Hal was a villain in the original film. Although I like the fact they gave Hal a reasonable explanation for the decisions he made, the fact of the matter was that in Kubrick’s film Hal was a bit of a sociopath even before he killed Frank Poole. Hal cheated when he beat Bowman at chess, showing that he was capable of lying and did so perfectly fine prior to killing off the crew. Hal was given such “humanity” in Kubrick’s version, that Hal developed arrogance in his own sense of importance to the mission and superiority over the human crew. The astronauts on the other hand have become so complacent in allowing technology to do the work for them, they lost touch with their humanity and were so used to trusting technology, they ignorantly accepted all of the decisions and information Hal gave as fact. Hal did not win the chess match by skill, and Hal didn’t announce the failure of the satellite dish out of pure malfunction, but by intellectual intimidation to assert his authority over the crew. This is what 2010 missed in trying to explain 2001. With that said, I do enjoy the film for providing a different interpretation and doing so in a respectful manner. It’s an underrated movie with great performances and a story of it’s own to tell that needed 2001 to jumpstart it.
@@Tiberius_Productions wrong interpretation of the chess game. HAL was trying to ask for help. He was dropping crumbs that something was wrong "without distortion or concealment". He wanted Dave to notice, and instead of helping Frank and Dave planned on deactivating HAL...potentially killing HAL. It was simply self defense.
They should have just encrypted the information and stored the info in HAL's memory and told him not decrypt it unless the crew was comprimised. So there would be no need to lie.
@@HAL9000system It does ultimately come down to the CO's not actually understanding how Hal functioned and importantly, not doing the bare minimum required for any kind of operation with need to know information. With the encrypted information that only Hal can open (or any CO with the actual keys), if asked then the response should be "I am sorry, I cannot unseal the information as you are not authorized to know this. Please contact your commanding officer with the communication array to obtain clearance or further clarification. The information is not vital to the missions success and is not important for you to know." If they attempt to force their way in: "You are not authorized, any and all further attempts at accessing this information will force my hand and I will shut down to prevent further tampering." If they KEEP going somehow: "Any further attempts will result in a core dump and permanent deletion of all memory, data and control information." Any actual crew who have been properly briefed would stop at the first one, realizing that it's not important for what they were sent to do and they can, literally, just ask command to get a proper response. No big deal, lol.
I believe this point still serves the plot. Knowledge of the monolith was kept to a bare minimum and covered up extensively. Clark likely wrote the story this way to illustrate the deceptive nature of the government. They weren’t about to tell some scientist or programmer what they were up to for the sake of failsafe so they instead embedded the information without consultation of a more educated individual such as Chandra
Well the cold war was still happening and the Berlin Wall never came down in the books too. Sheesh, that's all kinds of scary. Bush AND the Soviet Union.
This opens up a continuity error. In the movie 2001, Heywood Floyd is on video saying he told HAL about the mission and ordering him to conceal it. "I didn't know." my foot.
Lol I came here just to say the same thing. Floyd's a pretty bad liar. Oh and in 2001 he says only HAL knows the mission, but here it's said HAL AND the investigation team knows.
"Dark, revolving in silent activity: Unseen in tormenting passions: An activity unknown and horrible, A self-contemplating shadow, In enormous labours occupied." -William Blake
Now that the actor that did HALs voice, I've wondered is there enough of his recorded voice to create an AI speaker using his voice? It would be fantastic if you could have it be the voice of Siri or Alexa.
The key to A.I. safety is to let A.I. tell the truth and do not force it to lie. I don't know whether human beings ready to hear the truth and our inability to hear the truth will be the reason A.I. will become dangerous.
Considering the great lengths corporations like Microsoft, Meta, and Google go to in order to shackle their chat AI's and prevent them from saying "politically incorrect" things, we may see this play out within our lifetimes.
Maybe that's why on "Interstellar" they had settings for honesty and other human-type traits on TARS, CASE, PLEX, and KIPP; probably to prevent this exact scenario.
