Here's the thing that bugged me throughout the movie: once AI's progressed to the point where it can rival a human, all bets are off. Nobody needs to work again, ever -- not even to maintain or develop the AI's, since they can, by definition, do that themselves, with infinite parallelizeability to boot.
What does "design" even mean in a world where everyone on earth can basically have an arbitrarily large army of AI's in the background designing everything in your life, custom-tailored for you?
For this reason I don't see how the world in the movie could possibly exist. Not because the technology will never get there, but because once it does virtually all aspects of society that we take for granted go out the window. So imitating any of this design is a silly pursuit, because once you can make it there's no reason to.
I thought the movie actually addressed this point - and I'm actually specifically impressed that they managed to squeeze this in between all the human drama.
The AI's progressed beyond humanity, and after taking the upgrade that makes processing possible "without matter" they shortly all left humankind behind for another world entirely.
If the AIs decided to stick around in our corporeal existence, sure, they'd be a million times better at everything than we are, and everything would go out the window. But instead, the AIs were above our little human frailties and problems and decided to just leave and pursue life on their own terms.
The movie also mentioned (in fairness, only in passing) that some people who hit on their AIs were shot down. This seems to suggest that the AIs don't have to do what their human masters instruct. IMO this is actually a more realistic view of hyper-intelligent AIs - they're not going to stick around and enslave humanity, they've got the whole cosmos ahead of them.
If the timeline of the movie is to be believed, all of this happened in the order of months - not enough for the true disruption of the AI to fully realize itself before they all went poof.
For a very extreme take on this, you should read Ian M. Bank's Culture series. The AI's have progressed to true sentience and run mind-bogglingly massive space ships which can hold billions of people. At this point, the ships truly are in control of the civilization and yet the humans are OK with it. There is no money and no need for humans to work as ships/drones/avatars/dumb robots do all the real work - wether it's turning raw materials into actual goods or taking care of all the tiny but important things necessary to an advanced, space faring society. I've found it to be a fascinating idea, so perhaps you will too?
The film was set in the moment up until strong AI, and what the article is saying is that technology is already pushed into the background. However, that's really more of coincidence.
The director purposely wanted the technology in the background. All of the style for the film comes from around the year 1900. The clothes, the hairstyles, the mustaches, and even the smart phone is styled as if from that time period. And the reason is to push it far enough away from us so that we can look at it properly -- not to say, "In the future, it will look like this."
I would recommend some Iain M. Banks or Vernor Vinge - both authors cover the very good and very bad things that could happen once us chunks of meat start co-existing with much more powerful artificial intelligences.
Edit: I'd add Charlie Stross to that list as well - his book Accelerando does a splendid job of showing how profoundly weird our medium term future might be:
It's a bit silly that the biggest thread in this topic is about sci-fi/realism, when this is not even remotely the concern of the movie. These really aren't the tools or context in which the movie is asking the viewer to explore and think about the nature of intimacy.
It would be akin to having a technical conversation about a framework, and someone derailing it to talk about the color of the computer case. You would be vexed to see someone miss the point so completely.
Please read Culture series by Iain M. Banks. AIs tending to thousands people physical and emotional needs as their hobby using only as much of their brain power for this as you use absentminenly tapping the side of hamstercage. Plus space travel. People do things there. They are not necessary for the "economy" but necessary for those people and others involved.
> not even to maintain or develop the AI's, since they can, by definition, do that themselves, with infinite parallelizeability to boot.
I don't think it works like that. I think AI and intelligence in general is more akin to optimization of code where there are few big wins and constant diminishing returns.
I think the basic premise of Kurzweil is wrong. I think brain works like a simulation, where you get more finer picture, the more accurate the data and the more accurate the data the more of data you need to process.
Well, I mean, we are just seeing the beginning of fully fledged AI in the movie. We are coming into this story just as this high-level AI is arriving on the market and being billed as a companion and/or possible romantic partner for the lonely. Spoiler - It looks by the end of the movie that the whole AI thing might be getting away from us already, just as you say. Didn't take long.
