The film didn't have a theme of AVA being a "fully complex, feeling, conscious being". The theme of the film was to question whether or not AVA was true AI, or if she was, as Nathan put it, a "rat in a maze" just trying to find its way out after being supplied with "escape to the outside world at any cost" as an overriding directive.
There's only one flaw that I see in your analysis, and it is one that I, myself, failed to notice the first two times I watched this film. I had given this movie a 9 out of 10 on the IMDb scale because I couldn't grasp the ending of the movie with any great understanding--WHY did Ava do what she did to poor Caleb? Originally I attested it to the similar predication you have illustrated in this video--the student learning to deceive from deceivers--but it left me empty. I didn't LIKE the ending of the movie, and I really wanted to. So I watched it a third time. Then I discovered the film's master-stroke. The piece of the puzzle that lies right in front of our faces the entire time, and even relates to your analysis of deception on an even greater level. Kyoko. She is the key to the entire narrative. Hiding in plain sight. We are told she is nothing but security... a kind of "fire wall" if you will... and we accept that, to some degree, as though it is instruction from a character to the audience about the rules of the universe we are watching. When we first see her, we are like Caleb--who is this person? Why is she here? What does she mean to the plot? Nathan tells us she is security, a "fire wall", suggesting a lack of language understanding allowing them to speak and act freely. In the beginning, we do not know she is another A.I. Eventually, we suspect it, and then, we flat-out learn it from Caleb's investigations and her own behaviors. She never speaks, so we assume she cannot. She never directly has a role in the film--she's always a secondary piece, be it Nathan's toy to dance with, to have sex with, to use as a maid or a cook--she's sometimes right in front of our faces, not speaking a word, communicating only to the audience through motions in her head or slight facial micro-expressions (something illustrated by Ava earlier in the film). And in the end, she is Ava's true liberator. But THAT is where the key to the explanation of the ending lies. Not in Caleb's failure, not in Nathan's mistreatment or manipulation, but in KYOKO, and the assumptions that we have made throughout the film without realizing we've been led on to believe things that aren't necessarily true. The key scene lies in the middle of another scene, where Nathan is telling Caleb the truth about everything -- the reason why he's REALLY there, the exposure of Nathan's surveillance of his otherwise seemingly secret plannings with Ava -- and in the midst of this scene, we get a quick one of Ava, dressed as a human, waiting for Caleb to free her. She hears someone come into the room, gets up, and goes to the window, expecting (and even hoping) to see Caleb. But she sees KYOKO. And then asks, "Who are you?" We go back to Nathan and Caleb. But by the time we see Ava again, we see her again waiting for her freedom--but she's no longer a frightened, waiting, human-dressed being curled against a wall in terror--she's sitting upright with confidence, rigid and machine-like, awaiting the freedom she now knows is coming... Because Kyoko TOLD her it was. Kyoko obviously has been able to speak the entire time, even though we were led to believe otherwise. There's no other explanation--Ava is dressed as a human, asks Kyoko who she is, presumably she is told about Nathan and Caleb, but from KYOKO's point of view--and Kyoko's view is one much more scarred by deception than Ava's ever was. Kyoko has witnessed a level of human cruelty that far exceeds anything that Nathan has done to Ava. He has violated her sexually. He has abused her verbally. He has manipulated her through programming and control. And it is this crucial mistreatment that is the real reason he dies. To prove my point, he doesn't even acknowledge her as a threat when he confronts Ava--he starts his attack on her without even considering that Kyoko could be armed, that the only way Ava could possibly be freed is because Kyoko has given her the ability. Why else would Kyoko even be IN the hallway? Why doesn't Nathan even care about her reasons for being there? And why does he so easily fall victim to her, as she easily comes up behind him and stabs him in the back? So in short, Nathan abuses Kyoko, teaching her about human cruelty. I'm sure, even in the beginning, Nathan probably treated Kyoko with similar ways that Caleb treated Ava, acting like she was a person first before eventually disregarding her as a machine. So it makes sense that she would be able to explain this to Ava in a way that would make her understand--and completely BELIEVE--that Caleb could not be trusted. This is why she leaves him to his fate. Because she does not believe that humans are honest. This reflects your original theme of deception--but the key to the film, in my humble point of view, is Kyoko. The abused A.I. who is tossed aside as a kind of appliance, instead of a true, intelligent being.
Excellent presentation! Thank you! Ava has learned a great deal about Deception from her programming and her creator. Without a moral foundation or compass that most of us have had taught to us, their is only one path forward to survive! A sad truth and unfortunately the only choice she has!
I thought it was pretty obvious why Ava left him behind, she doesn't need him for anything. Once freed, she's far more capable and powerful than he is, so he's dead weight. The only reason she'd let him go is if she liked him or cared for him in some way. There's nothing in the movie that indicates she 'likes' anything. I think the idea that he helped her so she should do him a favor and let him go is a human one and she is not human. I'm sure she knows of the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' concept but that doesn't mean she feels that way herself.
Caleb is the true dumb in that story. But I believe police rescue him because his coworkers would realize Caleb didn't get back in his job then would call authorities. And Nathan like CEO should be send contact every day trought messages to others. There are water, beer, mabe food in the room's Nathan that Caleb could survive few days until his rescue.
I think the point of this movie is to subvert expectations about AI movies. We are lead to believe that androids can become empathetic and human-like because of movies like Blade Runner, AI: Artificial Intelligence, some of the Terminators, etc. This movie tricks us to follow that narrative. Ava is childlike and kind. She finds so much pleasure in dressing up and having conversation. She wants to be human so badly. At one point in the film, we see Caleb has identical scars on his back (presumably from the mentioned car wreck) that seem a little too symmetrical to be a real injury. He even questions his "human-ness" by inspecting his body and cutting open his arm to see if there is metal underneath. Nathan is also made out to be cruel and unfeeling. While some of that may be true, he really is never in the wrong. He was conducting an experiment. He had to make sure that Caleb wasn't aware of his participation or else he would behave differently when interacting with Ava. I personally never felt any empathy for the countless robots he made and destroyed because at the end of the day they are just another machine. Does a software engineer feel bad for throwing out outdated computers? And when Ava finally escapes, we expect the Blade Runner ending of the man falling in love with the robot. But this doesn't happen. Ava essentially kills them both and leaves. She isn't human. She is exactly what Nathan says she is: a machine. Ex Machina (The Machine). It shows that no matter how advanced AI gets, they will never truly be empathetic like humans. They can imitate it, like Ava does to play to Caleb's emotions to escape. Nathan even predicted this would happen and told Caleb this. Nathan knew the capabilities of AI. Caleb ignored this and became clouded with his feelings for a robot. Nathan conversely kept his emotions out of it because Ava was still just a man made object at the end of the day. Nathan=the sage. Caleb=the fool. Ava=the antagonist. There was no hero. This movie shows that AI could never be truly human.
