Ex Machina ist ein britischer Sci-Fi-Thriller von Alex Garland (Drehbuch und Regie) aus dem Jahr 2015. Natürlich ist das Story-Grundgerüst, bei dem es um Maschinen geht, die ein Bewusstsein entwickeln, alles andere als neu. Hier wurde dies allerdings clever inszeniert, der Film ist spannend, hat einen kleinen Story-Twist parat und ist im positiven Sinne unterkühlt. Die Machart und Erzählweise werden bestimmt nicht jeden ansprechen, manch einer wird sicher bemängeln, dass "zu wenig passiert". Das kann man sicher so sehen, doch Ex Machina lebt halt von seinen Untertönen. Auch die Darsteller spielen wirklich toll, wobei ich hier die Rollenverteilung angesichts der neuen Star-Wars-Filme irgendwie amüsant finde: Dort spielt Oscar Isaac den strahlenden Helden Poe, während er in Ex Machina der zwielichtige Typ, beinahe schon der Antagonist ist - und Domhnall Gleeson ist in Ex Machina der Gute, während er in Star Wars den bösen General spielt. Und in Ex Machina finde ich die Rollenverteilung gelungener, aber das nur so am Rande. Auf alle Fälle gefällt mir Ex Machina wirklich gut, auch an der Qualität der Blu-ray gibt es nix zu mäkeln. Wertung: vier Sterne.

Wonderful.

RECENSIONE:Claustrofobico e provvisto di una plausibile dose di suspense, Ex Machina si colloca nella rete delle pellicole pretenziose di trattare l’intelligenza artificiale, forse tralasciando che davanti allo schermo vi sono spettatori dotati di un’intelligenza umana e reale, in certi casi apertamente critica e vogliosa di spettacolarità. Al titolo concesso da Alex Garland, che con questo thriller dalle note drammatiche e fantascientifiche sigla il suo esordio alla regia, si crea un triangolo all’interno della storia tra umanità-divinità-artificialità che viene corrotto dalla contaminazione inevitabile tra fili elettrici e sentimenti e l’essere che piomba sulla scena può forse essere paragonato a un dio sì, ma quello del Vecchio Testamento, che freddamente fa fuori buoni e cattivi. La trama ha come protagonista un brillante programmatore di computer, Caleb interpretato da Domhnall Gleeson il quale è l’unico tra gli impiegati dell’ufficio per il quale lavora ad aggiudicarsi la possibilità di trascorrere una settimana presso la residenza del suo capo Nathan interpretato da Oscar Isaac: un posto sperduto dalla morfologia naturalistica apparentemente paradisiaca, che però lascia immediatamente spazio ad un ambiente ipertecnologico ma eccessivamente cupo, sinistro e incastonato di segreti. Nonostante Nathan cerchi, infatti, di mettere a proprio agio il giovane Caleb e abbattere quella linea di demarcazione tra datore e dipendente, il ragazzo rimane basito e incuriosito dalla situazione nella quale si ritrova. A scombinare le carte Ava interpretata da Alicia Vikander: robot dalla fattezze umane interessanti, dotata di un corpo sinuoso e trasparente capace di dare piacere ed emozioni, di un bellissimo volto e soprattutto di una coscienza. Sono tanti i fili che vibrano nel momento in cui Caleb inizia a relazionarsi con Ava, la cui pronuncia si confonde con Eva, per applicare il noto test di Turing. Con la prima donna Ava condivide il desiderio di conoscenza e l’ambizione di uscire fuori dall’Eden ( che in questo caso non è un giardino bellissimo ma una stanza ) per esplorare il mondo e in particolar modo la gente. Al pari di un essere umano si innamora, ha paura di morire e pecca di irriconoscenza.Ex Machina non è certo il primo film che ci mette dinnanzi alla domanda: se riuscissimo a costruire un robot cosciente, dovremmo conferirgli gli stessi diritti di un essere umano? Nathan sembra non farsi problemi, per lui le donne create in laboratorio sono solo esperimenti, R.A.M. da formattare nel momento in cui subentra un nuovo modello. Entrano in gioco i rapporti tra uomo e macchina, l’inferiorità di genere, lo stereotipo della donna asiatica che è il secondo robot interpretato da Sonoya Mizuno vista unicamente come serva o strumento di divertimento. L’opera prima di Alex Garland ha tutte le carte in regola per stupire e con suoni che piombano al momento giusto, ma priva dell’approfondimento necessario a farla distinguere dal marasma di argomentazioni simili. La visione dell’uomo che sostituisce Dio è una filosofia quasi superata o talmente onnipresente che non ci infastidisce più di tanto; gli spunti sull’arte di Pollock potrebbero rivelarsi interessanti, ma purtroppo vengono lasciati in sospeso: buttati a casaccio tra le sequenze proprio come le vernici industriali che l’artista gettava sulle tele. Traspare un pizzico d’amore e la forza della sopravvivenza e poi, viene spontanea una domanda: qual è la vera esperienza vissuta da Caleb, Nathan e Eva? Quella raccontata attraverso le parole o quella ripresa dalle telecamere a circuito chiuso seminate nell’edificio? Infatti le ambientazioni di Ex Machina predispongono lo spettatore ad un’atmosfera tendenzialmente sospetta. Dopo l’alto contrasto dato dall’iper-tecnologico laboratorio immerso nella natura più pura e silenziosa, il malessere si intensifica con la presentazione degli spazi interni. L’ambiente risulta opprimente, claustrofobico, e contribuisce in modo sostanziale alla creazione della tensione nel film: nel laboratorio non esistono finestre, né porte che si aprano in modo meccanico. Ci sono solo muri, e come presto appare chiaro un semplice calo di elettricità renderebbe i protagonisti eternamente intrappolati in quella fortezza della tecnologia.Ciò che stupisce nel film è la riuscita ed equilibrata commistione di generi, tra il thriller e il fantascientifico: la tensione non ruba spazio alla coerenza scientifica e, allo stesso modo, la scienza non toglie nulla alla suspense. Raramente in questi film la scienza si è unita ad altri generi determinando un prodotto finale così bilanciato. Comunque il film gioca su una tecnologia quasi esasperata, ultra potenziata, quasi umana. La donna risulta meschina suo malgrado, e assistiamo ad una forte e imposta subalternità del femminile: le donne sono considerate divertimento che esistono solo in funzione del personaggio maschile o come robot da resettare e formattare a piacimento.Svariate sono dunque le riflessioni sociologiche a cui si potrebbe arrivare, partendo dagli spunti scientifici del film. Al di là di esse, Ex machina risulta un film ben strutturato, in cui le interpretazioni dei tre protagonisti e l’eccellente lavoro sugli effetti speciali arricchiscono una sceneggiatura già notevole. Non è certo questo il primo film a trattare le implicazioni etiche e scientifiche delle intelligenze artificiali, ma Garland affronta il tema in chiave inedita, unendo elementi romantici e suspense, fantascienza e thriller.CONTENUTI SPECIALI:Io ho acquistato la versione Blu Ray che vanta del Dolby Digital Master Audio 5.1 e una qualità video ineccepibile. Per quanto riguarda i contenuti speciali troviamo la completa creazione del robot di Ava, un documentario sul Test di Turing, l'intervista al Cast e l'ideazione di tutta la storia.CONCLUSIONI:Se siete appassionati di questo genere ve lo consiglio pienamente e guardandolo si avrà una visione agghiacciante dell'intelligenza artificiale del prossimo futuro. E dopo vi porrete la domanda: le macchine prenderanno il sopravvento sul genere umano...lascio a voi la risposta, dopo averlo guardato.