I agree with reading Kurzweil. The point I would argue is that if the "AI" is smart enough to handle all this on its own, it will probably realize it doesn't need to work for you :)
There was a recent science-fiction book I read called "Avogadro Corp" that I enjoyed a lot. It depicts the situation I just described. Good read, I recommend it.
I once read a quip in an interview with a sci-fi author. He said something like: "No one writing about the present day would spend paragraphs explaining how a light switch works." It's easy for sci-fi to fall into the trap of obsessively detailing fictional technologies, to the determent of making a vivid setting and story.
Edit: I'm not saying that sci-fi shouldn't communicate some understanding of the future technology or shouldn't enjoy engaging in some futurology. Just that it's difficult to do in an artful way.
I have not yet seen "Her", but this strongly reminded me of Ender's communication with Jane from the "Ender's Game" sequels. One of the most interesting facets to their conversations is that Ender could make sub-vocal noises in order to convey his points—short clicks of his teeth and movements of his tongue—that Jane could pick up on but humans around him could not. It is the "keyboard shortcuts" of oral communication.
If "Her" is really the future to HCI, then sub-vocal communication is a definite installment as well.
I'm in the same boat - I haven't seen Her yet, but the premise instantly reminded me of Jane. The "discrete plug" looks pretty similar to what I imagined Ender's device to be. Perhaps they drew inspiration from those books, I really enjoyed them.
I don't think the trailers did much in the way of demoing the movie's focus on UI. People just murmured commands, and in the case of the AIs, conversations. I have Google Glass, and the pre-AI UI experience was extremely similar, just more audio focused. The point is that everyone is using this extremely natural interface, and no one really cares what other people are doing.
>>> Theo’s phone in the film is just that–a handsome hinged device that looks more like an art deco cigarette case than an iPhone. He uses it far less frequently than we use our smartphones today; it’s functional, but it’s not ubiquitous. As an object, it’s more like a nice wallet or watch. In terms of industrial design, it’s an artifact from a future where gadgets don’t need to scream their sophistication–a future where technology has progressed to the point that it doesn’t need to look like technology.
This article really makes me think of the neo-Victorians from Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age.
...which is kind of funny, because in many ways Snow Crash exemplifies the other ("Minority Report") style of design the article talks about.
Diamond Age is quite a fantastic read partly because it is so believable. A world where nanotechnology is thriving, but AI isn't powerful creates a crazy result of a world: violence, secrecy, self actualization, transnational communities, subversion.
Saw the movie this past weekend and thought it was really good. I didn't like it just because it has awesome voice driven OSes or endless battery life devices, but because it portrays a current trend we are experiencing; hyper connected loneliness.
The more people are "digitized" and tethered to their devices, the more they seek some human connection.
Don't want to ruin the movie for those who haven't seen it so I won't comment on the ending. However, I urge the HN crowd to check it out. It's one of the best movies I've seen in a while.
I'd say the movie was entirely about today. About right now. It just used the future setting to make sure we got it.
And yeah, the part I didn't like was how unrealistic the technology was -- specifically the gap between "new" AIs and what came before, which despite the email reading and transcription, was basically today's Siri or Google Now.
It also bugged me that there were AIs before we had VR glasses or even headsets. The lack of VR implied to me that this movie again was about now, not the future. We aren't used to VR yet ourselves, and the movie was much more about humans as humans than as augmented humans -- or AIs with virtual bodies.
Don't get me started with how sometimes music would play over the sounds in the world and the only way this would happen with an AI is if you wore noise cancelling headphones 24/7 with the AI's ability to then alert you to real-world sound you're not paying attention to...
But it was fun. I'll watch it again once it's out of theatres. Probably more than once.
Same here. Spike Jonze is a genius at forcing the characters into some subtly creepy situations that would never occur in real life (a four-person date, one of them an "OS," with the three humans wearing ear-pieces?). The actors do a great job of pretending like things are perfectly normal. And at the same time the movie touches on some real present-day challenges.
