ITT: High IQ Cinema

>sentient
way to prove you didn't understand the film

I absolutely did. The point was that, whether or not Ava is sentient, she was able to convince Caleb that she was sentient. The Turing test basically dictates that if you can't tell if an AI is sentient or not, there's no logical reason to assume that it isn't. The same reasoning applies to humans: how do I know you're sentient? How do you know I'm sentient? We only assume the people around us are sentient because they act sentient. More to the point, Ava was a sufficiently complex machine that there's no reason to assume that she didn't actually think and feel.

>I let reddit define my opinions
You're a special kind of retard, aren't ya?

Attached: 2497628.jpg (306x306, 20K)

Attached: 5.jpg (500x735, 100K)

Attached: MV5BMjA2OTk5ODkxMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODc4MDk0OQ@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,704,1000_AL_.jpg (704x1000, 199K)

Cringe. The engineering depicted is highly realistic, but it's basically "dude realistic documentary lmao" until it turns into a retarded monster movie.

she succeeded in fooling the ginger cuck but she failed the other tests.
Nathan basically built a robot that tries to escape and it did, leading to his own destruction.
Ava is never proven as sentient and the ending suggests she actually isn't.

>think
Thinking isn't related to sentience though. A computer acting out its programming can be said to "think." Any way, I don't believe robots can be sentient.

Attached: MV5BOTkzNDg2OTc1NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDcxODE2Mg@@._V1_UY1200_CR90,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg (630x1200, 113K)

CLASSIC coming through

Attached: C4429668-D7BB-42C1-82F4-5FBDDF3DAAF5.jpg (297x446, 37K)

>it turns into a retarded monster movie.
It doesn't though.

Except it doesn't really.

The ending is literally oh shit, we wandered into the territory of a space animal and lost some people, but holy shit alien life confirmed

Attached: MV5BMTgzODgyNTQwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzc0NTc0Mg@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,679,1000_AL_.jpg (679x1000, 154K)

It was fascinating and a very good ending.

>Ava is never proven as sentient
You seem to have missed the point of what I said . You can't prove that an AI is sentient any more than you can prove that other humans are sentient.

'Thinking' isn't the same as sentience, but creative thought is clearly related to sentience.
Circa-2019 computers don't think creatively, but to say that it's *impossible* for computers to do that would be as ignorant as someone from 1920 saying it's impossible to go to the moon.
>Any way, I don't believe robots can be sentient
Why not? Take the most straightforward, simple example: I design a computer that simulates every atom in a human brain, i.e. my system is simulating the activity of a thinking brain. Other than being wrought in bits instead of protons and neutrons and electrons, how is that system different? Is it not sentient?

>ahhhh no we're falling through the ice the squid's going to get us!
IIRC there's no significant time spent meditating on the importance of what they'd discovered. The last half hour has the tone of a horror movie.

>ywn get trapped in the house of a batshit insane silent film relic who pampers you and hold you emotionally hostage

Attached: E9185323-DDDA-4348-960E-C9ADB6041C1F.jpg (1800x1012, 94K)

It wasn't nearly as clever as its creators thought and believed after the fact. It wasn't nearly as clever as the fans convinced themselves it was. The worst part - the fans then started to think it more and more clever therefore they themselves were more and more clever.
It was like the live action version of rick and morty.
It was a good film, but it was not high art shrouded in a veil of intellect as the fucking larping intelligentsia would have you believe.
The biggest offender?
>you couldn't tell, you couldn't tell she wasn't sentient!
Assholes - it's a human actress standing in as an android, that's why you were fucking fooled into thinking she was human. The greenscreen paint on her torso did all the fucking work you idiots.
It reminded me of how people thought inception was deep and complex.

>You can't prove that an AI is sentient any more than you can prove that other humans are sentient.
to be perfectly honest, I'd have no moral quandary with killing other humans either it's just I don't want to be punished.

See, this is the shit I'm talking about. Right here.

Movie is overrated shit. I liked Oscar Issac's character, that is all.

VERY excellent movie. Good god this was a masterpiece, and I love Sam Rockwell
Fucking cringe

B-O-R-E-D

unironically this

Attached: 41Z3KKJN6VL._SY445_.jpg (248x445, 22K)

>Why not? Take the most straightforward, simple example: I design a computer that simulates every atom in a human brain, i.e. my system is simulating the activity of a thinking brain. Other than being wrought in bits instead of protons and neutrons and electrons, how is that system different? Is it not sentient?
But sentience isn't related to the brain and isn't a product of the brain. It would be like saying that your toaster or whatever can be sentient.

