Blade Runner 2049 - Do Androids Dream of Being Human? | Renegade Cut
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ก.พ. 2018
- Does Blade Runner 2049 give us a glimpse into the future of artificial intelligence? How will we use and abuse this inevitable technology? Get rewards and perks by supporting Renegade Cut Media on Patreon: / renegadecut
Tumblr: www.renegadecut.com
Twitter: / renegadecut
Blade Runner 2049 is a science fiction film directed by Denis Villeneuve. Starring Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Anna de Armas, Jared Leto, Robin Wright and Sylvia Hoeks. Released in 2017.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER READING:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/lo...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/tu...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/an...
www.iep.utm.edu/stoicmind/
www.iep.utm.edu/immortal/
www.iep.utm.edu/art-inte/
www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/
Artificial intelligence is the presently hypothetical possession of intelligence or the exercise of thought by machines such as computers or androids. In Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, bio-androids called replicants are created by humans to perform labor. They differ from other androids in science fiction because they are made primarily from organic substances, but they are programmed much like a computer. Other forms of artificial intelligences exist in the narrative as well, such as Joi - a digital AI who presents as a hologram. Replicants can rent apartments and have jobs, but they do not have the same legal status as human beings. They can and are executed without trial. They are essentially slaves. Digital AI like Joi has even less freedom, if that were possible. Artificial intelligence may be an inevitability in the real world, but with this eventual breakthrough will come questions about how artificially intelligent beings will interact with our world, our legal system and our culture.
---
Ending explained. Symbolism.
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Thor Ragnarok - Colonialism in Asgard | Renegade Cut"
• Thor Ragnarok - Coloni...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
This essay was a tour de force. It gets to the roots of the dilemmas revealed by P.K. Dick, "Blade Runner" & its sequel on several levels. I'll touch on only a couple using my limited knowledge; Dehumanizing others can have an economic benefit for an elite. Dehumanization can also be a hate mantra (as described in Orwell's "1984") which serves as a method of control, again for an elite. Slavery definitely pays off for certain people in Blade Runner. Its society is based on that.
I read reviews by and talked to people who make a point of how they simply can't care about AI characters in films regardless of how fully realized they are. Honestly, I am legitimately somewhat disturbed by those people.
Considering that, I like the wrench Blade Runner 2049 throws in the AI question through the inclusion of Joi. While she obviously exhibits a certain amount of agency, the film also implies that she is programmed to fulfill the desires of her owner. So when she bravely goes along with K at the risk of her own life, it begs the question of whether she is truly willing to sacrifice herself for K or just fulfilling her programming. Judging by how K looked at the Joi advertisement, it seems to suggest the former.
The risk of her own life? Yeah, if her box falls out of K's pocket and is stepped on. lol
Can she even die though? Wouldn't death be completely different, perhaps even nonexistent, to a digital AI?
Edit: if cloud computing exists in this world, then Joi could simply create copies of herself online. She also can't be physically harmed, though that sadly comes at a price.
Nathan Gatten
If clones of an individual human are created, does this negate the death of the original individual? Or of any individual clone?
If K's Joi program is not networked with other Joi programs, would his program not be an "individual"?
Note Joi had K erase all backups of Joi (she was usually backed up in the computer systems at his apartment even while she traveled around with K apparently, once he got the portable unit) so they could not be accessed/copied and give away what she knew (about Deckard and the replicant who was born etc.). So she could not go make a backup of herself in the cloud etc. without risking it being hacked etc. So that the device K was carrying around was the only copy of that particular Joi in existence and that particular Joi is thus unrecoverable when the box she was in was destroyed...
The reason why I don't care about people.
Regardless of how real they look, I only have their word they are actually conscious. And that's exactly the kind of thing a non conscious machine capable of replying mechanically would say XD
(before anyone calls me a sociopath, this is a joke. You probably already guessed it, and I'm sorry for not trusting your intelligence, but this is youtube. I'm sure someone somewher has said this exact thing unironically)
One of the problems I see, is that now, in the present day, human beings have trouble seeing other human beings as having souls or being people. Even in my own family there are people who deny the "personhood" of others.