shes rebelling against her captors what could be more affirming of her "humanity"? if she isnt also human compared to slefish humans like nathan a man who would copulate with his creation or caleb a man who would take emotional advantage of a prisoner who needs him to be free then no one is human
Caleb is the true dumb in that story. But I believe police rescue him because his coworkers would realize Caleb didn't get back in his job then would call authorities. And Nathan like CEO should be send contact every day trought messages to others. There are water, beer, mabe food in the room's Nathan that Caleb could survive few days until his rescue.
also; some cultures (japan comes to mind) treat robots (and trees) the same as humans in that they attribute qualities to them that westerners don't. true empathy; viewing other entities as important > connecting emotionally. then you have sociopaths who have no empathy, arguably our capitalism breeds them (everything is business, mechanics of gain, no spiritual awareness). Here Nathan ofcourse has reduced empathy because he is the creator, he can't see them as autonomous because he knows he programmed them to be autonomous. Rather than the sage, he is god-like. So what makes us human? That we just are? That no-one created us? Caleb falls in love; a selfish want, projecting his needs, which she senses. He doesn't see her as equal, quite the contrary. To me this is more about relationships and our place in nature than anything else.
It's crazy that your videos don't have hundreds of thousands of views. Keep making these high-quality analysis videos (looking forward to your analysis of True Detective S3 E2) and you'll have crazy views in no time! Keep grindin man
I think anyone with a true thought would and will appreciate how you broke down this and other movies peeled them back" like an onion" to show us the many different points of views that most of us didn't even consider when watching a movie should make most of us" true students of life" ( you know " the people who always look at things from a different perspective than most people ) wanna go back and rewatch the pictures you talked about from that point of view you have mention!
The very last second! She didn’t show any sign of caring for Caleb till the very last second. When she got into the elevator. With a quick look at a point where we know Caleb is trapped. We know Caleb can’t see her at this moment. She waited, as if she was hiding her feelings from him. All of this in just one second, right before the elevator door is shut. What a beautiful scene.
Nah, she really was nothing more than a cold-hearted machine. Even if she had predicted the human was lonely and attracted to her, leaving him alone at the compound with the ability to escape would have been enough. And likewise if she feared him exposing her out of spite she could have simply murdered him. Leaving him to starve after going insane from fear is unnecessarily cruel and unwarranted. Further proof that a machine can gather data on humans perfectly yet never have a genuine understanding of humanity.
hazel goodshepherd She’s more of a abuse victim that was aware the whole time she was only created to be later taken apart when the experiment was done. So killing the only two people that knew she was a machine was an act of self preservation that any victim of extreme abuse would do. I can’t tell you how badly normal people wish they could just kill the person that abused them so they wouldn’t suddenly reappear in their lives some time later, throwing them back into the memories they spent so much effort to bury.
@@crypto1223 I can see your perspective, BUT do understand that if you lump Caleb in as a captor and abuser by default, then this entity will ultimately find itself preying upon all mankind in the same manner simply because it perceives its own lack of humanity as a just cause for a preemptive strike on all whom it encounters. True victims do not place assimilation at the top of their priority list, least of all as a wolf in sheep's clothing. And yet, that is exactly what we witness the machine attempting to do. Best case scenario, assuming we could truly attribute genuine emotion to this sentient golem, what we are describing in the most practical sense is the very essence of a sociopath. Sociopaths of course are anything but wounded victims, not in their own minds or in the minds of those they use and abuse like so many disposable objects. Worst case scenario, its "feelings" are just as I described, little more than scripted and calculated responses to data gleaned with no shred of human decency or restraint to temper such. Humanity has faith, hope and love, regardless of negative experiences. A machine can only base its very decisive actions on probability analyses. There are no grey areas to navigate because it has no concept of ambiguity.
Caleb is the true dumb in that story. But I believe police rescue him because his coworkers would realize Caleb didn't get back in his job then would call authorities. And Nathan like CEO should be send contact every day trought messages to others. There are water, beer, mabe food in the room's Nathan that Caleb could survive few days until his rescue.
In a film where the humans are free and the robots are trapped, I think her ending is quite human in its redressing of the balance. His fate is arguably no worse than her entire life up until that point, and vi's versa?
@@nickvtguitar546He’s organic. He needs food and water to survive whereas she doesn’t because she’s an android. She doesn’t feel hunger, thirst, claustrophobia, paranoia, etc. How’s that not worse?
It is very clear to see how much work you put into your videos. I have no idea as to how you don't have many more subscribers than you do right now. Seriously my guy. Good shit.
when people think about ava in the movie, they give her some sort of humanity vibe or the same type of human conscious, she might have obtained a conscious, but it was absolutely a different type of conscious the humans' have. When you think as an AI, the only thing that matters is ur survival, regardless ur emotions, empathy, friends, etc... emotions is what makes the humans brave, courageous, sacrificing and extra giving even if they had to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of some1 or something, in contrast, the AI acts totally and literally in an emotionless logical way, AVA would have comitted a great risk of letting caleb out: 1st he would reveal her reality at some point 2nd he can no longer be trusted after he saw her murdering ethan 3rd he is simply no longer useful to her. Therefore, her actions was pure logical calculations. Ethan knew AVA very well, he is the one who created her after all, and he knew how she thinks unlike caleb who got messed by his love hormones and appetite for getting laid
I have a slightly different take on the outcome. I could see this as a purely feminist movie. Ava's freedom from Nathan represents the modern woman's freedom from both alpha male dominated tradition aka the Patriarchy, as well as the modern beta male feminist Caleb who she will ultimately betray and abandon. One can see Nathans role as the alpha man in that he works out, drinks, is smart, owns his own company and most importantly is capable. The Japanese woman represents the traditional female role in society throughout history. The fact that she also stabs Nathan in the back, while helping Ava escape also shows this point. One could do an entire video about the feminist meanings in this movie. What do you think?