Isnt the ice on Europa supposed to be miles thick, how could a squid be swimming around underneath it so close to the surface, and why would a creature evolve to hunt things on top of the ice if there's no life there?

>Just turn off ur brain bro

mother!

Attached: 1564339749727.jpg (373x550, 45K)

should have been the whole movie. The "smart" guy they invite over gets mind fucked way too easy and way too fast what was it like 3 days 3 weeks if it had been 3 months maybe. Even then you're pretty stupid if you can't figure out this robot trapped in a box only wants one thing and that's to get out of the box.

Attached: pizzza.jpg (1280x720, 122K)

This post is wordy and makes no sense.

box office poison
I loved this when I was younger. It's good and all but good god it's definitely a spielberg movie. Overly sentimental to the point it just feels fluffy

Based

It's a damn beautiful movie and the last great movie he ever directed.

>But sentience isn't related to the brain
Oh really? What then?

Attached: 1567567468519.png (600x600, 170K)

I thought you meant chairman of the board for a second

Seems like an edgelord opinion. When it came down to it, I doubt you'd have the grit to shoot someone in the head at point-blank range.

What evidence do you have that sentience isn't a product of the brain? Scientifically speaking, it's highly probably that our consciousnesses and the entirety of who we are is an emergent property of our brains. There are two practical arguments I always think are fairly compelling.
1) Why do people who suffer brain injuries sometimes experience radical changes in personality? If sentience isn't rooted in the brain/biology, wouldn't our consciousnesses be immune to physical damage to our brains? Why do lobotomy patients experience drastic changes in how they think?
2) Think about all the other species on Earth and how they're related. Things like self-awareness and the complexity of thought become greater and greater as you look at creatures with higher encephalization quotients and increasingly complex brains. We see self-awareness in ravens, elephants, dolphins, apes, and so on. Is it just coincidental that they have high encphalization quotients and complex brains, and that they experience more complex thought than species with lower encephalization quotients?
3) Think about evolutionary history. You're essentially positing the existence of a soul, or some noncorporeal vessel that 'contains' sentience. When did we acquire that? Did Austrolopthicus have souls? Did Homo Erectus have souls? Did Denisovans have them? At what stage did """God""" decide to give life sentience?
I could go on and on and on. There's no evidence that sentience is anything other than a phenomenon of the brain.

I just want to know if they gave a award first wyman to crash land and get eaten by a alien squid monster. They love giving out awards like that.

See my mind is not like yours thankfully, it doesn't coat every movie I watch in a coat of negativity. Also I don't fall for the "lol, look how smart I am I found the plot hole" pleb side-quest.

When people watched Alien:Covenant, everyone thought they were impeccably sophisticated for pointing out blatant plot holes, but the good parts of the film (and the film as a whole) totally eluded them. Everyone is overly negative and critical these days because of the narcissism epidemic, and the negatives are exaggerated, and the good parts are dulled down as a consequence.

not super high IQ but still enjoyable

Attached: 13196875_f520.jpg (520x748, 51K)

Shackled

>1) Why do people who suffer brain injuries sometimes experience radical changes in personality? If sentience isn't rooted in the brain/biology, wouldn't our consciousnesses be immune to physical damage to our brains? Why do lobotomy patients experience drastic changes in how they think?
But the question contradicts itself. If sentience isn't caused by the brain, a persons personality has no relationship to sentience.
>At what stage did """God""" decide to give life sentience?
I don't know the question to that, but I do know that there is space (which is consciousness), objects, no time, and the substratum to everything is the universal spirit, think of it like pure consciousness. That pure consciousness is neither conscious nor unconscious, it is beyond concepts and is its own source. It is pure sentience.

So you learn these things by avoiding outwards meditation and practicing inward meditation. It proves itself.

You're basically trying to categorize "sentience" and "personality" as discrete, completely separate things, and I'd ask what your basis, reasoning, or evidence for doing that is. I'd also ask what your basis for thinking that *sentience* and not things like personality are stored somewhere other than the brain. You're putting forth a pretty wild theory, so support it.
>but I do know that there is space (which is consciousness)
>It is pure sentience.
Is His Dark Materials your Bible? Because that's basically the cosmological view it puts forth, and it's just as fictional when you're saying it as when Pullman wrote it.