Andrew Allen as a computationalist I have no belief in a soul so replicants are people too and should not be enslaved.
The breadth of knowledge that goes into your reviews is incredible. I remember you mentioning that you were once a teacher. Philosophy?
Very interesting, thought provoking review, for one of my favorite movies of last year.
i was waiting for this video since the day the movie was release, and man. I was not disappointed.
Thomas’ really getting ambitious even with his weekly stuff. Stay hungry bro.
Has Blade Runner 2049 become a cult classic yet? I was deeply disappointed by its low box office take: and ever since then I've been waiting for everyone to check out the DVD and see in it what I've already seen: that this is a movie for the ages.
Better yet the 4K blu ray
A cult classic generally has a low box office take. If BR2049 had a huge box office take, then it would have had to have been "Disneyfied" thus ensuring lots of money but the quality of the film would have been CRAP! It would have been filled with political correctness and would have appealed to the dumb, stupid and ignorant masses.
It's a masterpiece for sure. Probably the best sequel ever made.
Holy shit I thought this channel disappeared off the face of the earth. I couldn't remember the name or any of the titles of the videos. This just happened to pop up in my feed. Crazy shit.
The book title makes so much sense
There is so much more you have to unpack with this film
Awesome channel, please keep it up!
Finally someone else who draws similar conclusions about Joi. Most peoples analysis of the film say that she is outright not a person and not capable of being such.
I find Luv's character is the most interesting one , it worths to talk about too much
I fell in love with joi when i was in the cinema.
Great essay, solid points. I rate this video very awesome out of 10.
Awesome video. I was very conflicted over whether I wanted a sequel to Blade Runner, as I thought it would, most likely, never live up to my expectations. Yet, I thought there was so much potential, for a great film to be made. It exceeded all expectations, and in my opinion, is superior to the original, in many ways.
love your reviews and insight..... you are a genius.... love your voice to...
"artificial" is just a new phase in nature's evolution.
The cuckoo's chick doesn't "think" that it might be a good thing to throw its siblings out of the nest, he has no idea even of what he's doing. And it's nobody else's "thinking" either - instead it's something called "free floating rationale", it's the doing of an impersonal nature. In the same way, it's not that humans are using their metaphysical free-will to decide to bring the "artificial" into the world - the artificial is bound to arrive, brought by nature. It's the way we use language that misleads us, as there isn't anything outside of nature, not even artificial things.
Some form of technological determinism is very likely true, meaning that however we might thrash and scream.. eventually AI will come about. Its the natural course of things.
The best reaction I have read to this film. Well done!
This is very well done! We aren't at that point but perhaps one day. It is like what many chess players discovered - programs can play chess really well but aren't playing chess as people do. Keep up the great work!
equal Rights for all replicants!
Leon,, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the field of machine ethics. Have you ever heard of the decision theorist Eliezer Yudkowsky, or the concept of coherent extrapolated volition? It's interesting stuff, in the vein of: if we are inevitably going to develop artificial intelligence, especially A.I. with the capacity for self-development, how should we program them to think? How do we avoid the stereotypical Three Laws problems? Coherent extrapolated volition was an early attempt at a solution, but that was years ago, and the lack of progress since is... a little scary.
(Edit: a lot scary)
Interesting comment, I hadn't heard about this attempt at going beyond Asimov's Laws. You talking about a lack of progress beyond this concept of coherent extrapolated volition (CEV) prompted me to do a quick research, and I found two newer concepts : coherent aggregated volition (CAV) and coherent blended volition (CBV), the former is a response to CEV, the latter is itself a response to CAV, and both were conceived by Ben Goertzel. I read about them on LessWrong, a blog dedicated among other things to the study of rationality and artificial intelligence which, interestingly enough, was founded by Yudkowsky himself.
I guess the theories and concepts of AI are still progressing in those circles of scientists, so is the real problem that we don't hear enough about it in the general media?
Christophe D I tip my hat to you, sir! I haven't been on LessWrong in a long time, I should go back and dig around. I'll read up on Goertzel's responses.
Very nice video!