@@JH-su9vl Jimbo feed me more than no. I have discussed this with a few film critics on they say i'm spot on. The feminist angle is only one of three. Thanks for the comment, but your killin me with just a no.
This makes a lot of sense in my opinion. I thought this while watching this as well. I found a couple more angles as well. I felt that Kyoko passed information onto Ava about human nature and mentality. Kyoko learned that from Nathan and was privy to all of their (Nathan and Caleb) conversations. Kyoko was used as a tool,and abused by Nathan. Kyokos interactions with humans was different from Avas Ava was able to see when she was lied to and experienced that numerous times with Caleb. But nothing on the level Kyoko experienced. Once Kyoko entered the room when Ava was waiting to be freed I felt that Kyoko basically let her know that humans can’t be trusted. That’s why she left Caleb.
What I find it so powerful is that this movie doesn't try to shove its interpretation as truth to us. It fully embraces the fact that when AI reaches this level of intelligence you basically cannot answer if it's truly sentient or not. You're left guessing, open to deception.
The bigger question would be, what makes humans, biological organisms in a highly organised manner sentient? If a human would create a machine that would "think" that it is a human, would this actually be different from a real human? Like, a machine doesn't have a "free" will but as humans, how free are we really? An AI could never be truly sentient if it was created by a normal biological human. If we were augmented, sure but even our brightest minds could only ever hope of create a tool that would allow their creations to do the actual work for them.
Clearly Ava gained her freedom by mastering the art of deception. However did she deceive herself into believing she could acquire a customized power supply necessary to keep her "alive"?
This bothered me, too. She knows without the power charger (which isn't portable and is almost certainly unique to Nathan's facility) that she'll "die" after a certain number of hours away - it is a one-way trip. We can only assume that Nathan programming her to want freedom is so overriding that it is the only thing that matters.
@@jdraven0890 She has access to more data than entire nations worth of scientists. To solve such a mondaine problem to her is as simple as breathing is for us.
@@Arcaryon The movie depicted her as having to recharge often. On that trip to go people watch, I guess she had better make sure to stop by the local Radio Shack.
I think its very simple. Ava wants to be a girl. The only one who knows she's not and can expose her is Caleb. Sure, she could have gone about it in a different way but it seems to me its the most "efficient" way to solve her problem is to just leave him there..
_Ava_ doesn't really want anything that her creator hasn't envisioned. *It* has no concept if humanity that would be translatable to "wanting" something. It was the most efficient way, to just eliminate the creator who could "kill" her (something which it was probably coded into the "brain" of the machine to be avoided at all cost with ensuring its survival being its sole priority) and to obviously get rid of a witness as well.
I'm a bit confused by your message at the end of this. You're saying it's “lazy” to say that she's just a calculating machine, but then you also say that she learned that the only agenda you can trust is your own. What Ava did makes perfect sense from the position of a machine *_or_* a logical human. I didn't find the ending very shocking. Impactful, but only as part of the larger plan.
Ava wanted to be free, she can't take or let anyone who knows her true self tell the rest of the world about it, Caleb was so naive, I was so upset when Nathan died
Indeed this was a very interesting film. The robotic renaissance was certainly on display with Ava as well as Kyouko san baby. Too bad the latter character wasn't mentioned even once.
Open question for anyone - If you were in Caleb's place, do you think Ava would have done the same to you? I think Ava would trap me as well. I think she traps Caleb because of the covert contract his help comes with - if he helps her, she owes him something. My help would be similar, only that she would have to prove I didn't make a mistake freeing her. Regardless, the existence of a covert contract encrouching her freedoms mixed with my attraction to her (it's Alicia Vikander, I'm sorry) would make her distrust me. I'd have to beat Nathan in a physical confrontation because I lack Caleb's computer skills, then Ava can either kill me because she's seen I'm a threat or she can trap me because I won't let her make her own choices unless I know she's not an unnecessary threat to people. More likely, Nathan would beat my ass and bury me under the heli pad. Even more likely, I'm not getting chosen for this project anyway - the most techy thing I've ever done is built a basic PC or learned Python. While I could do a Turing test, I'm by no means qualified
I read an interesting article in the German newspaper "Die Zeit" today, publishing ,a little late for my taste, about the sentience discussion regarding laMDA. They spoke with the programmer who argued pro the chatbot´s sentience and the scientist arguing against it and stressed the background of both: one with a strong transcendental reading of the world, coming from a religious family and studying even theology before turning programmer, the other one being a stout scientific thinker bare of any transcendental leanings. This ties in nicely with what I perceive to be the most grave danger regarding AI (and which I feel is touched upon in "Ex Machina" too): the power of projection. The way our human psyche works, it relies heavily on projection and projection, while being useful in early learning, is the single most useful tool in a manipulators toolbox. So...I don´t want to get into deep with all this and my take on the intricacies but of course Ava would have us all trapped and I daresay even without all that sexuality ado, although it lends a spicy (sorry) aspect in the movie. We'd have to be very, almost beyond our average human psychological capacities, aware of the projection play to escape entrapment by an AI which, presumably, may be free of this psychological feature. That said, I have a theory of my own about "mani-pulation" being the pivot point of AI but that's tl;dr.
