0
   

"2001: A Space Odyssey" vs. Today's Reality

 
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 07:32 am
Not sure if this belongs on the science board, since it refers to fiction, but since it is a comparison between an old vision of future technology and the current reality, perhaps it does. I found this at: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.01/ffhal.html

Happy Birthday, Hal
By Simson Garfinkel


The HAL 9000 computer - an artificial intelligence that could think, talk, see, feel, and occasionally go berserk - was supposed to be operational in January 1997. Has anyone seen HAL?


If you take 2001: A Space Odyssey literally, then right about now, somewhere in Urbana, Illinois, an intelligent machine is stumbling through a pathetic version of the song: "Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do...." January 12, 1997, is the birthday of HAL.

Four years later, after a hell of a lot of additional lessons, HAL and five human crew members are on the spaceship Discovery approaching Jupiter. By that time, HAL has been charged with protecting his passengers and ensuring the successful completion of the secret mission. He even has the capability to complete the mission on his own, should something happen to the crew. "My mission responsibilities range over the entire operation of the ship, so I am constantly occupied," HAL confidently tells a BBC newscaster during a television interview. "I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do."

That's when something goes wrong - terribly wrong - with Discovery's human crew. HAL detects a problem with the AE-35, a piece of equipment used to maintain contact with Earth. But after Dave Bowman goes on a space walk and brings the AE-35 back in, neither he nor Frank Poole can find anything wrong with it. So they blame HAL: they conclude that the computer is malfunctioning and decide to shut him off.

Realizing that the humans' actions would jeopardize the mission, HAL does his best to defend himself against their treachery: he kills Poole during the next space walk, then traps Bowman outside the ship when he foolishly attempts a rescue. As a precautionary measure, HAL also terminates the life functions of the three hibernating crew members.

Outside the spaceship, Bowman argues with HAL over the radio, demanding to be let back in. The computer wisely refuses: "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." That's when the wily Bowman maneuvers his space pod to Discovery's emergency airlock, blows the explosive bolts, scrambles inside, seals the door, and repressurizes the airlock. Finally, Bowman makes his way into the core of HAL's brain and disconnects his higher brain functions, one by one.

Today the results of Bowman's actions are well known: He leaves the spaceship to face the alien artifact on his own. Discovery never returns to Earth. The mission ends in failure.


Still swinging clubs


When Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick created the film 2001 almost 30 years ago, they subscribed to a kind of scientific realism. Repulsed by the space operas that had come before, they depicted spaceflight as slow and silent. Likewise, Clarke and Kubrick tried to make the HAL 9000 as advanced as they thought a computer could possibly be in the year 2001, while still remaining plausible.

Though Clarke and Kubrick might have gotten the physics right, their technological time line was woefully inaccurate: we are far behind the film's schedule today. The story depicts a huge space station and space weapons in Earth orbit, routine commercial spaceflight, and two colonies - one American and one Russian - on the Moon itself. Perhaps this will come to pass in another 30 years, but it seems unlikely. Today, we can't even return to the Moon.

Further, Clarke and Kubrick failed to predict the biggest advance of the past 20 years: miniaturization and microelectronics. In the film, astronauts on the Moon use a still film camera to take pictures of the alien artifact; today we would use a digital videocamera. Aboard Discovery, Bowman and Poole use pen and paper to take notes; there are no laptop computers or PDAs to be found anywhere. Likewise, the control panels of the film's spaceships are filled with switches and buttons; Kubrick and Clarke failed to anticipate the glass cockpits that are becoming popular today.

But what about HAL - a fictional computer that is still far more advanced than any machine today? Is HAL another one of Kubrick's and Clarke's mispredictions? Or were the two simply a few years early? Indeed, HAL acts much more like a human being trapped within a silicon box than like one of today's high-end Pentium Pro workstations running Windows 95. Throughout the film, HAL talks like a person, thinks like a person, plans - badly, it turns out - like a person, and, when he is about to die, begs like a person. It is HAL's ability to learn and his control of the ship's systems, rather than his ability to perform lightning-fast calculations, that make him such a formidable challenge for the humans when they try to disconnect him.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,320 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 08:40 am
One of the functions of science fiction is to think about what the future might be. To make the future familiar before it occurs. In other word create a reality that we can then work towards. I think the chronology is of less significance than the goal.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 08:41 am
Incidently, I think this topic very much belongs in the science forum.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:29 am
Acquiunk wrote:
Incidently, I think this topic very much belongs in the science forum.


I agree. Science isn't just about the things we already know, it's about the things we want to know; It's about exploration and discovery.

My personal view on AI, is that we are still a long way from making it happen, but eventually we will do it. And when it happens, I hope that those creations don't just learn to see the world through our eyes, but also teach us to see the world through theirs.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:34 am
Great thread Brandon
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:40 am
A lot of sci-fi writers have got it right ahead of time - Frank Herbert's Dune series and most stuff by Isaac Asimov is littered with stuff that has now become common place and was predicted in the 50's and 60's. I agree with Acquiunk re: the chronology.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:41 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Acquiunk wrote:
Incidently, I think this topic very much belongs in the science forum.


I agree. Science isn't just about the things we already know, it's about the things we want to know; It's about exploration and discovery.

I agree Rosborne, but I hope we can sharply differentiate between actual scientific theory and theory from fiction.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:41 am
panzade wrote:
Great thread Brandon

Thanks!
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:55 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
[ I hope we can sharply differentiate between actual scientific theory and theory from fiction.