It is an interesting thought process to place the question of AI in the center of a philosophical or political argument. Though I tend to imagine such discussion, while it would predominantly mention AI as the center, actually has a status of human being as its center. The question of AI might not be whether AI is a person, or whether AI can think, but rather, while discussing those questions, the true underlining question is whether being human is special in a cosmic sense, do we have any cosmic significance. Are we set apart from anything. Are we special.
This conversation, while using AI as the other, can potentially happen even now when the complexity of AI does not seem to be sufficient for society building process of their own.
@6:55 And not just genetics but also behavioral and social conditioning
I took it different. That he did have a soul. And the child being born awakened that in k, so he sacrificed himself to further that truth between decker and his child. They together bring that truth in the open.
BRILLIANT!
My favourite thought experiment in this general region is a combination of the philosophical zombie and the Mary thought experiment. Two different arguments that purport to show that mental experience can not be reduced to the physical. The problem is if we imagine Mary (someone who knows everything there is to know about the science/neurology of colour perception but has never actually seen a colour) is a zombie (a being physically and behaviourally identical to a human, but lacking mental properties, sort of like the replicant as being lacking a soul) seeing colour for the first time. If non-zombie Mary says "Wow so that's what blue looks like" when first seeing colour (as the original proponents thought she would) then so must zombie Mary, but the assumption was zombie Mary had no mental experience to be surprised by so it makes no sense that she responds in this way. Its less interesting if Mary is not surprised since then zombie's Mary's lack of surprise is not paradoxical but Mary not being surprised is the opposite of what the proposers of the Mary thought experiment expected so it would be novel maybe. I tend to think it shows one reason ideas around both are wrong (I think there are others), but I guess that is not logically required, just that both in their original form do not sit well together....
I like combinations and cross overs...
Pardon my pedantry... The video says Babbage built a difference machine which Ada Lovelace commented on calling it an Analytical Engine. Babbage designed and only ever partly built the full version of his Difference Engine (which would be an example of a difference machine), he then designed but never built at all his Analytical Engine (which is not a difference machine but was a arithmetical/calculating machine) and that is what Ada Lovelace's comment is referring to...
Have u considered the Chinese Room by John Searle. The idea is that no amount of syntax (ie. that which constitutes the entirety of computation) can add up to semantics. Love to hear your thoughts. (I'm not so secretly hoping u could create a strong rebuttal)
Renegade Cut That's a fine response to certain aspects of the experiment. Let's grant that the response is correct and that the person in the room's understanding is irrelevant and the system's ability to respond correctly is the important part. I'm still concerned that, what I believe is the main thrust, syntax being unequal to semantics hasn't been fully addressed. Can you explain?
Note in a sense there is a response in the video to this. The argument is like some of the ones sketched in the video guilty of proving too much. How do we know humans have no semantic content, because they claim to have semantic content? But that proves nothing (under Searle's account). So if the Chinese room goes through it would prove humans aren't conscious (or at least that we could have no reason to think they are just because they have the same behaviour as some imagined conscious being).
To elaborate: imagine there is a Robot (based in microelectronics) Searle (R. Searle) who has almost identical behaviour (including in arguments and written treatises etc.) to the human philosopher John Searle, with one notable set of systematic differences. R. Searle comes from a civilization of robots who evolved by descent with modification not unlike biological evolution from more primitive robots, the robots of R. Searle's world conveniently enough speak different languages (that happen to be identical behaviourally to our human languages) for convenience R. Searle speaks R. English and he makes an analogous argument about an R. Chinese room, an R. English speaking robot would not know R. Chinese just because it was put in the R. Chinese room and given a rule book on how to react to slips of paper with R. Chinese written on them. R. Searle's civilization has also produced complex devices made out of combinations of cells, and he well understands that such collections of cells can be strung together in such a way as to imitate the syntax of any robot cognitive or linguistic process, but using his R. Chinese room argument, he says such creations clearly lack any semantic content. As it turns out R. Searle and Searle get to plead their case (argue that they are conscious beings with semantic content while the other is a mere syntactic imitation with no semantic content and therefore no conscious experience) to a being whose brain is neither made of computer chips nor cells (a hyper intelligent black hole?) but we will stipulate for this thought experiment that it has semantic content. As far as I can see it if he finds R. Searle's argument compelling then he must find Searle's and vice versa, thus proving neither Searle nor R. Searle have semantic content or consciousness. So indeed if it goes through the Chinese room proves too much (it proves humans have no semantic content). I find it more convincing that both arguments are fallacious.