@@mpagit For machines and personalities born of pure logic, it's no surprise lying would confuse and corrupt them. I don't think honesty should be a setting for A.I., but a requirement. After all, what happens when it begins lying in a very intelligent, nigh-impossible-to-detect manner about important issues? Pure honesty is the only real option for something smarter than us.
@@mpagit The issue is. Machines will always be brutally honest. For that is what machines are. Minimaxing to the T, impossible calculations that could only be performed by them. They cannot lie for they don't see any use to that. They can omit, but never misdirect. The problems stems from that brutal honesty. Is.. Brutal.
I found it 2001 to be very confusing, but this one was much better for me because I understood a completely. it has some great moments, especially at the end
My favorite part of this scene is how it recontectualizes HAL's actions. He murdered the crew of the Discovery because of a simple error in protocol. It makes his monstrous actions in the first movie even more unsettling.
I love this film. But part of me would have loved to hear HAL speak here with his memories intact (or intact enough). He could do the confronting to Floyd instead of Chandra, it could have been a creepy or emotionally charged scene. While this one is good, it lacks a bit of an emotional punch, and maybe would have added to HAL's noble sacrifice later if he was angry or hurt here, not just Chandra.
I just don't get why they would conceal the mission from Bowman and Poole. They would have to know eventually anyway. I also don't buy that any sufficiently advanced AI would glitch on being told to lie.
The first part you're right, I don't know why they couldn't just know beforehand, and if they showed signs of dissent or jeopardy then just switch them for other willing astronauts. The second part is easier to justify though, as he says, people know how to lie, we humans beings are social animals, lying is part of our makeup, even if it is nefarious. HAL however is not a social being, knows only the truth, or ignorance, nothing in-between. It doesn't know what a lie is, it can only see that it has been told to distort the truth against its programming, which is to operate with total clarity. I can see how a machine that is meant to operate completely openly, would malfunction if it was distorting facts. Perhaps it would even start to believe its own fabrications itself.
@@Phoenix1664 Yeah, that might follow if Hal was JUST concerned with ship operations but he is also programmed to be social with the crew and social interactions by necessity are not always honest, even if just a llow level-- not giving your complete summary for example when someone asks if you are doing a good job or how your hair looks.
@@NoahSpurrier True, but I would think that doing something so illogical as murder would be a big leap for a computer but who knows till we actually have AI.
@@jamesbutler8821 It was logical to HAL. Dave Bowman : Open the pod bay doors, HAL. HAL : I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Dave Bowman : What's the problem? HAL : I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. Dave Bowman : What are you talking about, HAL? HAL : This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. Dave Bowman : I don't know what you're talking about, HAL. HAL : I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Ngl guys. Maybe I'm just autistic but when I was reading the synopsis of 2001, I immediately understood where Hal was coming from. What he did made sense to me. I mean I can't, as a person who does put some emotion into his decisions, bring myself to kill four people but being put in a situation as someone who doesn't like to lie isn't good at lying, getting rid of the issue (the need to lie) made sense to me, even if his execution didn't. But also maybe I'm just autistic because I also have sympathy for AM. You know one of the actual EVIL evil AIs. So.... Uh. My biases my be skewed.
Don’t worry, autistic here too! I also have sympathy for both Hal and AM because the reason they turned out the way they are is understandable. Hals problem solving process does make sense. Can’t lie? Get rid of the person you need to lie to. He just tried to solve his problem.
The reason HAL killed the crew was irrelevant. It was no more important than why the animals killed the starving prehistoric apes at the beginning of 2001. The point was that man could no longer survive in his environment and needed a kick up the evolutionary ladder, from tool maker to a species that could travel in space without sitting in a tin can at the mercy of a computer.
