- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Alex Garland has one thought when it comes to the artificial intelligence revolution: to implement it. Realizing himself as a novelist ("Beach") and screenwriter ("28 days later", "Dredd"), he decided to try himself in the role of director with the film "Out of the car", which is about to go out on the screens and raises a bunch of questions about artificial intelligence and ethics.
The technician (Oscar Isaac) is secretly developing a robot called Ava and asks one of his employees (Domhell Gleason) to assess her abilities using the Turing test. Scandals, intrigues, investigations, dangers are all as usual, but unlike stamped androids who live on the principle of "think - hence kill", Ava is clever, even kind, and may be a much more suitable heir to this world than a person, her created.
Alex Garland
"Out of the car" - an unusual film about artificial intelligence. How did you start thinking about computers?
I'm 44, and I grew up with the development of video games and computers. When I was 12 or 13, home computers appeared; your parents bought them, expecting you to learn from them, but all you did was play video games. True, I did some programming on Basic. I did simple programs like "Hello World", which gave the car a sensible sensitivity. I remember quite well this kind of electrical feeling you felt as if the car was alive - although you definitely knew it was not.
Years later, I entered into a long argument with my friend, who was seriously addicted to neurology. He believes that computers will never become reasonable, and he has good scientific arguments that convince him. But at the instinctive level, I simply disagree with him. I began to read a lot about AI, mind and consciousness.
You have worked with complex topics before, so this territory is completely new to you.
Even in the "Beach" there are topics of the theory of the multiverse and such a plan. I was working on a film called Sunshine, which was based on the thermal death of the universe. And although there were some interesting topics from the scientific point of view, for the most part it's garbage - the sense in it was as much as in the warp engine in the "Star Trek". Complete disappointment. I'm not saying that the film is bad - there are things in it that I love - but something is still not the same. And when I started working on this topic, I thought that it made sense.
What is your education in the field of AI?
I have an intellectual limitation in terms of what I can understand. This is partly an intellect, partly an understanding of mathematics; when they collide, an impenetrable brick wall is formed for me. But what can I read and understand, these are the philosophical ideas that surround them.
In particular, I came across a book by Murray Shanahan, a professor of cognitive robotics at Imperial College, a British version of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I liked his argument when I read the book. So when I wrote the script, I contacted him and a few other people and said that I would like him to take a hard look at the script and make sure that he is holding on.
So it happened?
We have acted twice presumptuously. Firstly, they created a sensible machine, and secondly, they got a very high level of robotics, which allowed a sensible machine to have a face, to have features. This is almost unbelievable, and you can rightly note that this is the equivalent of a warp engine. But this is science fiction, and even despite our arrogance, I tried to be very tough.
What science fiction about artificial intelligence did you focus on, drawing your own?
You can assume the level of literacy of the audience by films, but not by books. People could read or not read "Heart of Darkness", right? But they most likely saw the "Apocalypse Now." So when you're working on a sci-fi movie that has artificial intelligence and robots, you can be sure that people know something about HAL and 2001. You can even be sure that they know about "Blade Runner" and replicants. Thus, you can focus on a competent audience, because it will almost certainly be.
And, most likely, they will disassemble your film into parts too.
There can be a problem here. When developing a robot, I do not want people to think about another movie when it [the robot] appears on the screen. If it is gold, you will almost immediately think about C-3PO, and the female image of this will not be canceled. We had to stay away from the iconic robots: from the film "Metropolis", from the video Bjork, filmed by Chris Cunningham ("All Is Full of Love").
It seems that people want to compare "Out of the car" with "She" - AI is different, but you are playing with the theme of creating the "ideal woman".
There are two completely separate chains in this film, as far as I can tell. One about AI and consciousness, another about social constructs: why should this guy create a car in the form of a tender twenty-year-old girl to show this car to a young guy for testing.
How important was Ava's design for the overall picture of the film?
It looks familiar, but it remains completely unique. There may be a little Mary in the Metropolis, but nothing more. It's super important. This is critical, because she needs to look beautiful in a special way. She needs to look very, very beautiful and visually eye-catching.
When Nathan explains why he made Ava the way she is, it's creepy.
Yes, but that's exactly what you need. You must think that this is creepy. You should feel frustrated, uncomfortable. And therefore it must be saved.
Nathan in many ways is an archetypal guy from the Silicon Valley. His character - a cast of these dudes?
This is more when the alpha male meets a non-alpha male. I like the mixture of someone who is incredibly aggressive and bullshit, but speaks familiarly, as if he is teaching something to his little brother-chuvat, even if it's something that goes beyond his class.
Have you followed the latest debate in the field of AI and ethics?
This is a big question. I think that if you talk a lot about unreasonable AI - supplemented versions of what we already have - that is, what to worry about and what to take into account. It's easy to imagine a situation where drones controlled by AI are more effective on the battlefield than human-controlled drones, and do not suffer from PTSD as humans. You literally trusted the machine to make decisions about the life and death of a person. The ethical problems associated with it are absolutely obvious.
But speaking in general, if you create a new consciousness in the form of a machine, it will not be so different from the fact that two adults create a child, in my opinion. You may have problems with the fact that the new machine is more intelligent than its parents, but, again, we have learned a little with this to cope. You can have two parents who create Einstein, and the other two that create Stalin.
Therefore, you do not worry about Skynet.
I even welcome him. People are going to die on this planet. This can happen because of an environmental disaster or because of changes in the solar system or the sun. But when this happens, we can not go through the wormhole in another galaxy and find an old planet. It just will not happen. Among us, only AI will survive - if we manage to create them. This is not a problem, it is, on the contrary, something to strive for.
"From the car," is felt, done with this in mind.
I hope this is clear from the film. This film was conceived specifically as supporting the ideas of AI. People spoil everything; the cars have a pretty good track record compared to us.
It seems that you were lucky with the stars, especially with Oscar Isaac and Domnel Gleason.
Because they are in Star Wars?
Well yes.
When I started to select the actors "Out of the car", the only thing I knew 100%, that you should not pull movie stars. They could drown the whole enterprise with ease. Therefore, it was necessary to find just good actors. The problem was only that we could not understand who would be good, but took them, because there were other people who wanted them.
The article is based on materials .
Comments
Post a Comment