Not just Siri/Google Assistant/etc
It also predicted the ipad/tablet computer.
Amazing film, incredible effects. Total landmark in cinema
Finally, after almost half a century of waiting, you can welcome the mildly homicidal artificial intelligence HAL 9000 into your home. If you want. Few of the other predictions of tomorrow's world made in Stanley Kubrick's psychedelic space epic 2001: A Space Odyssey – marking its 50th anniversary at the start of April – have …
For rounded corners in hardware, there are lots of examples - it comes from ergonomics but also from manufacturing constraints (sharp corners and zero draught angles are a recipe for injection moulding problems.) A specific arrangement of elements is the only way to describe Trade Dress, which what I assume you are talking about. Trade Dress might be the shape of a Coke bottle, or BMW's kidney grill.
For rounded corners in icons (a la iOS), you could look at the work done for the Nostromo's on board graphics in Ridley Scott's Alien, designed by Ron Cobb. "Semiotic Standard For All Commercial Trans-Stellar Utility Lifter And Heavy Element Transport Spacecraft. "
I'd have to do some searching (or maths... nah ;-) but I remember reading at the time that the physics of this is correct even though it's counterintuitive - as is a lot of orbital and microgravity physics. The initial spin would have been around the long axis, but that is not stable in the long term.
I'm fairly sure I've seen a video of someone on the ISS demonstrating with a water bottle.
It's worth finding a copy of 'Barry Lyndon' if you haven't seen it. Some interior scenes were only lit by natural supplemented by candlelight so Kubrick had to get three f/0.7 lenses originally designed for the Moon missions.
The effect is extraordinary.
Lyndon is amazing, each scene looks like an oil painting. Kubrick had to compose each scene carefully because the wide aperture meant few bits of the scene could be in focus.
These days digital cameras are more sensitive than film - so the oil painting aesthetic of the BBC's Wolf Hall is easier to achieve without the shallow depth of focus.
"2001 is real sci-fi: No chance of happening upon a forbidden planet with human breathable air - fashioned by aliens for aliens - rather a big lapse of logic, that."
Well we don't know, since we only have a sample size of 1 to compare.
Mars at some point had a larger proportion of Oxygen in its atmosphere that now, but Oxygen is very reactive and will quickly bond to other chemicals (so the red rust of Mars).
To maintain high oxygen content we need a process to release oxygen from other chemicals. Simple Life does that pretty well in terms of photosynthesis, and there is no reason to believe that if life does exist elsewhere a similar process could not be possible.
"Mars at some point had a larger proportion of Oxygen in its atmosphere that now,"
Are you sure about that?
Earth never had any appreciable oxygen in its atmosphere until chloroplasts evolved and finding any significant amount of free oxygen is widely considered to be an indicator of possible life processes
>No chance of happening upon a forbidden planet with human breathable atmosphere - fashioned by aliens for aliens - rather a big lapse of logic, that.
Are you being ironic, given what happened to Jupiter and Europa in 2010 or did you not read 2010 ?
All the worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there.
"Are you being ironic, given what happened to Jupiter and Europa in 2010 or did you not read 2010 ?"
Yeah, but that's 2010- which was written around fifteen years later- and for various reasons it's open to question how legitimately one can back-read continuity and explanations between that and the film of 2001.
tl;dr - (i) 2010 was written years later, (ii) Kubrick wasn't involved in 2010 at all, (iii) both book and movie of 2010 reflected Clarke's more "literal" vision seen in the original novel which perhaps was never the intended spirit or interpretation of the film ending and (iv) the discrepancies between versions and sequels mean we can't assume one applies to the other.
The novel of 2010 was written by Arthur C. Clarke alone and follows the far more literal style of his original novel of 2001. *That* was written alongside the original film- rather than being a direct novelisation of it- and- along with the different "approach" and feel- varies somewhat in its depiction of specific events (e.g. the action takes place around Saturn, whose rings were deemed too difficult to acccurately depict for the film).
