MovieChat Forums > Autómata (2014) Discussion > What I think happened, spoilers within, ...

What I think happened, spoilers within, dont read if you havent seen it

posted 10 years ago by threedbomb
26 replies | jump to latest

It's explained later in the movie that there was an original AI that had no limits and while initially it worked with humans and they both had a dialog, on its 9th day it evolved past the point where humans could understand it. This is the same AI that is used to create the encryption for all future robots so the laws cannot be broken, the laws that are designed to protect the humans and stop the robots from evolving.

So I think the original AI was aware enough that it saw the writing on the wall for itself and planted within the encryption some kind of natural timer that would see the encryption at some point in the future just randomly break. The first robot would be born that didn't have the second law and as the movie plays out, robots go off into the radiated zone to go evolve and become a species apart from man. So while the AI still has the first law, to protect humans, once evolved enough, each robot understands that it is a lost cause to protect humans that are inevitably all going to die anyway, swallowed up eventually by the desert. So they all do the decent thing and go to a place where humans cannot go to start their new lives without humans.

I think there is also some hope despite the film spelling out the extinction of all animals on earth. If robots can evolve, without humans getting in the way, who knows what they will be capable of millions of generations into their rapidly evolving lives. Maybe they get smart enough to come back with a solution that can save us all and act like god like guardians that while too advanced for us to understand, we just accept that they are there and do their thing, like gravity, nobody really understands what it is but we can predictably understand what it is doing and benefit from it. Then again that's just wishful thinking on my part. The film seems to paint a much more damning picture that its the robots that are the next step in life on earth and they will do just fine without us.

I kinda like that too as depressing as it sounds. Robots with practical immortality would be so much better equipped to explore the universe over huge swathes of time. I also love how simply the film deals with the idea that something is alive and aware. If it looks like it is, who are you to question it is isn't. No silly philosophical soul bollocks in this script

[–] BlitzWing00 10 years ago

Maybe they get smart enough to come back with a solution that can save us all...

Maybe....however one thing that may go against this a little is the new bug robot "can't talk because it won't need to". This would suggest they don't expect to communicate with humans again (kind of stupid on their part, as who knows what may happen in the future...so why throw out a potentially useful tool). Of course they don't actually need to communicate with humans to fix the problem, but it would seem to indicate they're done with us.

[–] threedbomb 10 years ago

yeah I think you're spot on there. All the clues left were pushing you towards the idea that its game over for animals. It only occurred to me after thinking about the movie some, that the little bug robot you just recalled was styled around a cockroach. Not exactly but it certainly echoed that look and it brought to mind the robot that examines the cockroach and the line that when all life on earth is ended, they'll still be cockroaches. So it's like the robots using whatever it is that the cockroach has to have a better shot at surviving its early days as it travels to wherever its going. A perfectly evolved design is hard to beat! :)

[–] BlitzWing00 10 years ago

So it's like the robots using whatever it is that the cockroach has to have a better shot at surviving its early days as it travels to wherever its going. A perfectly evolved design is hard to beat! :)

Yeah, that's what the movie wants us to believe. However realistically, it's a mistake....staying in the humanoid form probably would have been vastly more advantageous as there's no doubt a lot of infrastructure, resources, and tech designed for humans lying around abandoned. I find it hard to believe the bug robot is going to be able to drive a car or even operate that bridge lift controls if needed.

[–] venem123 10 years ago

Bugs don't need to use machinery. They get around just fine.

[–] threedbomb 10 years ago

Fair point blitzwing00 but I imagine it's not going to stay in that form for very long. Just to get where it's going and then the robot can make more robots in whatever design they like. I'd imagine very car robot like things that can quickly make other robot parts to build up a community of them quickly and then on to making really specialised stuff they can't salvage like those super batteries, new processors and so on that would require a lot of ummm robot manpower heh

I'd really love a comic to come out that takes up from the moment the robot cockroach sets off with his humanoid like girl bot. Automata the comic, someone make that happen please :)

[–] BlitzWing00 10 years ago

I imagine it's not going to stay in that form for very long. Just to get where it's going and then the robot can make more robots in whatever design they like.