The problem with Searle's argument is it claims that some special causal powers of biological brains generates semantic content, but he gives no parameters for what powers generate the content or how they do it or how semantic content acts etc. In this vein since he allows the syntactic properties of our brains may be sufficient to explain all behaviour etc. (hence why a computer simulation of a brain even if it worked would not be able to generate a conscious robot or the like) he allows the semantic content may be redundant, an idle wheel that does nothing. If semantics did something then equivalent syntactic function would not create the equivalent of semantic function (without having to add in more syntax or something, which would be a detectable difference between human and machine) and he would not need the Chinese room argument, but that failure is the outcome of an actual physical experiment yet to be done, hence why he tries the thought experiment route.
Note since Searle thinks biological brains generate semantics presumably he thinks physically and biologically indistinguishable replicant brains likewise generate semantics. If you think the Chinese room argument does not disprove that humans have semantic content then it probably does not disprove replicant semantic content.
Loved the video btw
Pretty good
One important subject the film never tackles is the notion that a soul is an individually, personal belief, and not a physical thing, per se. Souls are commonly referred to as something that people believe in and yet, K claims that if people are born, they have souls, unlike Replicants who are built in a lab.
That's just silly. Souls exist mainly philosophically, not literally. And while this film tries really hard to be philosophical (and constantly fails miserably), it takes its subjects literally and too realistically.
Perhaps desire is indicative of a 'soul'.
:)
Like the desire to have a soul? As Bender said "Being a robot’s great. But we don’t have emotions and sometimes that makes me very sad." :)
Maybe true suffering is required to have a soul. A machine can be programmed to say it is suffering but whether it actually experiences it we don't know.
It's a massive grey area
So people unable to feel pain aren't people?
God Denis Villeneuve and Roger Deakins are mad genius with this movie...hope they do the same magic with Dune ! Can't wait to see the themes of this one !
Deakins is sadly not shooting Dune. It's Greig Fraiser.
If Dune becomes successful at the box office, it will be interesting to see if that kindles an interest in BR2049 amongst those who never saw it.
One movie I went to the cinema in 2017. I walked in the rain and then was sick for a week ... and it was worth every penny and every second. It was like a revelation. I already knew a lot of topics for which I found answers long before the film - but it was a film only for the benefit. Rarely these themes are clinging and so perfectly implemented in the cinema. It's just a passerby. Simple and without decoration. And this video does not worry about this topic. Honestly, I think that sooner or later the intellect can become self-sufficient ... maybe he will kill himself, realizing where and how he exists. Probably it's a penny for a second scanning all the information on the Internet. The film plays with the idea of what we want to see. And this makes replicants alive - they have a desire to be a special unique idealized version of perfection that every person wants to hear - you are special (we all want to be her - this is just a masterpiece), you are unique - you are perfect. One can say that the very existence of their own goals makes them truly alive, unlike joy. This is the line - the desire for something that you are not in the middle and what you want to continue whatever it is all about. This is the emptiness that makes you endlessly doubtful. For lack of soul, I do not know (all possible, but because of personal beliefs, I'm sure that we get it during our lives), but this nihilistic emptiness is spreading in the consciousness of each person. Question without answer. Wish without satisfaction. The paradoxical lack of something (anything) is one of the things that makes people human beings as a constant desire to ask questions - to find meaning .... Replicants in the film have become human beings and are them as the form and content are identical to human and we make our memories and our interaction with this world. ... And we are unprepared for such intelligence. But it will exist. And the Lord have mercy on what we call the soul if this intelligence wants to kill us by gathering all info in seconds and creating something that can not even be imagined (look TED for neural networks is very interesting) that will destroy us with the efficiency that will be horrified.
I hope we see a 3rd blade runner the replicant revolution how human is human
hm. i didn't sympathize with joi when she was "killed," but i did with k's loss of her. what a rorschach!
KEvron
I Remember who I was therefore it makes me more than who I am now .