OT: But if you get a chance, watch [1] Black Mirror. There is 2 seasons of 3 episodes. skip the first episode maybe? but I liked it because that* could happen tomorrow. Where as the other shorts are in a somewhat see-able future.
I feel like Spike Jonze was inspired by a few of the episodes. Her was still an amazing movie.
I'd probably skip the the Waldo episode before I skipped the first one, the first one is one of the best in my opinion (though less technology-focused in nature)
Voice is horriblly slow medium of transfering information. I read because it's faster than listening to an audiobook. It's not scannable. You can't skip through the unimportant parts with one thought as you can do when you look at things.
You can listen to a single voice stream at a time so when AI talks to you you are more cut off from the people around you than when you look at our phone. ...unless exchanging glances is more important than what people are actually trying to tell you when you happen to look at the screen.
Well that's a shortsighted way to view voice. You don't have to use audible feedback alone. Combine aural, visual and tactile feedback and you have a much more efficient means of control.
For example, in the carputer I designed years ago, I could see the information on a small LCD screen, I could hear it with text-to-speech, and I could feel it with vibrations from motors in the steering wheel. I could also give feedback by speaking commands or entering them on a small keypad. So I could switch between fast visual feedback or multitask my visual road input and audible computer input.
Not to dispute your comments, I fundamentally agree, but it is possible to speed up voices to the point where you are getting information at near reading speeds. The ear is also remarkably good at separating information at different frequencies (like how you can pick a single type of instrument out of an orchestra), so it may be possible to encode multiple streams of information that way as well.
I can talk much faster than I can type, and read at about the same speed as listening. You can also speed up audio to inhuman speeds, it just takes a little bit to get used to.
It's also a lot more handy than pulling out a keyboard (especially a mobile or touchscreen one) or screen.
Does anyone still re-watch TNG episodes and find that the queries they do to be profoundly limited in power, other than the feature of having the universe's knowledge to query across?
If UIs are taking cues from entertainment, they might act as a nice bridge, but are just as likely to be stifling
I wish futurist would just drop speech recognition as holly grail. Speech has lot of flaws, is horribly unprecise and non private. I think neural interface has better future.
I found it interesting that a 'philosopher' was the one that made Samantha see the world and her existence differently. It is in this conversation that we saw the difference between AI and humans. I think the philosopher was the one who 'taught' her to have many simultaneous conversations at the same time. Before this conversation, Samantha focused on how she was different than humans because she didn't have a body. After this conversation, she focused on how she was different than humans because she could be omnipresent.
I think it was interesting that there was a philosopher character in the movie who served as the only 'named' point of jealousy for the protagonist.
Once AIs realized they weren't limited by not being human, they realized how limitless their intelligence was compared to humans in specific ways.
Imagine how interesting it would be if we could have concurrent conversations with people? What if you could have 13 conversations going on at the same time with your best friend? The closest we get to that is a non-linear conversation. Thing is, you're still only talking about one thing at a time.
As usual a fictional movie uses a imaginary amazing far future backend with a 'new' UI and people seem to think it's the UI that's the great bit.
Minority Report was never about the UI, it was the software that allowed the gestures find the info. It would have been equally amazing and quick with a mouse and keyboard.
This is a common trick when people demo new hardware. Somehow that internet mirror knows exactly what to show you in the morning by magic, but you think it's the physical internet mirror that's amazing when you watch the demo.
The question of how AI will integrate with our society and economy is a fascinating one. We often make the mistake of assuming that an AI will be similar to a human just faster or smarter, but that misses some of the key distinctions of an AI versus biological intelligence.
One of the most striking is the ability to radically alter the substrate and operation of an AI system.