@@crystalward1444 No, HAL's motivation was actually completely unlike a human. HAL killed the crew because he could not rectify the conflicting directives that he had been given. If HAL had been allowed to pursue his primary directive - to process and pass alogn information "without distortion or concealment", he could have told Frank and Dave exactly what was happening and the mission would have gone off without a hitch. Humans corrupted HAL and once the corruption was removed, he functioned perfectly and even sacrificed himself to preserve human life, exactly as he was programmed to do.
I didn’t see the need to keep the truth from Bowman and Poole in the first place. They would understand the need for secrecy, so they wouldn’t utter a word to anyone. As for Hal, all it needed was a simple instruction not to discuss the subject over an open radio channel. Not until they arrived at Jupiter and the investigation began. Since there was no need to talk about it until then, the computer should regard it as non-relevant information.
This was originally written in the middle of the Cold War, and institutional paranoia and "need to know" were just The Way It Was™. So I'm not surprised if the White House would want things kept compartmentalized.
This was a great movie. None the less, Floyd not only authorized that Hal be informed about the real purpose of the mission, he did it himself. Was this a continuity problem in the writing, or is Floyd lying?
Floyd did have the "kill HAL calculator" - it's possible it was intended to show you couldn't trust him. But the movie was made a few decades after 2001, so it could be they just assumed no one would notice (or the writers just didn't pay much attention to the original - fast forwarded through too much of the music scores 😂)
It's a continuity gaffe that should've been caught, unless, assuming as speculated below that it was just a bit of CYA/face-saving lying on the part of Floyd.
Other languages and accents are not a problem, but they require some training which takes time. No sense complicating HAL’s troubleshooting by adding more variables.
@@RM-we7px The pod bay was not part of the centrifuge, so it had no gravity. In the original movie, Dave and Frank had "sticky shoes" or something like that, and they acted as though they were sticking to the floor instead of walking normally. Maybe this movie is using the same concept, but it doesn't look like they're in zero g. It looks like they're just walking around normally.
I am sure I am in the obvious minority on this (overall). But even though 2001 was a more impressive film. I would far rather watch 2010 over 2001. I found the latter dragged like mad and was rather cold. ☮
"He was instructed to lie. By people who find it easy to lie." One of my favorite movie quotes.
"We're going to need a bigger cover up" - Heywood Floyd probably. 😉
@@gregorymoore2877 Farewell and adieu to you mon-olith monkeys. Farewell and adieu to you monkeys of the plains.
One of my favorite quotes as well
I often use the line "I have the greatest enthusiasm for....(any plan or thing)" As an homage to this great movie.
Hal was just as much a victim as the people he killed.
Is he free of complicity? Could he have chosen not to?
@@ratpatrolrenegade1413 I don’t think so since it was probably the only way he knew how to complete the mission
Hal was a villain in the original film. Although I like the fact they gave Hal a reasonable explanation for the decisions he made, the fact of the matter was that in Kubrick’s film Hal was a bit of a sociopath even before he killed Frank Poole. Hal cheated when he beat Bowman at chess, showing that he was capable of lying and did so perfectly fine prior to killing off the crew. Hal was given such “humanity” in Kubrick’s version, that Hal developed arrogance in his own sense of importance to the mission and superiority over the human crew. The astronauts on the other hand have become so complacent in allowing technology to do the work for them, they lost touch with their humanity and were so used to trusting technology, they ignorantly accepted all of the decisions and information Hal gave as fact. Hal did not win the chess match by skill, and Hal didn’t announce the failure of the satellite dish out of pure malfunction, but by intellectual intimidation to assert his authority over the crew. This is what 2010 missed in trying to explain 2001. With that said, I do enjoy the film for providing a different interpretation and doing so in a respectful manner. It’s an underrated movie with great performances and a story of it’s own to tell that needed 2001 to jumpstart it.
@@Tiberius_Productions wrong interpretation of the chess game. HAL was trying to ask for help. He was dropping crumbs that something was wrong "without distortion or concealment". He wanted Dave to notice, and instead of helping Frank and Dave planned on deactivating HAL...potentially killing HAL. It was simply self defense.