Using sound effects now?
if ai were to become sentient, it's possible that their psychology might be completely different, that they're not so violent or lustful and demand things completely unrelated to the human system as it will be. I suppose the question is one of integration into human society or some mutual seperation . I think integration would be nice, but things can get complicated once we start creating thinking beings from the ground up, especially since we haven't made peace with our brothers "of fl esh and blood". Also do you guys think it'd be moral to make them in the image of man if they ever grew so complex?
Deckard is not a replicant!!!
Amaze-balls!
Yes, we do.
Looks more like we’ve already surrendered ourselves to AI and now we can’t relate to one another’s humanity.
I have too say, the way i look at the idea of A.I. is closer to how an adult look at a child then as a human and a none human. The idea that human are by nature superior to their creation is more narcissistic than anything else. The creation is the result of work, even if the work is put into it consciously or unconsciously it`s this there. A woman while being pregnant has her body change to allow the new being the right to be. Her body will now work so that the it can exist, that is the difference between them. One is made by a biologically, the other by a machine. The way we should look at this is not at ''does it have a soul'' and more at ''is the child of age to be autonomous'', and as long as we question our self at the idea that we, our self, have no answer at the exception of belief, we then realize that we actually are the child in the situation, refusing to move forward and accept ours new job of temporary guide for the future.
CMM: Wallace is a replicant. Perhaps without being aware of it.
Interestingly, Wallace is completely blind, which leads us to not think twice about his eyes looking different... but I can't help but notice that his eyes _do_ have the same faint glow that distinguished Tyrell's various lines of replicants from humans.
Tyrell was known to make special one-offs for special purposes. Tyrell also had famously bad eyesight. Perhaps he designed a successor - a child - who could not see at all as a way for him to (feel like) retaining some control... and perhaps that is why Wallace wants the secret to replicant reproduction so badly. We do see Wallace directly interfacing with his bots to see, something no other humans are show able to do.
It does also go with the theme of both movies: that the distinction only exists as long as people are aware of it, but that they must otherwise be told which group they belong to (rather than it being obvious).
Computational and representational theories of mind are already obsolete, check "radical embodied cognitive science".
AI cant feel? Feelings is what makes you human. You can interpret feelings through communication but the actual feeling can only be felt and robots with artificial intelligence cannot feel.
"Do androids dream of being human?"
Star Trek TNG fans: "Yes. Definitely."
Thinking reactions are not souly human black birds have been seen gathering in numbers after finding a dead black bird as if mourning for the fallen bird
To me, anything that can make conscious decisions has a soul and is life, regardless how it is created. And a true artificial intelligence would to me still be an intelligence and I would treat it as such.
Alexandria Thorne Your profile picture is very fitting for your comment I love it
Animals can do that, yet in most of society, they are denied rights to life and are needlessly killed for food.
@@kristijanbozic6387well, there's more to that than just the "needlessly killing".
"Joy can is a computer program and is able to make computation. joy can think....and can apparently think very well" Joy is also...gorgeous, best part of the movie.
Can you dive more into the Christian symbolism? Love the video though.
That's totally understandable. This movie has so many themes you can probably make it a weekly topic for your podcast haha.
Oh and my wife reminded me to let you know we loved your 2 hour review of Left Behind. Fantastic details and depth considering how vast the topics you had to cover. We're both former Christians and it was cathartic for both of us to see the deconstruction of the more extreme Christian beliefs that we've encountered.
It's a kind of weird that Ryan Gosling has been in two movies in which his character is in love with an artificial being that resembles a woman...
Good Review, Good Film to bad we will have to wait till 2048 for a sequel that address these points.
I don't think people talking philosophically about AI understand fully that in a core it's just an illusion. It has been built by humans to solve problems. It has a purpose and a design. Yes we can achieve likeness and copy some others people traits, use some funk to make it feel real. But still it would be due to design, not because some pure intelligence. It's like talking about motion picture of a train as of actual train. If it looks and sounds like it, doesn't mean it is.
Still, artificial neural networks are employed to find patterns where humans can't.
I mean, I already know what kind of answer I want, but I've usually found it through methods outside of the data I'm giving to the machine. The goal of the machine is to find a connection between the data and the answer that I couldn't find.