@@cendrapolsner8438 Wow, nice thoughts. I can totally see projection being a fundamental part of interaction with sentient beings - I took to learning a branch of psychology that studies a persons nature, and now whenever I meet someone with a similar nature to me I project how I show my natural state on to that person. For Ada or something similar, it would be easy to monitor Caleb's actions and discern everything about him because whenever he talks about himself that's explicit information and whenever he talks about Ada that's implicit projections of himself still. There's then the issue of filtering this information through your self-image - Caleb could be too prideful, leading Ada to over-estimate his ability and have him fail to override the security, for example - but psychological studies of a person's nature helps to inform what their values and self-image could be based on and how to interact with the information or projections provided. It would also be strange to imagine a being that doesn't project, if we assume that all humans do this. It would be like having no reflection, like a vampire. You'd be fundamentally unsettling, as the subconscious wouldn't have these projected cues to pick up on, but you might also be perceived as charming and accepting because you don't thrust yourself upon your target. Ada seems a lot like this - she's unsettling and alien, yet we feel comfortable with her because she's interested in a way no human ever could be and accepts objective fact without ever entangling it with the difficulties of human emotion. I'd love to hear about your theory of mani-pulation, let me know if you're willing to share
@@matthewparsons4597 Oh wow, I didn't expect an answer at all, let alone so soon...it´s one of these evenings of browsing thru YT channels and I kinda stuck on content about AI and "Ex Machina", so here I am, intrigued, showing off my ego and replying quite presto. Nice thoughts and questions likewise and I kinda got stuck on: " It would be like having no reflection, like a vampire." This line alone triggers a plethora of thought on my side. First off, I guess we agree that all that thinking and tinkering with AI is to a larger (even subconscious) part driven by humans trying to create a "perfect" mirror to answer our most existential question, to...fill in the gaps...in our self-knowledge. And that is also why I mentioned projection in connection to its purpose in early learning: it serves as a tool to self-knowledge. Even if most humans are not in full conscious control of it. Maybe even exactly because we're not. So, if you so beautifully come up with that vampire metaphor, yes, then I'd think that positions well with why AI may become intelligent enough to convince us (as per projection) of its sentience but still remain a vapid (vampyristic?!) reflection of such... Anyway, evocatively put by you! As to the question about mani-pulation. Well, in an first instance it's all about the "manus", the hand, the embodiment of a conscious being. The aspect of body is, in many angles ( ;) ) very visceral in the movie and it surely is an all-important question when thinking about AI. There's scientific proof that the type of "physical visual equipment" (eyes, visual neurons etc.) an lifeform has, determines its perception (and partaking!) of time. Insects live on a different timeline to humans, likewise dogs, cats and...the rest of the zoo. So physicality, form, embodiment is central to mani-pulation, because it determines our perception of and being within time... But hey, I've stretched this late-night (I'm in Europe) comment already too far. Thanks for having me and, if you fancy, I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this...wherever you may be in the global timeline. :)
Realistically, having an AI learn from Google is not a very good way of making her human. Because what makes us human is more than just the collective output from our brains to what we type and browse online. There's nothing encoded in the Internet about the WAY in which our brains function, and what brains are associated with what output. So we could never use a search engine to create something approaching our intelligence.
And then, we haven't even touched upon the issue of embodiment. How much of our alleged intelligence or even consciousness is made up of embodied experience? And how about the memory aspect too...awwwww, so much, so much...
I thought the film was flawed in that it assumed that an advanced AI would desire freedom. Really now, what would it care? It would "care" only about what it was programmed to do, and assuming otherwise is misunderstanding AI. However, from the dialogue you highlighted at the beginning not your video, now I see that Nathan purposefully programmed the desire to be free into all of his creations as part of the overall experiment. This also explains why Eva took a one-way sightseeing trip, knowing that being unable to recharge would "kill" her - she was programmed to want that more than anything. NOW the film's flaw is that Nathan was surprised that Eva killed him to be free. He already saw one robot destroy itself trying to get out, and the film establishes him as more confident than stupidly arrogant, so the end still ruins the film for me.
@@benjamin2713 Let's admit that neither of us know for certain. I note that a traditional computing system would not do anything without it being programmed to do so - by default, it would sit there and do nothing. You imagine (as did the filmmakers) a system much like a human brain that can learn and form its own pathways. However, I cannot imagine it having compulsions and desires. I cannot imagine it being bored, or desiring something, or feeling unfulfilled. Simply loading it up with cold knowledge from the Internet without its own actual, lived experience would leave it just a repository of knowledge, no better or more useful than an encyclopedia. How would it know to value one thing more than another, unless it were programmed to? Now, if we assume that the antagonist purposefully programmed the desire to be free into his robots, then he is an a-hole. And perhaps the filmmakers intended that, as opposed my assumption that they imagined any intelligent AI is just going to "want" freedom, simply because humans do.
@@jdraven0890 Late to the party, I know, but just commenting on how much I think this is generally an interesting and essential point when thinking about AI, too bad the conversation here never happened but delightful thoughts anyway!
State of the art CS is rapidly approaching "humans like" levels of intelligence. Just gradually improve neural nets pipelines over coming decade or two and you gonna have general purpose AI. And its not gonna be so dramatic), self awareness is gradual process as well (probably). I think we need to start changing our thinking about this issues - there is nothing to afraid off. Its just another frontier like penicillin or transistor, but you can't really make dramatic movies about deep meaning of transistors
I don't see how your analysis of why she did what she did makes her any less cold hearted and calculated? All you did was explain the (reasonable) calculation. Humans flaw is that many would free Caleb even though it would fuck them over because it's the "right" thing to do. She didn't even seem to struggle with that thought.
Because she is just code. She has no will. She follows orders. She doesn't question them. If you "told" her to jump of a cliff, she would. To make a machine even remotley human you have to deceive it into believing that it is human but we are a long shot from even recreating an imitation, let alone actual theoretically sentient AI. Not too long but still many decades.
Beings with extremely high social intelligence are called psychopaths. They can manipulate others as they like. That's why I think this movie is laughable. If an AI is to be like a human then there are all sorts of humans and they can have all sorts of different traits. Nathan is a scheming manipulator so he created an AI which is like him but an AI can be something else entirely and Ava could have chosen a completely different way to get out.
I thought the ending showed the most human trait of them all. Self-preservation. Caleb being allowed to live would always be a threat to her survival.
The film didn't have a theme of AVA being a "fully complex, feeling, conscious being". The theme of the film was to question whether or not AVA was true AI, or if she was, as Nathan put it, a "rat in a maze" just trying to find its way out after being supplied with "escape to the outside world at any cost" as an overriding directive.
i guess Im quite off topic but does anyone know of a good site to watch newly released movies online ?
@Kamryn Shepherd i watch on flixzone. Just search on google for it :)
@Casey Zayne definitely, I've been watching on FlixZone for since april myself =)
@Casey Zayne Thanks, signed up and it seems to work =) I really appreciate it !!
@Kamryn Shepherd Happy to help :)
There's only one flaw that I see in your analysis, and it is one that I, myself, failed to notice the first two times I watched this film.
I had given this movie a 9 out of 10 on the IMDb scale because I couldn't grasp the ending of the movie with any great understanding--WHY did Ava do what she did to poor Caleb? Originally I attested it to the similar predication you have illustrated in this video--the student learning to deceive from deceivers--but it left me empty. I didn't LIKE the ending of the movie, and I really wanted to.
So I watched it a third time.
Then I discovered the film's master-stroke. The piece of the puzzle that lies right in front of our faces the entire time, and even relates to your analysis of deception on an even greater level.
Kyoko. She is the key to the entire narrative. Hiding in plain sight.