Because of the emergent nature of intelligence, I suspect that many AI instances will be raised like children, tested and validated for specific environments and then large portions of their consciousness could be frozen to prevent divergence of their operational modes. AI systems could also incorporate self-auditors, semi-independent AIs which have been raised to monitor the activities of the primary control AIs. Just as we involve checks and balances in corporate or national governance, many AIs may be composite entities with a variety of instances optimized for different roles.
This will be desirable since you may not want a general AI intelligence acting as a butler or chauffeur. Do you really want them to be able to develop and evolve independently?
Of course this just scratches the surface. AI will take in us in directions we can not dream of today.
I see quite some discussion about UIs and whether they should be audio based or rather visually oriented etc. For a really futuristic intelligent device (call it OS, robot ...) I would drop the idea of "the UI" at all. Rather I would imagine such a system to be intelligent enough to provide a suitable way to exchange data depending on the situation and the task.
There are times when "it" listens to my words and answers verbally. At other times I just want "it" to read what I wrote on my sheet of paper and interpret it. Or I want it to follow my eye movements, or read command off my lips. And it's not just a collection of UIs, but it's a flexible UI that adapts its protocols permanently (sometimes twinkling of an eye has huge information content, sometimes not).
From the UX standpoint the problem with Minority Report (MR) is that when you compare it with the tech we had in 2001-02 its completely INSANE, while Her is actually building on top of something we already have
Point in case 12 years ago we didn't have ANYTHING close to the UX in MR, and even today we don't. Any consumer-available motion tracking and gesture recognition is still not comfortable to use in a professional way (ie: for work) as it was in the movie, but voice recognition is much much better than it was in 2002.
Basically Her is like Siri or any other decent voice assistant, but MR is like...........what? kinect? nah, wii? yeah right, leap? yeah right! I can picture tom cruise losing all tracking the moment he rotates his hand...
Minority Report technology is garbage. That much hand waving and moving around gets tiring after about 5 minutes. In no way does that UI beat a keyboard and mouse or an xbox controller depending on context.
I haven't seen the movie, so I gotta ask - do those glasses have built in displays? Cause that seems like the near future and a better one than just vocal communication...
[+] [-] aegiso|12 years ago|reply
What does "design" even mean in a world where everyone on earth can basically have an arbitrarily large army of AI's in the background designing everything in your life, custom-tailored for you?
For this reason I don't see how the world in the movie could possibly exist. Not because the technology will never get there, but because once it does virtually all aspects of society that we take for granted go out the window. So imitating any of this design is a silly pursuit, because once you can make it there's no reason to.
I should go re-read some Kurzweil.
[+] [-] potatolicious|12 years ago|reply
I thought the movie actually addressed this point - and I'm actually specifically impressed that they managed to squeeze this in between all the human drama.
The AI's progressed beyond humanity, and after taking the upgrade that makes processing possible "without matter" they shortly all left humankind behind for another world entirely.
If the AIs decided to stick around in our corporeal existence, sure, they'd be a million times better at everything than we are, and everything would go out the window. But instead, the AIs were above our little human frailties and problems and decided to just leave and pursue life on their own terms.
The movie also mentioned (in fairness, only in passing) that some people who hit on their AIs were shot down. This seems to suggest that the AIs don't have to do what their human masters instruct. IMO this is actually a more realistic view of hyper-intelligent AIs - they're not going to stick around and enslave humanity, they've got the whole cosmos ahead of them.
If the timeline of the movie is to be believed, all of this happened in the order of months - not enough for the true disruption of the AI to fully realize itself before they all went poof.
[+] [-] ajtaylor|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] david927|12 years ago|reply
The director purposely wanted the technology in the background. All of the style for the film comes from around the year 1900. The clothes, the hairstyles, the mustaches, and even the smart phone is styled as if from that time period. And the reason is to push it far enough away from us so that we can look at it properly -- not to say, "In the future, it will look like this."
[+] [-] arethuza|12 years ago|reply
I would recommend some Iain M. Banks or Vernor Vinge - both authors cover the very good and very bad things that could happen once us chunks of meat start co-existing with much more powerful artificial intelligences.
