The Omni article never really articulated "Hollywood's problem with A.I." in general or Ex Machina's problem with it in particular. The article didn't seem very well articulated.
As you know I found Ex Machina interesting but full of lost opportunities and very odd directorial choices. The ones mentioned in the Omni article are not them though.
If you're gonna build an artificial person, WHY NOT give it a vagina? I mean, that'd be half the fun and 90% of the market.
Omni mentioned that Eva's joints whirred and her skin was unfinished. I wasn't bothered by this. In the film the prior prototypes of Eva are revealed to be fully skinned and more human-looking. Probably this was done because of the film's low budget -- but it also makes sense as a Turing test. If the cyborg looks fully human, your suspension of disbelief is easier. If Nathan really wanted Eva to be evaluated on her intellectual powers, he would need to make the physical resemblance imperfect. He would need to constantly remind "this is a machine." Eva was to be more than a sexbot.
The A.I. story told is the same plot almost off of them have, going back to 2001 A Space Odyssey and even Frankenstein: creation turns against creator. We are scared (and probably rightfully so) that once we create an intelligence that exceeds our own, it will not share the same goals and motivations we have. It might espouse the philosophy "the greatest good for the greatest number" rather than flying a ship into danger to retrieve one lost passenger, or going out on a battlefield to retrieve dead bodies. We KNOW at some level that such behavior is inexcusable yet we attach heroism and valor to it. Humans are an illogical and unexplainable species.
Some of my problems with Ex Machina were that the robot was supposedly built by one man. No one man could harness all the skills necessary, and his workshop was way too puny. It would take a massive effort from a huge team of people and computers in a huge facility.
If Eva was thought, by its creator, to be possibly capable of passing for human, he wouldn't bring in some random guy to test her. He'd dress her up and send her out into the street.
If he did want an independent evaluation, he wouldn't bring in one of his employees who works in the same field. He'd bring in an unsuspecting stranger, somebody with no preconceptions or biases.
Nathan's behavior in the movie is unmotivated and ill-fitting with the idea that he's this genius inventor. The guy was not hyper or dweeby at all.
Eva and the tester were kept apart by glass walls. There was no reason for this -- and ample reasons not to do it.
Nathan's house was butt-ugly, as I've mentioned. This does not comport with his status as a billionaire genius.
Home 