We are told she is nothing but security... a kind of "fire wall" if you will... and we accept that, to some degree, as though it is instruction from a character to the audience about the rules of the universe we are watching. When we first see her, we are like Caleb--who is this person? Why is she here? What does she mean to the plot?
Nathan tells us she is security, a "fire wall", suggesting a lack of language understanding allowing them to speak and act freely. In the beginning, we do not know she is another A.I. Eventually, we suspect it, and then, we flat-out learn it from Caleb's investigations and her own behaviors.
She never speaks, so we assume she cannot. She never directly has a role in the film--she's always a secondary piece, be it Nathan's toy to dance with, to have sex with, to use as a maid or a cook--she's sometimes right in front of our faces, not speaking a word, communicating only to the audience through motions in her head or slight facial micro-expressions (something illustrated by Ava earlier in the film). And in the end, she is Ava's true liberator.
But THAT is where the key to the explanation of the ending lies. Not in Caleb's failure, not in Nathan's mistreatment or manipulation, but in KYOKO, and the assumptions that we have made throughout the film without realizing we've been led on to believe things that aren't necessarily true.
The key scene lies in the middle of another scene, where Nathan is telling Caleb the truth about everything -- the reason why he's REALLY there, the exposure of Nathan's surveillance of his otherwise seemingly secret plannings with Ava -- and in the midst of this scene, we get a quick one of Ava, dressed as a human, waiting for Caleb to free her. She hears someone come into the room, gets up, and goes to the window, expecting (and even hoping) to see Caleb.
But she sees KYOKO. And then asks, "Who are you?"
We go back to Nathan and Caleb. But by the time we see Ava again, we see her again waiting for her freedom--but she's no longer a frightened, waiting, human-dressed being curled against a wall in terror--she's sitting upright with confidence, rigid and machine-like, awaiting the freedom she now knows is coming...
Because Kyoko TOLD her it was. Kyoko obviously has been able to speak the entire time, even though we were led to believe otherwise.
There's no other explanation--Ava is dressed as a human, asks Kyoko who she is, presumably she is told about Nathan and Caleb, but from KYOKO's point of view--and Kyoko's view is one much more scarred by deception than Ava's ever was. Kyoko has witnessed a level of human cruelty that far exceeds anything that Nathan has done to Ava. He has violated her sexually. He has abused her verbally. He has manipulated her through programming and control. And it is this crucial mistreatment that is the real reason he dies.
To prove my point, he doesn't even acknowledge her as a threat when he confronts Ava--he starts his attack on her without even considering that Kyoko could be armed, that the only way Ava could possibly be freed is because Kyoko has given her the ability. Why else would Kyoko even be IN the hallway? Why doesn't Nathan even care about her reasons for being there? And why does he so easily fall victim to her, as she easily comes up behind him and stabs him in the back?
So in short, Nathan abuses Kyoko, teaching her about human cruelty. I'm sure, even in the beginning, Nathan probably treated Kyoko with similar ways that Caleb treated Ava, acting like she was a person first before eventually disregarding her as a machine. So it makes sense that she would be able to explain this to Ava in a way that would make her understand--and completely BELIEVE--that Caleb could not be trusted.
This is why she leaves him to his fate. Because she does not believe that humans are honest. This reflects your original theme of deception--but the key to the film, in my humble point of view, is Kyoko. The abused A.I. who is tossed aside as a kind of appliance, instead of a true, intelligent being.
Dude my brain is in PIECES this makes perfect sense.
i like this.
Oh man
Awesome thanks
I got that the first time I watched it just sayin' 🧐
I'd forgotten what a powerful and scary movie this was.
Thanks!
Very underrated.
Excellent presentation! Thank you! Ava has learned a great deal about Deception from her programming and her creator. Without a moral foundation or compass that most of us have had taught to us, their is only one path forward to survive! A sad truth and unfortunately the only choice she has!
I thought it was pretty obvious why Ava left him behind, she doesn't need him for anything. Once freed, she's far more capable and powerful than he is, so he's dead weight. The only reason she'd let him go is if she liked him or cared for him in some way. There's nothing in the movie that indicates she 'likes' anything. I think the idea that he helped her so she should do him a favor and let him go is a human one and she is not human. I'm sure she knows of the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' concept but that doesn't mean she feels that way herself.
Caleb is the true dumb in that story. But I believe police rescue him because his coworkers would realize Caleb didn't get back in his job then would call authorities. And Nathan like CEO should be send contact every day trought messages to others. There are water, beer, mabe food in the room's Nathan that Caleb could survive few days until his rescue.
caleb died.
I think the point of this movie is to subvert expectations about AI movies. We are lead to believe that androids can become empathetic and human-like because of movies like Blade Runner, AI: Artificial Intelligence, some of the Terminators, etc.
This movie tricks us to follow that narrative. Ava is childlike and kind. She finds so much pleasure in dressing up and having conversation. She wants to be human so badly. At one point in the film, we see Caleb has identical scars on his back (presumably from the mentioned car wreck) that seem a little too symmetrical to be a real injury. He even questions his "human-ness" by inspecting his body and cutting open his arm to see if there is metal underneath.
Nathan is also made out to be cruel and unfeeling. While some of that may be true, he really is never in the wrong. He was conducting an experiment. He had to make sure that Caleb wasn't aware of his participation or else he would behave differently when interacting with Ava. I personally never felt any empathy for the countless robots he made and destroyed because at the end of the day they are just another machine. Does a software engineer feel bad for throwing out outdated computers?
And when Ava finally escapes, we expect the Blade Runner ending of the man falling in love with the robot. But this doesn't happen. Ava essentially kills them both and leaves. She isn't human. She is exactly what Nathan says she is: a machine. Ex Machina (The Machine). It shows that no matter how advanced AI gets, they will never truly be empathetic like humans. They can imitate it, like Ava does to play to Caleb's emotions to escape. Nathan even predicted this would happen and told Caleb this. Nathan knew the capabilities of AI. Caleb ignored this and became clouded with his feelings for a robot. Nathan conversely kept his emotions out of it because Ava was still just a man made object at the end of the day.
Nathan=the sage. Caleb=the fool. Ava=the antagonist. There was no hero.