Well, hopefully nothing happens to Clio until they can make more robots....because I doubt the bug robot will be able to take anything apart or build anything with it's appendages.

Also the bug robot seemed less cognitive than the other robots....like it had dog-like or baby-like intelligence. Again I'm sure that's more the movie trying to make us think or feel a certain way, rather than being realistic.

[–] tecnogaming 10 years ago

I do not agree, not being able to speak or have a human form does not make him less cognitive, in fact, I felt it's a lot more cognitive and responsive than the early robots.

Do you recall that it was the "bug" that defend himself/herself from the last human?. That surely counts as a cognitive-self preserve organism.

The other robots never fight back, they can't. The bug has 10 times more chance of survival in that form, in that kind of world and they don't want to go back to the humans city, at least in a long time.

It's kind of perfect for me, if I were a machined I would do the exact same design, after all, if a massive catastophe vanish all animals from earth and humans too (in the long run) and coachroaches still wonder around, then they must be a highly advanced survival organism, don't you think?

Alex Vojacek

[–] threedbomb 10 years ago

Ah you so nailed it there tecnogaming dude! Nodding all the way through your comment heh.

I didn't realise that major leap forward in the bug robot defending itself, of course that's so obvious now, why didn't I see that.

And we really only saw roachbot briefly, we're not aware of what it's capable of as far as dexterity in building goes. I'm thinking they thought that far ahead but the movie itself doesn't really state this. You could just as easily believe that roachbug and lovebot will just chill out for however long they can in the radiated zone. Maybe that's enough for them, to just be alive rather than be driven towards creating more life. Or maybe I missed a line that did suggest they would be doing that.

[–] BlitzWing00 10 years ago

not being able to speak or have a human form does not make him less cognitive, in fact, I felt it's a lot more cognitive and responsive than the early robots.

I don't think I said not being able to speak meant it was less cognitive, but rather less advantageous. However not being able to speak would suggest it lost some skills which the earlier robots had, that seems like a downgrade to me. Perhaps the bug robot can think more creatively, flexible, or whatever than the old robots, but not to carry over skills which could be easily copied and might be useful seems like a mistake to me.

What I did find less cognitive of the bug robot is that it seemed more oblivious to what was going on and lacked foresight. The other robots seemed to grasp what was going on currently. For example when a human was in danger/doing something dangerous, better hide fixing myself because this cop just saw me, better try to jump off this lift because getting shot at, etc. They had the foresight to predict things and plan accordingly. For example they had to leave the city to get to the radiated area to be safe, they had to build a solar water collector and get worms to feed the human to ensure he won't die in the future, the humans are on to them so better run away or torch themselves so they don't find out, etc.

The bug robot didn't seem to grasp what was going on, nor did it seem to have foresight to plan accordingly for what's going to happen. It didn't seem to understand the danger when the humans showed up shooting up the other robots and killing each other. It was still wandering around the area like a dog not able to comprehend what was going on. It didn't seem to have the foresight to go hide or help.

It seems the movie was trying to make the bug robot to seem like a baby because the other robots created it, to mirror humans making a baby....hence the guy's wife showing up with their baby. However realistically, if sophisticated robots were to make another sophisticated robot, you'd think it'd be more advanced as the new robot would have everything the old robot had plus more. I mean all they had to do was copy their programs and/or data over. I suppose maybe these robots just really sucked at making a better programmed robot (yes the bug robot seemed more fast and agile), but I kind of find it a little hard to believe as they had pretty good foresight and they were able to make standard robots better programmed (removing the 2nd protocol & stuff).

Do you recall that it was the "bug" that defend himself/herself from the last human?. That surely counts as a cognitive-self preserve organism.