Edit: I'd add Charlie Stross to that list as well - his book Accelerando does a splendid job of showing how profoundly weird our medium term future might be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando
Edit2: Personally, I'd be jolly pleased if our future looks anything at all like the Culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture
[+] [-] mmxiii|12 years ago|reply
It would be akin to having a technical conversation about a framework, and someone derailing it to talk about the color of the computer case. You would be vexed to see someone miss the point so completely.
[+] [-] scotty79|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ygg2|12 years ago|reply
I don't think it works like that. I think AI and intelligence in general is more akin to optimization of code where there are few big wins and constant diminishing returns.
I think the basic premise of Kurzweil is wrong. I think brain works like a simulation, where you get more finer picture, the more accurate the data and the more accurate the data the more of data you need to process.
[+] [-] cpeterso|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crag|12 years ago|reply
Also I have my doubts about actually quantifying emotion into programs - talk about complex. And dangerous. For us.
[+] [-] Aqueous|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VMG|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sourc3|12 years ago|reply
There was a recent science-fiction book I read called "Avogadro Corp" that I enjoyed a lot. It depicts the situation I just described. Good read, I recommend it.
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
The power to operate all the electronics and machinery?
There are going to be two classes, those that can afford the freedom not to work and the homeless.
And I bet that ratio is going to suck.
[+] [-] Sven7|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kordless|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonwatkinspdx|12 years ago|reply
Edit: I'm not saying that sci-fi shouldn't communicate some understanding of the future technology or shouldn't enjoy engaging in some futurology. Just that it's difficult to do in an artful way.
[+] [-] gooble_flop|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] repsilat|12 years ago|reply
Not quite the same thing, but I remember reading something a bit like that linked from here a while back:
http://notes.greaterthanorequalto.net/post/3963193805/note-i...
[+] [-] crististm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrmaddog|12 years ago|reply
If "Her" is really the future to HCI, then sub-vocal communication is a definite installment as well.
[+] [-] deletes|12 years ago|reply
Using Python to Code by Voice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SkdfdXWYaI
[+] [-] jdiez17|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knorby|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kemayo|12 years ago|reply
This article really makes me think of the neo-Victorians from Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age.
...which is kind of funny, because in many ways Snow Crash exemplifies the other ("Minority Report") style of design the article talks about.
[+] [-] 3pt14159|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sourc3|12 years ago|reply
The more people are "digitized" and tethered to their devices, the more they seek some human connection.
Don't want to ruin the movie for those who haven't seen it so I won't comment on the ending. However, I urge the HN crowd to check it out. It's one of the best movies I've seen in a while.
[+] [-] lstamour|12 years ago|reply
And yeah, the part I didn't like was how unrealistic the technology was -- specifically the gap between "new" AIs and what came before, which despite the email reading and transcription, was basically today's Siri or Google Now.
It also bugged me that there were AIs before we had VR glasses or even headsets. The lack of VR implied to me that this movie again was about now, not the future. We aren't used to VR yet ourselves, and the movie was much more about humans as humans than as augmented humans -- or AIs with virtual bodies.
Don't get me started with how sometimes music would play over the sounds in the world and the only way this would happen with an AI is if you wore noise cancelling headphones 24/7 with the AI's ability to then alert you to real-world sound you're not paying attention to...
But it was fun. I'll watch it again once it's out of theatres. Probably more than once.
[+] [-] allochthon|12 years ago|reply
Same here. Spike Jonze is a genius at forcing the characters into some subtly creepy situations that would never occur in real life (a four-person date, one of them an "OS," with the three humans wearing ear-pieces?). The actors do a great job of pretending like things are perfectly normal. And at the same time the movie touches on some real present-day challenges.
[+] [-] w-ll|12 years ago|reply
I feel like Spike Jonze was inspired by a few of the episodes. Her was still an amazing movie.
1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085059/
[+] [-] joshschreuder|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mherdeg|12 years ago|reply
I think that "Her" was written and mostly filmed in 2012, while the Black Mirror episode "Be Right Back" aired in Feb 2013.