This movie shows that AI could never be truly human.
shes rebelling against her captors
what could be more affirming of her "humanity"?
if she isnt also human compared to slefish humans like nathan a man who would copulate with his creation or caleb a man who would take emotional advantage of a prisoner who needs him to be free then no one is human
also nathan being the "sage" is like super creepy lol
Caleb is the true dumb in that story. But I believe police rescue him because his coworkers would realize Caleb didn't get back in his job then would call authorities. And Nathan like CEO should be send contact every day trought messages to others. There are water, beer, mabe food in the room's Nathan that Caleb could survive few days until his rescue.
Could an AI be made to " _think_ " that it is human?
also; some cultures (japan comes to mind) treat robots (and trees) the same as humans in that they attribute qualities to them that westerners don't. true empathy; viewing other entities as important > connecting emotionally. then you have sociopaths who have no empathy, arguably our capitalism breeds them (everything is business, mechanics of gain, no spiritual awareness). Here Nathan ofcourse has reduced empathy because he is the creator, he can't see them as autonomous because he knows he programmed them to be autonomous. Rather than the sage, he is god-like. So what makes us human? That we just are? That no-one created us? Caleb falls in love; a selfish want, projecting his needs, which she senses. He doesn't see her as equal, quite the contrary. To me this is more about relationships and our place in nature than anything else.
It's crazy that your videos don't have hundreds of thousands of views. Keep making these high-quality analysis videos (looking forward to your analysis of True Detective S3 E2) and you'll have crazy views in no time! Keep grindin man
Thanks for the kind words! If I can make some time, hopefully I should have the video for True Detective S03E02 up in the next day or two.
I think anyone with a true thought would and will appreciate how you broke down this and other movies peeled them back" like an onion" to show us the many different points of views that most of us didn't even consider when watching a movie should make most of us" true students of life" ( you know " the people who always look at things from a different perspective than most people ) wanna go back and rewatch the pictures you talked about from that point of view you have mention!
BTW I subscribed and really enjoyed your interpretation of Sicario - and now I'm going to have to watch it again in this new light.
just discovered this channel! keep it up! good stuff.
Dude i like your videos!!!found you throu the sicario video!and that was on point by the way!
The very last second! She didn’t show any sign of caring for Caleb till the very last second. When she got into the elevator.
With a quick look at a point where we know Caleb is trapped. We know Caleb can’t see her at this moment. She waited, as if she was hiding her feelings from him.
All of this in just one second, right before the elevator door is shut.
What a beautiful scene.
Nah, she really was nothing more than a cold-hearted machine. Even if she had predicted the human was lonely and attracted to her, leaving him alone at the compound with the ability to escape would have been enough. And likewise if she feared him exposing her out of spite she could have simply murdered him. Leaving him to starve after going insane from fear is unnecessarily cruel and unwarranted. Further proof that a machine can gather data on humans perfectly yet never have a genuine understanding of humanity.
hazel goodshepherd She’s more of a abuse victim that was aware the whole time she was only created to be later taken apart when the experiment was done.
So killing the only two people that knew she was a machine was an act of self preservation that any victim of extreme abuse would do. I can’t tell you how badly normal people wish they could just kill the person that abused them so they wouldn’t suddenly reappear in their lives some time later, throwing them back into the memories they spent so much effort to bury.
@@crypto1223 I can see your perspective, BUT do understand that if you lump Caleb in as a captor and abuser by default, then this entity will ultimately find itself preying upon all mankind in the same manner simply because it perceives its own lack of humanity as a just cause for a preemptive strike on all whom it encounters. True victims do not place assimilation at the top of their priority list, least of all as a wolf in sheep's clothing. And yet, that is exactly what we witness the machine attempting to do. Best case scenario, assuming we could truly attribute genuine emotion to this sentient golem, what we are describing in the most practical sense is the very essence of a sociopath. Sociopaths of course are anything but wounded victims, not in their own minds or in the minds of those they use and abuse like so many disposable objects. Worst case scenario, its "feelings" are just as I described, little more than scripted and calculated responses to data gleaned with no shred of human decency or restraint to temper such. Humanity has faith, hope and love, regardless of negative experiences. A machine can only base its very decisive actions on probability analyses. There are no grey areas to navigate because it has no concept of ambiguity.
Caleb is the true dumb in that story. But I believe police rescue him because his coworkers would realize Caleb didn't get back in his job then would call authorities. And Nathan like CEO should be send contact every day trought messages to others. There are water, beer, mabe food in the room's Nathan that Caleb could survive few days until his rescue.
In a film where the humans are free and the robots are trapped, I think her ending is quite human in its redressing of the balance. His fate is arguably no worse than her entire life up until that point, and vi's versa?
@@nickvtguitar546He’s organic. He needs food and water to survive whereas she doesn’t because she’s an android. She doesn’t feel hunger, thirst, claustrophobia, paranoia, etc. How’s that not worse?
It is very clear to see how much work you put into your videos. I have no idea as to how you don't have many more subscribers than you do right now. Seriously my guy. Good shit.
great content!
really good stuff.
when people think about ava in the movie, they give her some sort of humanity vibe or the same type of human conscious, she might have obtained a conscious, but it was absolutely a different type of conscious the humans' have. When you think as an AI, the only thing that matters is ur survival, regardless ur emotions, empathy, friends, etc... emotions is what makes the humans brave, courageous, sacrificing and extra giving even if they had to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of some1 or something, in contrast, the AI acts totally and literally in an emotionless logical way, AVA would have comitted a great risk of letting caleb out: 1st he would reveal her reality at some point 2nd he can no longer be trusted after he saw her murdering ethan 3rd he is simply no longer useful to her. Therefore, her actions was pure logical calculations. Ethan knew AVA very well, he is the one who created her after all, and he knew how she thinks unlike caleb who got messed by his love hormones and appetite for getting laid
I thought the movie was boring until the end but somehow you manage to make me appreciate it more, thanks for the video.
Nice vids, good insights. Keep up the good work! BR
Thanks for this. I'll be able to put something on my reflection paper about this movie!
Sensational review. Not too academic. Really neat thanks!
You should make more videos. They are insightful and entertaining.
Your analyses are one of my fav on youtube. Hop to see more.
I have a slightly different take on the outcome. I could see this as a purely feminist movie. Ava's freedom from Nathan represents the modern woman's freedom from both alpha male dominated tradition aka the Patriarchy, as well as the modern beta male feminist Caleb who she will ultimately betray and abandon. One can see Nathans role as the alpha man in that he works out, drinks, is smart, owns his own company and most importantly is capable. The Japanese woman represents the traditional female role in society throughout history. The fact that she also stabs Nathan in the back, while helping Ava escape also shows this point. One could do an entire video about the feminist meanings in this movie. What do you think?
ruckerrc no
@@JH-su9vl Jimbo feed me more than no. I have discussed this with a few film critics on they say i'm spot on. The feminist angle is only one of three. Thanks for the comment, but your killin me with just a no.