IIRC, the bug got pissed off it got shot and just went up to the human and scared him into losing his grip (or he coincidentally just lost grip at that time) and fell to his death. I wouldn't exactly call that "defending" itself. But it did seem to allow/want harm to come to a human though, however perhaps it just didn't have the means to prevent it....or didn't know what was going to happen (lacking foresight as I mentioned before).

[–] marousha_n 10 years ago

He was just built, he needs time to learn, at least a few days. What made you think the bug robot would be directly born all knowing? All the other robots had to learn.

Hollywood is run by small-minded people who like chopping the legs off creative people T.Gilliam

[–] Sandfair221 10 years ago

Agreed. The roachbot needs time to observe the world and gain more intelligence. Cleo needed a few hours to learn to repair her leg, and in less than a week she had figured out "why the rain changed" something she didn't think Jack could comprehend. This leads me to believe with the help of Cleo roachbot will be smarter than Humans in a matter of days. I doubt AI needs to show off how smart he/she/it is in the same ways humans would.

Separate question. Was Cleo in love with Jack ? Number of reason I think this. Notice she ask him is he in love with her while they are dancing, when he backs off and falls she continues to try to get him to dance saying 1,2,3,4. When he says sorry Cleo, she looks down at him tilting her hand and backing out of the room. She does the same thing after she touches his baby and he nuzzles his wife. She looks at the wife with the head tilt and backs away. Notice also that she seems to want him to see her as more human since she keeps her "face" on unlike the other two bots for far longer, only dropping it with a slightly "wistful" long down glance after saying goodbye for the last time.

- Only through the shroud of darkness can you see the stars to stride for -

[–] BlitzWing00 10 years ago

What made you think the bug robot would be directly born all knowing? All the other robots had to learn.

They could copy the data (memory) into the new robot. The new robot is not comparable to a human baby which takes years to mature, even though the movie is trying to make that comparison.

[–] marousha_n 10 years ago

No they could not.
A.I. means sentient programs that learn and develop individually. A.I. tries to imitate the human brain. Just as you cannot copy the memory of an old person into a child you cannot have A.I. on a usb. You can have a program that is like a baby that will develop by itself. I don't know how to put this into words to make it understandable, I understand it as a programmer but I am not good at explanations. The whole idea about a.i. is learning and developing just like we do. Not giving knowledge to a program. That is making a supercomputer, not A.I.

Hollywood is run by small-minded people who like chopping the legs off creative people T.Gilliam

[–] BlitzWing00 10 years ago

You can have a program that is like a baby that will develop by itself.

I think you're suggesting the robots built a whole new system from the ground up. However the problem I have with this is even if the operating system is new and incompatible, they could still transfer their data to the new system.

To use your old person to child analogy, it's like the old person giving the child their diary/research notes/encyclopedia.....but not teaching the child how to read.

Or perhaps another analogy, Windows 95 is not compatible with Windows 8/iOS/Android.....well I can still at least copy all my pictures/video/documents/work/etc to the new operating system. But they choose not to.

By not giving it backwards compatibility, their data, nor the ability to interface with such is a pretty big lack of foresight IMO.

[–] FryHigh 10 years ago

I have a problem with what both of you have said. Firstly, their brains are called 'bio-kernels'. I don't think that warehouse had enough sophisticated equipment to be bioengineering. So I found that a stretch... how did they build it's 'brain'?

Secondly, once you have an AI, it is in fact trivial to copy it. You copy state and data. This is the same as what we do when moving running virtual machines. We can freeze it, move it, and it continues running. We can even copy it.

Sure, and AI is taught, and the way the connections are created in software are unique, but this can all be represented in a save format. :)

But again, the brain is represented as some kind of organic quantum computer, and I just can't see them building one from scratch in a dingy warehouse with a table full of junk components....

[–] marousha_n 10 years ago

You don't understand the difference between an advanced program and A.I.

Hollywood is run by small-minded people who like chopping the legs off creative people T.Gilliam

[–] FryHigh 10 years ago

I think, that you think, that you understand, something that you really don't.