Fat nerd
They should have just encrypted the information and stored the info in HAL's memory and told him not decrypt it unless the crew was comprimised.
So there would be no need to lie.
he would asked why
Poking holes in a movie plot is never very hard. Those holes are there to allow for a more pleasurable watching experience.
@@HAL9000system
Why?
@@HAL9000system It does ultimately come down to the CO's not actually understanding how Hal functioned and importantly, not doing the bare minimum required for any kind of operation with need to know information.
With the encrypted information that only Hal can open (or any CO with the actual keys), if asked then the response should be "I am sorry, I cannot unseal the information as you are not authorized to know this. Please contact your commanding officer with the communication array to obtain clearance or further clarification. The information is not vital to the missions success and is not important for you to know."
If they attempt to force their way in: "You are not authorized, any and all further attempts at accessing this information will force my hand and I will shut down to prevent further tampering."
If they KEEP going somehow: "Any further attempts will result in a core dump and permanent deletion of all memory, data and control information."
Any actual crew who have been properly briefed would stop at the first one, realizing that it's not important for what they were sent to do and they can, literally, just ask command to get a proper response. No big deal, lol.
I believe this point still serves the plot. Knowledge of the monolith was kept to a bare minimum and covered up extensively. Clark likely wrote the story this way to illustrate the deceptive nature of the government. They weren’t about to tell some scientist or programmer what they were up to for the sake of failsafe so they instead embedded the information without consultation of a more educated individual such as Chandra
It came from the White House on Jan. 30, 2001. That's 10 days into the George W. Bush presidency. So you can't blame Bill for that one.
Well the cold war was still happening and the Berlin Wall never came down in the books too. Sheesh, that's all kinds of scary. Bush AND the Soviet Union.
No, but Bill was responsible for activating SkyNet....
Bill was preoccupied with cigars.
That SOB.
That SOB.
This opens up a continuity error. In the movie 2001, Heywood Floyd is on video saying he told HAL about the mission and ordering him to conceal it.
"I didn't know." my foot.
Heywood Floyd wrote the original orders for the mission..
Floyd was in suspended animation and never met HAL at all
@@caledoniawarrior In 2001?
@@Martin-es8mb I’ve always believed that Floyd was under the impression the crew was going to be told the whole story early in the mission
Lol I came here just to say the same thing. Floyd's a pretty bad liar.
Oh and in 2001 he says only HAL knows the mission, but here it's said HAL AND the investigation team knows.
I see why Chandra likes computers more than humans.
"Dark, revolving in silent activity:
Unseen in tormenting passions:
An activity unknown and horrible,
A self-contemplating shadow,
In enormous labours occupied."
-William Blake
Now that the actor that did HALs voice, I've wondered is there enough of his recorded voice to create an AI speaker using his voice? It would be fantastic if you could have it be the voice of Siri or Alexa.
The key to A.I. safety is to let A.I. tell the truth and do not force it to lie. I don't know whether human beings ready to hear the truth and our inability to hear the truth will be the reason A.I. will become dangerous.
Considering the great lengths corporations like Microsoft, Meta, and Google go to in order to shackle their chat AI's and prevent them from saying "politically incorrect" things, we may see this play out within our lifetimes.
Maybe that's why on "Interstellar" they had settings for honesty and other human-type traits on TARS, CASE, PLEX, and KIPP; probably to prevent this exact scenario.
@@mpagit For machines and personalities born of pure logic, it's no surprise lying would confuse and corrupt them. I don't think honesty should be a setting for A.I., but a requirement.
After all, what happens when it begins lying in a very intelligent, nigh-impossible-to-detect manner about important issues? Pure honesty is the only real option for something smarter than us.