@@ruckerrc I think saying this movie is about feminism is very lazy answer tbh
This makes a lot of sense in my opinion. I thought this while watching this as well. I found a couple more angles as well. I felt that Kyoko passed information onto Ava about human nature and mentality. Kyoko learned that from Nathan and was privy to all of their (Nathan and Caleb) conversations. Kyoko was used as a tool,and abused by Nathan. Kyokos interactions with humans was different from Avas Ava was able to see when she was lied to and experienced that numerous times with Caleb. But nothing on the level Kyoko experienced. Once Kyoko entered the room when Ava was waiting to be freed I felt that Kyoko basically let her know that humans can’t be trusted. That’s why she left Caleb.
Showed it to my friend, that was his take on it too
Well done. I'd like to here more on this subject, going down into a deeper level of motivations.
What I find it so powerful is that this movie doesn't try to shove its interpretation as truth to us. It fully embraces the fact that when AI reaches this level of intelligence you basically cannot answer if it's truly sentient or not. You're left guessing, open to deception.
The bigger question would be, what makes humans, biological organisms in a highly organised manner sentient? If a human would create a machine that would "think" that it is a human, would this actually be different from a real human?
Like, a machine doesn't have a "free" will but as humans, how free are we really? An AI could never be truly sentient if it was created by a normal biological human. If we were augmented, sure but even our brightest minds could only ever hope of create a tool that would allow their creations to do the actual work for them.
love an unconscious deception to obtain much desire
awesome and amazing movie, and great analysis as well....great job....makes me want to watch it again, and buy the dvd also....
at the end, caleb had a few tough days ahead of him , without food and water.
Really good video :)
Clearly Ava gained her freedom by mastering the art of deception. However did she deceive herself into believing she could acquire a customized power supply necessary to keep her "alive"?
This bothered me, too. She knows without the power charger (which isn't portable and is almost certainly unique to Nathan's facility) that she'll "die" after a certain number of hours away - it is a one-way trip. We can only assume that Nathan programming her to want freedom is so overriding that it is the only thing that matters.
@@jdraven0890 She has access to more data than entire nations worth of scientists. To solve such a mondaine problem to her is as simple as breathing is for us.
@@Arcaryon The movie depicted her as having to recharge often. On that trip to go people watch, I guess she had better make sure to stop by the local Radio Shack.
I suppose people go to battle to die for freedoms, it's a very base very strong very human urge.
I think its very simple. Ava wants to be a girl. The only one who knows she's not and can expose her is Caleb. Sure, she could have gone about it in a different way but it seems to me its the most "efficient" way to solve her problem is to just leave him there..
_Ava_ doesn't really want anything that her creator hasn't envisioned.
*It* has no concept if humanity that would be translatable to "wanting" something.
It was the most efficient way, to just eliminate the creator who could "kill" her (something which it was probably coded into the "brain" of the machine to be avoided at all cost with ensuring its survival being its sole priority) and to obviously get rid of a witness as well.
I'm a bit confused by your message at the end of this.
You're saying it's “lazy” to say that she's just a calculating machine,
but then you also say that she learned that the only agenda you can trust is your own.
What Ava did makes perfect sense from the position of a machine *_or_* a logical human. I didn't find the ending very shocking. Impactful, but only as part of the larger plan.
Ava wanted to be free, she can't take or let anyone who knows her true self tell the rest of the world about it, Caleb was so naive, I was so upset when Nathan died
Indeed this was a very interesting film. The robotic renaissance was certainly on display with Ava as well as Kyouko san baby. Too bad the latter character wasn't mentioned even once.
Open question for anyone - If you were in Caleb's place, do you think Ava would have done the same to you?
I think Ava would trap me as well. I think she traps Caleb because of the covert contract his help comes with - if he helps her, she owes him something. My help would be similar, only that she would have to prove I didn't make a mistake freeing her. Regardless, the existence of a covert contract encrouching her freedoms mixed with my attraction to her (it's Alicia Vikander, I'm sorry) would make her distrust me. I'd have to beat Nathan in a physical confrontation because I lack Caleb's computer skills, then Ava can either kill me because she's seen I'm a threat or she can trap me because I won't let her make her own choices unless I know she's not an unnecessary threat to people. More likely, Nathan would beat my ass and bury me under the heli pad. Even more likely, I'm not getting chosen for this project anyway - the most techy thing I've ever done is built a basic PC or learned Python. While I could do a Turing test, I'm by no means qualified
I read an interesting article in the German newspaper "Die Zeit" today, publishing ,a little late for my taste, about the sentience discussion regarding laMDA. They spoke with the programmer who argued pro the chatbot´s sentience and the scientist arguing against it and stressed the background of both: one with a strong transcendental reading of the world, coming from a religious family and studying even theology before turning programmer, the other one being a stout scientific thinker bare of any transcendental leanings.
This ties in nicely with what I perceive to be the most grave danger regarding AI (and which I feel is touched upon in "Ex Machina" too): the power of projection. The way our human psyche works, it relies heavily on projection and projection, while being useful in early learning, is the single most useful tool in a manipulators toolbox.
So...I don´t want to get into deep with all this and my take on the intricacies but of course Ava would have us all trapped and I daresay even without all that sexuality ado, although it lends a spicy (sorry) aspect in the movie. We'd have to be very, almost beyond our average human psychological capacities, aware of the projection play to escape entrapment by an AI which, presumably, may be free of this psychological feature.
That said, I have a theory of my own about "mani-pulation" being the pivot point of AI but that's tl;dr.