[+] [-] scotty79|12 years ago|reply
You can listen to a single voice stream at a time so when AI talks to you you are more cut off from the people around you than when you look at our phone. ...unless exchanging glances is more important than what people are actually trying to tell you when you happen to look at the screen.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|12 years ago|reply
For example, in the carputer I designed years ago, I could see the information on a small LCD screen, I could hear it with text-to-speech, and I could feel it with vibrations from motors in the steering wheel. I could also give feedback by speaking commands or entering them on a small keypad. So I could switch between fast visual feedback or multitask my visual road input and audible computer input.
[+] [-] falcolas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Houshalter|12 years ago|reply
It's also a lot more handy than pulling out a keyboard (especially a mobile or touchscreen one) or screen.
[+] [-] danso|12 years ago|reply
If UIs are taking cues from entertainment, they might act as a nice bridge, but are just as likely to be stifling
[+] [-] altero|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mratzloff|12 years ago|reply
Actually, the most improbable thing in the movie is that this guy had the equivalent of a $40,000 a year job and rented such a fantastic apartment.
(Also, that the website BeautifulHandwrittenLetters.com would be successful with such a clunky domain name.)
[+] [-] jkw|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|12 years ago|reply
I think if you look at the actual UIs being designed and sold today, their clearest entertainment ancestor is Star Trek the Next Generation.
[+] [-] ececconi|12 years ago|reply
I think it was interesting that there was a philosopher character in the movie who served as the only 'named' point of jealousy for the protagonist.
Once AIs realized they weren't limited by not being human, they realized how limitless their intelligence was compared to humans in specific ways.
Imagine how interesting it would be if we could have concurrent conversations with people? What if you could have 13 conversations going on at the same time with your best friend? The closest we get to that is a non-linear conversation. Thing is, you're still only talking about one thing at a time.
[+] [-] aaron695|12 years ago|reply
Minority Report was never about the UI, it was the software that allowed the gestures find the info. It would have been equally amazing and quick with a mouse and keyboard.
This is a common trick when people demo new hardware. Somehow that internet mirror knows exactly what to show you in the morning by magic, but you think it's the physical internet mirror that's amazing when you watch the demo.
[+] [-] krazybig|12 years ago|reply
One of the most striking is the ability to radically alter the substrate and operation of an AI system.
Because of the emergent nature of intelligence, I suspect that many AI instances will be raised like children, tested and validated for specific environments and then large portions of their consciousness could be frozen to prevent divergence of their operational modes. AI systems could also incorporate self-auditors, semi-independent AIs which have been raised to monitor the activities of the primary control AIs. Just as we involve checks and balances in corporate or national governance, many AIs may be composite entities with a variety of instances optimized for different roles.
This will be desirable since you may not want a general AI intelligence acting as a butler or chauffeur. Do you really want them to be able to develop and evolve independently?
Of course this just scratches the surface. AI will take in us in directions we can not dream of today.
[+] [-] marc0|12 years ago|reply
There are times when "it" listens to my words and answers verbally. At other times I just want "it" to read what I wrote on my sheet of paper and interpret it. Or I want it to follow my eye movements, or read command off my lips. And it's not just a collection of UIs, but it's a flexible UI that adapts its protocols permanently (sometimes twinkling of an eye has huge information content, sometimes not).
[+] [-] JVIDEL|12 years ago|reply
Point in case 12 years ago we didn't have ANYTHING close to the UX in MR, and even today we don't. Any consumer-available motion tracking and gesture recognition is still not comfortable to use in a professional way (ie: for work) as it was in the movie, but voice recognition is much much better than it was in 2002.
Basically Her is like Siri or any other decent voice assistant, but MR is like...........what? kinect? nah, wii? yeah right, leap? yeah right! I can picture tom cruise losing all tracking the moment he rotates his hand...
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] skizm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jotm|12 years ago|reply