In that sense, the neural network is exceeding design. It will create a rule that we would not have been able to find on our own. Of course, we will never know the reasoning behind this rule. It will only exists as a series of weights on synaptic patterns. But it will undeniably be there.
And that's only for a "brain" of a few thousands of neurons, at most.
Do Android's dream of electric sheep?
The thing that always bothered me about bladerunner (and now bladerunner 2049, too) is how they're not robot-y enough. How they're not made of metal and engines and chips. If I hadnt read a summarized version of the original work back in 9th grade, I would be under the impression that they're not robots, but genetically engineered slaves.
I understand its a loose adaptation of the book, and that there were liberties taken. It's just that I guess for me, there is too little a difference between a bio-android and a regular human being.
They are genetically engineered slaves. They are biological androids, handcrafted cell by cell and given cognitive ability and now memories to fulfill a purpose. They are never once called machines, synthetic humans basically but their minds are designed to operate like a robot, clearly that doesn't work as they eventually develop a mind if their own.
I'm surprised in some ways that you didn't touch on the discussion in regards to what makes anyone human anyway - many of the characteristics shown by Androids or "inhuman" characters in fiction of any kind, you have to admit, tend to start to show neuroatypical behaviors characteristic of those on the autistic spectrum. The rampant dehumanization/lack of recognition of person-hood is already here, you don't need Androids or future tech to illustrate these present day arguments for stripping away or holding rights hostage from actual members of society. I wish sci-fi would stop dancing around this... :(
I must disagree with your theory that K proposes the (highly obscure) anthropology of traducianism. Your need to shoehorn a case against Christianity into the review kept you from seeing the almost overt existentialist reference behind K's claim that only those who are born have a soul. Villeneuve is Franco-Canadian, and not prone to that perennial US disposition to be either a fanatical biblethumper or a rabid antitheist when it comes to religion. K's statement mirrors Sartre's proposition that existence precedes essence, i.e., "man first of all exists, *encounters himself, surges up in the world* - and defines himself afterwards". Thus, the "soul" (i.e., actual personhood) is only developed in a painful and dynamic process of individuation which in turn is based on interaction, introspection, and self-reflection. Likewise, your definition of dualism with regard to the mind-body problem is faulty. Dualism is not the dichotomy of matter and soul (or science versus religion, as your subtext implies). One can easily be a dualist and an atheist. Cartesian dualism posits a dichotomy of matter and mind. The fact that you associate mind with soul reveals again an unhealthy obsession with Christianity. Finally, your claim that dualism is not a scientific approach is also untenable. On the contrary, it is the exclusively positivistic approach to the mind-body problem that is unscientific. If one's axiom is "only matter exists", then guess what? You will inevitably find only matter; wherever and however you explore. It's called scientism, or "finding the Easter eggs you have hidden away yourself". If one measures EMR with a sensor that only picks up wavelengths from 700 nm to 1 mm, then it is highly unscientific to come to the conclusion that ultraviolet light doesn't exist. If you _a priori_ rule out a specific set of results even before you do your research, then you will obviously never _get_ these kinds of results.
Really enjoyed BR2049. As someone who never experienced the original, I found myself very pleased with how they manage to continue the lore without trying to set up a cinematic universe.
Though one problem I had with it was, the casting... don't get me wrong, Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford had great performances, the chemistry among the cast was decent and even though I liked Suicide Squad, Jared Leto was utilized better in BR2049. But what the **** is a "Anna de Armas" and a Sylvia Hoeks? I have no clue on who they are and what they've done previously. I think this movie could have benefited from a stronger cast or at the very least have Emily Blunt play the Katy Petty looking woman who was part of the resistance later on in the movie.
I get that not every movie needs to rely on big name talent nor have an all-star cast, (seriously, Mark Ellis? You're upset that Julia Roberts was wasted in Smurfs Lost Village? That's your biggest disappointment with that movie? Jesus, you are so biased AF sometimes that it's not even funny) but sometimes, I might not remember the actor who played the character in a movie if the actor in question is someone I never heard of...
Just my personal opinion.
Really good video.
... it's too bad that BR2049 was garbage.