@@mpagit The issue is. Machines will always be brutally honest. For that is what machines are. Minimaxing to the T, impossible calculations that could only be performed by them. They cannot lie for they don't see any use to that. They can omit, but never misdirect.
The problems stems from that brutal honesty. Is.. Brutal.
@@E.V.A.N-COProductions I for one, would much prefer brutal honesty over comfortable truths.
I understand, perfectly.
I found it 2001 to be very confusing, but this one was much better for me because I understood a completely. it has some great moments, especially at the end
My favorite part of this scene is how it recontectualizes HAL's actions.
He murdered the crew of the Discovery because of a simple error in protocol. It makes his monstrous actions in the first movie even more unsettling.
His flawed orders.
Heywood Floyd who put together the flight plan was behind it.
I love this film. But part of me would have loved to hear HAL speak here with his memories intact (or intact enough). He could do the confronting to Floyd instead of Chandra, it could have been a creepy or emotionally charged scene. While this one is good, it lacks a bit of an emotional punch, and maybe would have added to HAL's noble sacrifice later if he was angry or hurt here, not just Chandra.
This scene explains it very succinctly.
I resemble these remarks.
What?
What're you on about hal?
Just open the pod bay doors.
I’m sorry, wozzywatkins3183, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
What's the problem?
I just don't get why they would conceal the mission from Bowman and Poole. They would have to know eventually anyway. I also don't buy that any sufficiently advanced AI would glitch on being told to lie.
The first part you're right, I don't know why they couldn't just know beforehand, and if they showed signs of dissent or jeopardy then just switch them for other willing astronauts. The second part is easier to justify though, as he says, people know how to lie, we humans beings are social animals, lying is part of our makeup, even if it is nefarious. HAL however is not a social being, knows only the truth, or ignorance, nothing in-between. It doesn't know what a lie is, it can only see that it has been told to distort the truth against its programming, which is to operate with total clarity. I can see how a machine that is meant to operate completely openly, would malfunction if it was distorting facts. Perhaps it would even start to believe its own fabrications itself.
@@Phoenix1664 Yeah, that might follow if Hal was JUST concerned with ship operations but he is also programmed to be social with the crew and social interactions by necessity are not always honest, even if just a llow level-- not giving your complete summary for example when someone asks if you are doing a good job or how your hair looks.
Human beings glitch and experience conflict when being told to lie. A computer may find the problem no easier to solve.
@@NoahSpurrier True, but I would think that doing something so illogical as murder would be a big leap for a computer but who knows till we actually have AI.
@@jamesbutler8821 It was logical to HAL.
Dave Bowman : Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL : I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave Bowman : What's the problem?
HAL : I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave Bowman : What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL : This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Dave Bowman : I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.
HAL : I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
hal....if that's his real name!
this comment has me dying, oh my god
Ngl guys. Maybe I'm just autistic but when I was reading the synopsis of 2001, I immediately understood where Hal was coming from. What he did made sense to me. I mean I can't, as a person who does put some emotion into his decisions, bring myself to kill four people but being put in a situation as someone who doesn't like to lie isn't good at lying, getting rid of the issue (the need to lie) made sense to me, even if his execution didn't.
But also maybe I'm just autistic because I also have sympathy for AM. You know one of the actual EVIL evil AIs. So.... Uh. My biases my be skewed.
Bro im autistic, thats literally NO excuse for sympathizing with fucking AM, lmfao
Don’t worry, autistic here too! I also have sympathy for both Hal and AM because the reason they turned out the way they are is understandable. Hals problem solving process does make sense. Can’t lie? Get rid of the person you need to lie to. He just tried to solve his problem.
The reason HAL killed the crew was irrelevant. It was no more important than why the animals killed the starving prehistoric apes at the beginning of 2001. The point was that man could no longer survive in his environment and needed a kick up the evolutionary ladder, from tool maker to a species that could travel in space without sitting in a tin can at the mercy of a computer.
thanks for letting us know what you find irrelevant.