All scientific theory i to a degree fiction in that it is an explanation of the world based on the data we have. It is not necessarily correct, it is just the best we can do with what we have. Science fiction carries that on step further and posits a world based on data we might wish we had. The distinction should definitely be kept clear. But it is useful not to separate them too far apart for the later represents our dreams about the former.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:56 am
The greatest lesson to be gleaned from 'Hal', is that we are all prisoners of our 'programming'; we try to fulfill the expectations presented to us by our society, often without considering whether or not these goals are suitable, ethically correct, or attainable at all.

The challenge of the future, where we will assuredly be 'manufacturing' our descendents, is to incorporate into their logic circuits the capacity to reinvent 'direction'; that is to be able to modify their concentration of intelligence to suit a volatile, shifting set of parameters, necessitating a creative approach to redirecting their efforts for the maximum positive effect in civilizing, harnessing, and improving the environment on this, and perhaps other planets. We must imbue them with the ability to think outside the programme 'box'.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 09:57 am
And to do this we must also first learn to do that ourselves!
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 10:02 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
I agree Rosborne, but I hope we can sharply differentiate between actual scientific theory and theory from fiction.


Of course. The two should not be confused. And yet, many speculations from fiction may eventually be scientific fact, so we also cannot dismiss an idea simply because it was first proposed in fiction.

The fun part is honing a fanciful idea against the foundation of existing knowledge. A new idea only really starts to get exciting as it weathers the storms of knowledge arrayed against it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 11:32 am
Acquiunk wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
[ I hope we can sharply differentiate between actual scientific theory and theory from fiction.


All scientific theory i to a degree fiction in that it is an explanation of the world based on the data we have. It is not necessarily correct, it is just the best we can do with what we have. Science fiction carries that on step further and posits a world based on data we might wish we had. The distinction should definitely be kept clear. But it is useful not to separate them too far apart for the later represents our dreams about the former.

Nothing you have said is literally incorrect, but I am getting pretty sick of people quoting science from movies, or from their imaginations, exactly as though it were real. I have seen too many posts in which people have asserted that accepted theory is wrong without bothering to acquaint themselves with it in the slightest degree first. Accepted scientific theory has been derived in a very rigorous, disciplined way, and verifed carefully by experiment, although it can still be incorrect. Science from movies has been made up by scriptwriters. The latter serves as a stimulus to future research, but it is not in any way, shape, or form valid science.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 12:06 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
[ I am getting pretty sick of people quoting science from movies, or from their imaginations, exactly as though it were real.


Yes, I do too, it drives me up the wall.

The only thing I can say about that is that if people think a scientific phenomenon is real, there is little resistance to it when it becomes a reality and little complaint when research on such ideas are publicly funded.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 12:54 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
[ I am getting pretty sick of people quoting science from movies, or from their imaginations, exactly as though it were real.

The only thing I can say about that is that if people think a scientific phenomenon is real, there is little resistance to it when it becomes a reality and little complaint when research on such ideas are publicly funded.

I have often thought this. I think it's one reason why no one sees protests outside of NASA every time they have a big launch, like one did in the 70s.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 01:02 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
I am getting pretty sick of people quoting science from movies, or from their imaginations, exactly as though it were real.


I'm just frustrated with the overall lack of scientific savvy expressed by the general public. I don't mind explaining things to people, and I don't mind well intentioned speculation from curious minds, but it is frustrating having to repeatedly overcome the embedded delusions of pseudo-science which most people have accumulated over their lives.

But I would also note that nobody's perfect when it comes to understanding everything. As conversant as I am with most standard models, I still don't know the stuff as well as the experts in the field, and there are still times when I learn something new, and often it comes as a result of me trying to explore one of my own crackpot theories. Smile

So I'm fairly forgiving of a new idea, as long as it's approached with an open mind, based in reasonable science, and stated as a conjecture rather than a fact.

I don't think we'll ever escape the snake-oil and pseudo-science which is out there, but I do think that if everyone were a bit more skeptical about what they were being told, it would go a long way toward minimizing the spread of false information.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 01:31 pm
Somewhat related, and an interesting article:

Indeed, it is now possible to study for a degree in science and science fiction...
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 01:45 pm
i have to mention that i was watching a movie "Roswell" on tv purporting to be the real story behind the huge media/ufo hype.
at the end of the story the 'alien' tells his human sweetheart that he lives "just to the left of Venus".

Yeh, really! and 'when' is your distant planet to the left of Venus? i silently asked myself, in annoyance.

There is a great deal of chatter about things like a trip to Orion (a constellation), in sf movies that indicate a complete disregard for common sense that i find very annoying, and slurs quality sf.

The course you mention 'might' help to eradicate such foolish mistakes, and even make some poor sf authors marginally knowledgeable.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 01:59 pm
BoGoWo wrote:
....at the end of the story the 'alien' tells his human sweetheart that he lives "just to the left of Venus".

I am supposing that despite the producers' overwhelming desire to produce a quality product, it was too difficult for them to hire a Physics or Astronomy grad student to check their scripts for basic scientific plausibility. And bear in mind, also, that in all the stages between the submission of the script and the airing of the episode, no one knew that this was ludicrous. I never knew that the Roswell aliens had come from an advanced, technological civilization within our very own solar system.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 02:05 pm
Just a very tangential thought here, but what gets me about 2001 is the idea of what would be economically viable. Sure, it could be possible to have commercial travel into space, but for what? Where would the demand come from? And where is the rest of sweating, starving, striving humanity? To me, the film is parable, not prediction.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "2001: A Space Odyssey" vs. Today's Reality
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 03:42:05