Attached: ,a.jpg (1000x1426, 763K)

I thought this was a perfect film. Not much rewatch value, but it was perfectly made. Do you guys have any websites for indie films? Or youtube channels?

>You're putting forth a pretty wild theory
It's not a theory. You reach this conclusion when you practice the same meditation as Buddha and other realized people, but of course I didn't go all the way.

So here's the situation: Space and matter exist, but space is actually consciousness. Now think of that package as a snow globe. So the entire universe is like a snow globe. Outside the snow globe is the universal consciousness, and it is the substratum and potential for the entire universe to exist. That substratum is what gives sentience. What doesn't make sense to me is, if that universal consciousness permeates everything (as in it goes through all objects), then an android would be sentient, and so would rocks, and other inert objects.

Any way, your brain, body, the room you are in, are located inside yourself as the universal consciousness that watches everything like a movie. Everything is One and everything is God, and that's the truth. I came close one time.

>inane, unscientific superstition: the post

>So here's the situation: Space and matter exist, but space is actually consciousness. Now think of that package as a snow globe. So the entire universe is like a snow globe. Outside the snow globe is the universal consciousness, and it is the substratum and potential for the entire universe to exist. That substratum is what gives sentience. What doesn't make sense to me is, if that universal consciousness permeates everything (as in it goes through all objects), then an android would be sentient, and so would rocks, and other inert objects.

How is it superstition if I experienced it?

>be dunston
>check in

Schizophrenic people experience hallucinations. One person saying they experienced something doesn't mean much. Tell me when everyone experiences the same thing and there are ways of independently verifying the truth of those experiences.

Take your meds schizo. This sounds like some crazy hippie shit from /x/

For a genius, he sure was retarded.

I'm not trying to sneer or feel superior, that's just simple logic you should have learned in school science class. I don't know why so many filmmakers make these mistakes when it could all easily be explained some other way.

Just a throwaway line or something about how the spot they're landing in has been melted down by nuclear probes so the ice is thin , or how the squid monster is attracted to the warm water when normally it would never stray so close to the ice sheet, etc.

>Tell me when everyone experiences
They do, they're called realized sages like Buddha and Jesus others. They experienced the highest science.
>ways of independently verifying the truth of those experiences.
By meditation and the destruction or disassociation with the "I-thought" so that the illusion of independence (ie the ego) doesn't not obscure reality.

God I fucking hate Ex Machina.

Attached: 1551314343212.jpg (464x464, 12K)

It's not a science if there's no way to measure it

Okay sure let me stop and fucking ask jesus about it real quick

He modeled the robots after women instead of anime girls.

>I don't know why so many filmmakers make these mistakes when it could all easily be explained some other way.
But they did that to older films and people didn't complain nearly as much as they do now. Look at Starwars 4-6, the Star Destroyers have like zero surveillance and Han just casually gets inside like la dee da. What about the masterpiece Blade Runner where Deckard climbs up the side of a slippery rainy building, and then a slant with broken fingers?

People were positive back then not negative like they are now, that's the difference. The movies were generally better than though, but they still had plot holes.

>Just a throwaway line or something about how the spot they're landing in has been melted down by nuclear probes so the ice is thin , or how the squid monster is attracted to the warm water when normally it would never stray so close to the ice sheet, etc.
Why not just leave it a mystery or fill in the gaps yourself? You overthink everything.

Please see a psychiatrist

Attached: surrogates.jpg (1382x2048, 653K)

Star wars is more fantasy than sci-fi, always has been, it's never tried to be realistic. You have literal space magic.

Blade runner, idk that's not really an inaccuracy or a discrepancy that's just a feat of endurance, it's not impossible to climb something like that with broken fingers, just very dangerous.

You can't measure it because it's your deepest self and it transcends time and space and objects. You are it, therefore you cannot measure it.
Good idea.

>Blade runner, idk that's not really an inaccuracy or a discrepancy that's just a feat of endurance, it's not impossible to climb something like that with broken fingers, just very dangerous.
There's no fucking way.

I'm gonna tear up the fuckin dance floor dude check it out

In any case someone doing or not doing a feat of extreme endurance in a sci-fi film isn't inaccurate or a "plot hole".

Having the ice sheets on Europa be meters thin instead of Miles thick, certainly can be said to be an inaccuracy, because it's inaccurate.