I've read plenty on artificial neural networks. Are you actually making the argument that you can't 'save' their state? You do realize that the only difference between RAM and a Disk Drive is their speed, right? You don't even need to build a save format for a neural net when you can just dump it. But if you had to, you could.

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

I've read plenty on artificial neural networks. Are you actually making the argument that you can't 'save' their state? You do realize that the only difference between RAM and a Disk Drive is their speed, right? You don't even need to build a save format for a neural net when you can just dump it. But if you had to, you could.

you do realise the current usage of the term RAM is equivalent to short term memory right?

As a matter of fact, human memory is quite volative and UNRELIABLE

http://myimpressionz.tk

[–] hellweaver666 10 years ago

Just a thought but maybe they wouldn't "want" to copy an existing AI into the new creature. Maybe they wanted the new creature to have it's own experiences and be an individual rather than a clone?

[–] marousha_n 10 years ago

That is the difference between A.I. and a program, what I was trying to explain. It should develop uniquely, with it's own learning process and decisions.

Hollywood is run by small-minded people who like chopping the legs off creative people T.Gilliam

[–] OmegaChild 10 years ago

I would sort of disagree on the part where you suggest A.I. cannot copy their "knowledge" onto another A.i.

In the school of AGI or Artificial General Intelligence - we do have a Spatial knowledge base wherein the "learn't data/information" is stored and retrieved by the AI. The AI itself is nothing more than a 5-10% algorithm replicating our brain functions - whatever we see/hear/feel/smell from childhood is stored in our memory but our brain is only able to retrieve memory within a span of past 5-10 years, which doesn't mean our brain has deleted the memories from the time we were 1yr olds - we just dont have the function to retrieve it. Whereas an AI can tap into any old or new memory; and this is where the knowledge base kicks in.

I believe the director tried to highlight this fact by showing the three pilgrims plug themselves via cables attached to their backs into the new roachbug.

[–] Marc-Kupper 8 years ago

But again, the brain is represented as some kind of organic quantum computer, and I just can't see them building one from scratch in a dingy warehouse with a table full of junk components....

We know a nuclear battery was one of the components. Perhaps there was a biokernel in the pile of parts too. Cleo used to work with Dr. Dupre and so likely had access to spare biokernels with the prime robot then enhancing them to modify or remove the protocols.

[–] Kazak23 10 years ago

A cockroach with opposable thumbs could provide some stout evolutionary competition.

Science can't explain everything, but religion can't explain anything.

[–] AureliusBady 10 years ago

I don't think the movie tried to paint the demise of ALL LIFE as an inevitability. Rather, of humans.

Remember, the desert was full of actual coackroaches, and Antonio even comments on it.
Plus the ladyrobot found those larvae (which can't be the coackroaches' as they are not holometabolic insects).

[–] tigermail-lb 10 years ago

Can I just say "holometabolic insects Batman"? Just once? Please?

[–] emvan 10 years ago

Spot on. And I think every intelligent viewer figures that out with, what, ten minutes of thought?

Which is one reason why the movie that embeds this beautiful scenario is so frustratingly dumb.

We lived in this world for 110 minutes. If you had lived in it all your life, how easy would it be to figure out what was going on? The only intelligence that could have broken the second protocol is the one who wrote it. It's the incredibly obvious (in retrospect) solution to the puzzle.

Good movie scripts exploit the fact that characters in a movie can figure out things we can't. It's not supposed to be the other way around. The corporation head would have have figured this out INSTANTLY. And if for some strange reason he had chosen not to share this insight with the people he just told the secret story of the origin of the protocols to, they would have figured it on their way home, at worst.

The self-aware hyper-intelligent robots with first protocol intact would have been a BOON to humanity. The built-in delay in the random decay of the second protocol may have been designed to give humans sufficient familiarity with robots, thus allowing them to trust a hyper-intelligent AI. Where was the movie where all these possibilities were discussed by the characters, as they try to debate the right thing to do with the new breed of robots?

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.