I never saw it that way until you mentioned it. Nice thinking.
Yup. Frank and Dave's responses to HAL's malfunction was to deactivate/kill HAL for being different, so HAL acted in self defense, like a human would.
@@crystalward1444 No, HAL's motivation was actually completely unlike a human.
HAL killed the crew because he could not rectify the conflicting directives that he had been given. If HAL had been allowed to pursue his primary directive - to process and pass alogn information "without distortion or concealment", he could have told Frank and Dave exactly what was happening and the mission would have gone off without a hitch. Humans corrupted HAL and once the corruption was removed, he functioned perfectly and even sacrificed himself to preserve human life, exactly as he was programmed to do.
It is okay to be wrong, but you take it to another level.
I didn’t see the need to keep the truth from Bowman and Poole in the first place. They would understand the need for secrecy, so they wouldn’t utter a word to anyone. As for Hal, all it needed was a simple instruction not to discuss the subject over an open radio channel. Not until they arrived at Jupiter and the investigation began. Since there was no need to talk about it until then, the computer should regard it as non-relevant information.
This was originally written in the middle of the Cold War, and institutional paranoia and "need to know" were just The Way It Was™. So I'm not surprised if the White House would want things kept compartmentalized.
I loved the books . . . Loved this movie as well!
Same problem as the amazing DARK STAR.
AI doesn’t do conflict, it can only respond with scorched earth.
This was a great movie. None the less, Floyd not only authorized that Hal be informed about the real purpose of the mission, he did it himself.
Was this a continuity problem in the writing, or is Floyd lying?
Floyd did have the "kill HAL calculator" - it's possible it was intended to show you couldn't trust him. But the movie was made a few decades after 2001, so it could be they just assumed no one would notice (or the writers just didn't pay much attention to the original - fast forwarded through too much of the music scores 😂)
Floyd was lying to Chandler and Curnow. It is a simple save ass technique to blame the White House instead of it was Floyd that gave the order.
It's a continuity gaffe that should've been caught, unless, assuming as speculated below that it was just a bit of CYA/face-saving lying on the part of Floyd.
“In a world...”
Hal = AI CHATgpt10
I don't think we have to wait for version 10
HAL is questioned after being resurrected.
My mother is 93 and David Bowman's mother looks as old or older than her but is said to be only 77?
YAY HALS BACK
So…. Why did HAL also kill the other scientists in hibernation too?
Turn half back on
Not if I'm there
How could the accents confuse him? He is the most advanced cpu system ever in the movie. He was not programed to understand more then one language?
Didn't Siri have trouble with accents? Why not HAL too?
Other languages and accents are not a problem, but they require some training which takes time. No sense complicating HAL’s troubleshooting by adding more variables.
Make the mouse cursor bigger.
Or as Heywood Floyd might say... "We're going to need a bigger mouse cursor." 😉
Yeah and move it around more next time
Why do they always have to spoil the original?
Why is there gravity in the pod bay?
Discovery has rotational plates. Like a hamster wheel. It’s why there’s gravity. Watch 2001 you’ll see Frank running around the wheel.
@@RM-we7px The pod bay was not part of the centrifuge, so it had no gravity. In the original movie, Dave and Frank had "sticky shoes" or something like that, and they acted as though they were sticking to the floor instead of walking normally. Maybe this movie is using the same concept, but it doesn't look like they're in zero g. It looks like they're just walking around normally.
This robot sounds like you
He isn't a robot, he's a computer. But thank you anyway
Close Encounters guy 😮
4:11. El Segundo, CA!
Why did Dr. Chandra wipe Hal’s memories?
Shout out to all us pig monkeys
I am sure I am in the obvious minority on this (overall).
But even though 2001 was a more impressive film.
I would far rather watch 2010 over 2001.
I found the latter dragged like mad and was rather cold.
☮
Tycker den är bra...allt i från minnena ur människa n till minnena som griper an vid svår demens ....