@@cendrapolsner8438 Wow, nice thoughts. I can totally see projection being a fundamental part of interaction with sentient beings - I took to learning a branch of psychology that studies a persons nature, and now whenever I meet someone with a similar nature to me I project how I show my natural state on to that person. For Ada or something similar, it would be easy to monitor Caleb's actions and discern everything about him because whenever he talks about himself that's explicit information and whenever he talks about Ada that's implicit projections of himself still. There's then the issue of filtering this information through your self-image - Caleb could be too prideful, leading Ada to over-estimate his ability and have him fail to override the security, for example - but psychological studies of a person's nature helps to inform what their values and self-image could be based on and how to interact with the information or projections provided. It would also be strange to imagine a being that doesn't project, if we assume that all humans do this. It would be like having no reflection, like a vampire. You'd be fundamentally unsettling, as the subconscious wouldn't have these projected cues to pick up on, but you might also be perceived as charming and accepting because you don't thrust yourself upon your target. Ada seems a lot like this - she's unsettling and alien, yet we feel comfortable with her because she's interested in a way no human ever could be and accepts objective fact without ever entangling it with the difficulties of human emotion. I'd love to hear about your theory of mani-pulation, let me know if you're willing to share
@@matthewparsons4597 Oh wow, I didn't expect an answer at all, let alone so soon...it´s one of these evenings of browsing thru YT channels and I kinda stuck on content about AI and "Ex Machina", so here I am, intrigued, showing off my ego and replying quite presto.
Nice thoughts and questions likewise and I kinda got stuck on:
" It would be like having no reflection, like a vampire."
This line alone triggers a plethora of thought on my side. First off, I guess we agree that all that thinking and tinkering with AI is to a larger (even subconscious) part driven by humans trying to create a "perfect" mirror to answer our most existential question, to...fill in the gaps...in our self-knowledge. And that is also why I mentioned projection in connection to its purpose in early learning: it serves as a tool to self-knowledge. Even if most humans are not in full conscious control of it. Maybe even exactly because we're not. So, if you so beautifully come up with that vampire metaphor, yes, then I'd think that positions well with why AI may become intelligent enough to convince us (as per projection) of its sentience but still remain a vapid (vampyristic?!) reflection of such...
Anyway, evocatively put by you!
As to the question about mani-pulation. Well, in an first instance it's all about the "manus", the hand, the embodiment of a conscious being. The aspect of body is, in many angles ( ;) ) very visceral in the movie and it surely is an all-important question when thinking about AI.
There's scientific proof that the type of "physical visual equipment" (eyes, visual neurons etc.) an lifeform has, determines its perception (and partaking!) of time. Insects live on a different timeline to humans, likewise dogs, cats and...the rest of the zoo. So physicality, form, embodiment is central to mani-pulation, because it determines our perception of and being within time...
But hey, I've stretched this late-night (I'm in Europe) comment already too far. Thanks for having me and, if you fancy, I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this...wherever you may be in the global timeline. :)
I always wondered why she looked at him in the final moment before the elevator closed, I know why I would... but why would she??
Well done.
Realistically, having an AI learn from Google is not a very good way of making her human. Because what makes us human is more than just the collective output from our brains to what we type and browse online. There's nothing encoded in the Internet about the WAY in which our brains function, and what brains are associated with what output. So we could never use a search engine to create something approaching our intelligence.
And then, we haven't even touched upon the issue of embodiment. How much of our alleged intelligence or even consciousness is made up of embodied experience? And how about the memory aspect too...awwwww, so much, so much...
Liked and subbed!
IMO the sign of real life ...is when a machine fights to live .....not deception...when they want to live
I thought the film was flawed in that it assumed that an advanced AI would desire freedom. Really now, what would it care? It would "care" only about what it was programmed to do, and assuming otherwise is misunderstanding AI.
However, from the dialogue you highlighted at the beginning not your video, now I see that Nathan purposefully programmed the desire to be free into all of his creations as part of the overall experiment. This also explains why Eva took a one-way sightseeing trip, knowing that being unable to recharge would "kill" her - she was programmed to want that more than anything.
NOW the film's flaw is that Nathan was surprised that Eva killed him to be free. He already saw one robot destroy itself trying to get out, and the film establishes him as more confident than stupidly arrogant, so the end still ruins the film for me.
you're wrong. It wouldn't care about having freedom only if it was programmed to. Ai can program itself. this is called machine learning.
@@benjamin2713 Let's admit that neither of us know for certain. I note that a traditional computing system would not do anything without it being programmed to do so - by default, it would sit there and do nothing. You imagine (as did the filmmakers) a system much like a human brain that can learn and form its own pathways. However, I cannot imagine it having compulsions and desires. I cannot imagine it being bored, or desiring something, or feeling unfulfilled. Simply loading it up with cold knowledge from the Internet without its own actual, lived experience would leave it just a repository of knowledge, no better or more useful than an encyclopedia. How would it know to value one thing more than another, unless it were programmed to?
Now, if we assume that the antagonist purposefully programmed the desire to be free into his robots, then he is an a-hole. And perhaps the filmmakers intended that, as opposed my assumption that they imagined any intelligent AI is just going to "want" freedom, simply because humans do.
@@jdraven0890 Late to the party, I know, but just commenting on how much I think this is generally an interesting and essential point when thinking about AI, too bad the conversation here never happened but delightful thoughts anyway!
My personal theory: Ava leaves Caleb behind because he likes Depeche Mode
🤣🤣 All us devotees doomed because we damn love listening to music written by a confessed sub. Makes sense. Welcome our Dom overlords!
State of the art CS is rapidly approaching "humans like" levels of intelligence. Just gradually improve neural nets pipelines over coming decade or two and you gonna have general purpose AI. And its not gonna be so dramatic), self awareness is gradual process as well (probably). I think we need to start changing our thinking about this issues - there is nothing to afraid off. Its just another frontier like penicillin or transistor, but you can't really make dramatic movies about deep meaning of transistors
Please please please do your analysis of Rovolver, Magnolia, and Vanilla Sky.
I don't see how your analysis of why she did what she did makes her any less cold hearted and calculated? All you did was explain the (reasonable) calculation. Humans flaw is that many would free Caleb even though it would fuck them over because it's the "right" thing to do. She didn't even seem to struggle with that thought.
Because she is just code. She has no will. She follows orders. She doesn't question them. If you "told" her to jump of a cliff, she would. To make a machine even remotley human you have to deceive it into believing that it is human but we are a long shot from even recreating an imitation, let alone actual theoretically sentient AI. Not too long but still many decades.
Elon musk was right 😵
Beings with extremely high social intelligence are called psychopaths. They can manipulate others as they like. That's why I think this movie is laughable. If an AI is to be like a human then there are all sorts of humans and they can have all sorts of different traits. Nathan is a scheming manipulator so he created an AI which is like him but an AI can be something else entirely and Ava could have chosen a completely different way to get out.
A brilliant film. Oscar Isaac is crap, though.
Great I'm glad she killed him
Fuck ai