You just fucking know that the moment that sort of tech becomes a reality, maybe in 30 years or so, Japan will immediately start pumping out made-to-order waifubots
>Always wanted to fuck Ritsu for some reason?
>Got $5K?
It's going to be a hell of a distraction from the state of the world

Attached: 1565651708723.gif (500x281, 912K)

>Having the ice sheets on Europa be meters thin instead of Miles thick, certainly can be said to be an inaccuracy, because it's inaccurate.
It takes place in a parallel universe where the ice is thinner. There, problem solved.

Attached: Kdlw3UK.png (640x356, 228K)

That's utterly retarded and like I said before, they didn't have to assume their audience were brainlets who wouldn't know the difference, they could have easily threw in some 2 second line and Bam it's no longer stupid

It's because you're a negative person who is overwhelmed by negativity.

>wanting to fuck a retard
a man of exquisite tastes

Attached: 70066344_p2_master1200.jpg (1000x1000, 293K)

Yes 3 days were too short but I don't think I could last week.
She was literally made perfect for him and she was super smart by being AI.
I'm sure she would somehow convince me.
Also it didn't seem like the main guy chosen him because he was smart, rather than good boy that wants to do the right thing. He could be average idiot for all we know.

>Ignore facts or else you're just a hater

No.

>The movie must be perfect or it's no good.

Most kino scene of the decade

This. But it's also dog-shit.

Attached: MV5BNjc3OWVjMTItYjc0Yi00NmFlLTk2YTgtYmU0MzcxMjBkNTYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,67 (675x1000, 106K)

if I need a fucking powerpoint presentation to understand a movie it fucking sucked

>primer
>bad

you are mentally fucked in the head

>"just throw in as much science vocabulary as you can senpai" the movie

kek

Attached: IMG_0592.jpg (1024x648, 112K)

ty for the rec user

you need a very high iq to grasp the nuances of nolan's dialogue writing

>bro its hard to understand! therefore its good!

Attached: 1503651615404.jpg (259x567, 72K)

Attached: dunston.jpg (527x774, 160K)

I never said that.

>Alan CUMMINGs

What thread is this again?
Ah. There’s your problem. You shouldn’t be posting ITT

I really liked it.
Source Code was good too

I wish I was as much of a brainlet as OP. Life must be good being a retard. Everything would be catered to you.

People like you made this age of stupid movies possible

More like incel cinema

>it's your fault a movie is bad, just fill the holes with positivity
the absolute state of you

God tier cinema

Attached: 1503240212817.jpg (800x400, 35K)

>illiterate.

It's not good. It makes you think but it doesn't reward you for your effort. Bland and up it's own ass.

100% of respondents did not seem to understand my post. 75% agreed with me. 25% think it's a good movie. The OP asked for high IQ cinema. Not quality. This movie is, if nothing else, intellectually challenging. As film, it was like doing my taxes - it's fucking tedious and I wish to never experience it again.

not sure if it's supposed to be
>le woman stronk
or MGTOW warning movie

Man of Steel ofc

It's literally a Bluebeard adaptation. This gothic fairy tale is old as fuck and it has been adapted countless times:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard

Eh, now think of doing this to furries!

I have two main problems.

First,the test design.
You want to test if something is sentient.
okay.
yeah let's make the test such that if something turns out to be sentient it will hate you for torturing it.
okay.
also let's not take any safty measures for that outcome.
nathan was an asshole and stupid.

problem number 2.
if evas brain was constructed after basically google searches I would rather expect her to be like tay ai und not even close to normal humans in behavior.
alsothe premise is retarded, google searches represent peoples views on how they get information from a system not hiw they think.
else you could observe how humans interact with dogs and expect to model human human interaction from that.

nice movie but far from high iq

>Robot flick featuring James Cromwell
Guaranteed Kino

THIS IS THE PART WHERE YOU BOOGIE
THIS IS THE PART WHERE YOU DANCCCCE

The ultimate pleb filter:
>Tfw the original John Woo cut was 3.5 hours long
>Studio stepped in and cut it down to 2 hours and demanded reshoots, Woo stopped giving a fuck and let them finish it
Why the FUCK hasn’t the Woo cut been made available.
Currently it requires the viewer to read between the lines to get it (brainlets need not apply) but I’d love for 1.5 hours more character building content to be thrown back in

Attached: 2CC3A808-51C3-4A63-8235-CB65320DE464.jpg (640x480, 60K)

Attached: 3339BAE6-F62F-417C-A397-E5D87680608D.jpg (409x606, 68K)

these

never noticed how stiff she is compared to oscar.

wrong
>make ai
>don't teach it empathy before all else
besides that he did nothing else wrong