Movie: The Martian

This one is for Richard.


At the risk of being a spoilsport on what's basically a "feel good think less" movie, I have to ask:
* What does Damon do for oxygen?
* it's all fine & good to grow your own food, but organic stuff comes from organic stuff. There is no free lunch, no perpetual motion. What does Damon use for fertilizer? Does he get enough sunlight to convert energy to matter?
* At what point does a nation or a NASA make the calculation that one man's life isn't worth a multi-billion dollar mission? These ARE calculations Politicians would make.

Is it just me, or are there some inconsistencies in your movie reviews. This post makes scathing criticisms  about The Martian, based only on a preview. Yet you seemed to enjoy Ex Machina, a movie which has a premise considerably more unrealistic that that of The Martian without remarking on that. Rather you imbue Ex Machina with containing "profound issues."

I do not foresee the development of Turing-quality AI as impossible -- not like I do survival on Mars for four years when provisioned for 31 days.

No contradiction.

I've not before encountered the term "Turning-quality," but I am going to assume that you mean a machine which can pass the Turing Test. The ability to do that is trivial in the extreme when compared to the premise of the movie, which is the creation of an artificial human, both physical and mental. That, I assert, will never occur. That the technology to create such a device will ever exist is doubtful, at least to me. The physical requirements of such a device are many orders of magnitude greater than what we now have the knowledge to provide.

Oh ye of little faith

And that toy satisfies your idea of an artificial human, as in the movie?

Here's a baby riding an artificial horse:

_Howard wrote:

And that toy satisfies your idea of an artificial human, as in the movie?

I think perhaps you have fixated on the concept of an "artificial human" to the detriment of your understanding of the real issues here.

The robot in Ex Machina has a human face and human hands, but there was no effort made (in this model at least) to hide the fact that she was a robot. Her torso and arms and legs were left exposed as machinery. Earlier models, shown late in the film, were apparently more humanistic in appearance (though not in behavior) and it was implied the inventor had some sexual interest in this being the case. The latest model, on the other hand, was more individualistic and Turing-quality, leading him to view her as more than a sex toy and to seek the opinion of one of his programmer employees.

The Turing test has no connection with human appearance, it was envisioned as a man sitting at a terminal typing questions. The packaging of a Turing intelligence into a humanoid body would indeed be an "artificial human" -- but that wasn't what the movie was about.

It was about the rights and responsibilities of an intelligence, whether organic or man made. In this it harkened back to Stanislaw Lem's famous story "Non Serviam" about the scientist who creates artificial life inside a computer, then has qualms about stopping the simulation.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I think perhaps you have fixated on the concept of an "artificial human" to the detriment of your understanding of the real issues here

I have not "fixated" on anything. The issue I brought up is not the philosophical discussion of AI, but what I took to be inconsistencies in your criticism of technical shortcomings in The Martian, while ignoring much more problematic technological issues in Ex Machina.

As far as AI is concerned: No matter what the packaging, a machine is a machine. It has no consciousness, no life, and no will. The Turing test is not a test of a machine's abilities; it is a test of the abilities of the programmers who wrote the machine's software.

Ah, the Cartesian argument. Machines will never have a soul.

I beg to differ.

Differ all you will, but - again - I am not concerned in philosophical discussions about machines. You brought that up. I was addressing purely technological matters. Which is what you addressed in your criticism of The martian.

Why should machines have "souls"? People don't. Soul is an imaginary religious gadget and unworthy of discussion.

The ability of a machine to exhibit self directed behavior is a matter of advancing current state of the art. There is no magic or suspension of the laws of nature necessary.

The ability to survive four years on a lifeless planet without any oxygen or water *does* require something outside the realm of science.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The ability of a machine to exhibit self directed behavior is a matter of advancing current state of the art

Okay. You're talking about software. I was addressing mechanical problems, such as: a mobile computer, as shown in the movie, would require massive amounts of very-high-speed memory and processors, consuming lots of energy. The machine would have a large number of motors and actuators, which are very power hungry. Then there are numerous other electronic and mechanical devices for vision, speech, hearing, balance, etc. The  batteries required for all that would be massive and short-lived, even with the most efficient battery technology we currently have.

Yes. In the future, there may be a way to overcome the computer's power problem, just as there may be a way - in the future - to facilitate the delivery or creation of oxygen and water on Mars. Unlikely in both cases, but feasible.

The robot can plug into a power source every night (or every hour) if required.

The astronaut does not have a support system available.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The robot can plug into a power source every night (or every hour) if required.

Kind of makes the idea of "escaping" less desirable.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The astronaut does not have a support system available.

Then what is that big fucking building he is in. You know, the one where the astronauts live?

"Designed to provide support for 31 days."

31 days for how many people?

I got the idea from the preview that the movie is mostly about him trying to overcome little problems like that.

In any case, both movies are science fiction. Emphasis on the fiction.

Yeah I know, fiction.

But lack of oxygen, water or any organic material in which to grown plants doesn't seem like a "little problem" to me.  

It seems like another example of Star Trek science, where the spaceship lands on an alien planet, the captain swings the door open, and says, "Ah good, they have AIR here!"*





* - A dollar if you know the actual reference!

You mean in what episode did Kirk say that? All of them.

So, um, in other news I finally sat through the painful doldrums that was Interstellar.
Allow me to save you three and a half years (hours) that you'll never get back: the ghost is the dad and they never we coming back.


Why is Mathew McConaughey a thing? Please, why? All he does is use the same voice and the same look for every character. His voice in the car commercial is exactly the same as his voice talking to LARS. Why is he popular? Why is this one trick pony splashing himself all over my movies?

Okay, I'll reserve judgement. Maybe I'm wrong (not like THAT hasn't happened before...)

Quote :

Six years after Weir started his book, one possible inaccuracy shines through it and the movie: Data from Curiosity have suggested that producing water on Mars might not be as arduous as it is for Watney.

I like this.

Whatn-E Is Stranded On Mars In This Mashup Trailer For The Martian

Opens tomorrow.

My local Cineplex actually has showings tonight but I think I'll wait until Friday. After all of the discussion I'm halfway excited about it.

It looks like a fun movie, and I will probably get the DVD, but hasn't this story been done many times? A lone man stranded in an unfriendly environment. Robinson Crusoe comes to mind. Hell, they even did Robinson Crusoe on Mars.

When are they going to start making movies with new ideas for the story line?