While it's often implied that the novel "explains" the post-Stargate ending of the film of 2001, the differences in what comes before means it can't be taken for granted that this is the case, or even what was intended. Given the aforementioned differences in approach, it's quite possible that- unlike the novel- the ending of the film was always *meant* to be open to interpretation and viewed as such, and that trying to shoehorn it into the excellent-but-different literal viewpoint of the novel both does it a disservice and misses the point.
Back to 2010... the original novel- which came out a couple of years before the 1984 film- follows very much the approach of Clarke's 2001 novel. (I first read them one after the other- before I'd seen either film- and enjoyed both very much- 2010 was a great sequel).
The film 2010 is based on the aforementioned Clarke sequel novel, and Kubrick was not involved at all. (#). That's why it's so different in feel and approach to Kubrick's original, and why I don't consider it the latter's direct spiritual successor. Yes, they've included elements from Kubrick's 2001- and even Clarke's 2010 novel altered the continuity to fit the original film rather than the original novel better- but the film is still essentially "Hollywood's movie version of Clarke's sequel to *his* original novel" and reflects the approach and style of the latter. (##)
There's also the question of whether one can apply the events of 2010 to 2001, since the latter were Clarke's alone and he possibly- indeed quite probably- hadn't thought them up when writing the original story.
(#) Indeed, when he saw it, he apparently complained that they'd "explained everything". Which might back up my view on trying to shoehorn the novel's "explanation" onto the ending of the original film.
(##) The film even "recaps" the line "My god, it's full of stars" from just before Bowman enters the Stargate in 2001. Except that was *never* in the original film- only Clarke's novel.
Dark Star, with various contributions from Dan O'Bannon. He would go on to write another Monster on a Spaceship movie you might have heard of: Alien.
Some of the other creative talent on Alien were first assembled for an aborted Dune movie project.
Kubrick was a photographer... and a former chess hustler. I've heard that Ridley Scott can draw like Ruebens. Visual people.
I'd really love to have seen what Ridley Scott would have done with Dune. Or even better, rather than watching his nurdling around with Alien prequels, watch him do it now. With modern special effects. Still hard to do dramatically, as so much of the action happens in Paul's head - which is the thing the Lynch version really fell down on. I could ignore the crap special effects if the film worked in other ways.
I'm still waiting for "Rendezvous with Rama" to hit the big screen
Agreed, but unfortunately I don't think the original story has enough sex and violence to appeal to Hollywood, and I shudder to think what an "adaptation" would turn out like.
Probably like I Robot - only the title remains.
HAL wasn't malfunctioning or deliberately psychopathic. It had two sets of conflicting orders and no moral imperatives. It was designed to do what it did, and did it perfectly. The fault lies with the people who fed in those category A directives and didn't think about what an AI with problem-solving heuristics would come up with as a solution, which is why "no harm by action or inaction" is law #1 and MUST be hard-coded.
It redeemed itself in 2010 even without Asimov's law 1, which I think was the stronger of the two films from this perspective as it correctly represented the danger of having unaccountable bodies issuing orders to complex systems that have no hard-wired ethics. Chandra should have seen this coming and given HAL a bullshit detector but, like many intellectuals, he's an innocent child when it comes to political deviousness which leaked into HAL's programming almost by osmosis.
Right now, what we're classing as AIs aren't I; Siri, Cortana, Alexa, Jasper, they're all simple if-this-then-that logic machines with a bit of imperfect voice recognition and TTS tacked on as a UX. If we ever realise true machine intelligence, these issues will need most careful thought.
@Dave 126: Sorry, Dave, I can't do that. From TFA:
Finally, after almost half a century of waiting, you can welcome the mildly homicidal artificial intelligence HAL 9000 into your home.[...]And it predicted Siri and Alexa. What else do you want?
My post is a direct reply to the posted article.
...If we ever realise true machine intelligence, these issues will need most careful thought....
If we ever realise true machine intelligence, we will be able to discuss these issues with the machine involved.
Journalists and the public do not understand what they are talking about (Do they ever?). If our autonomous machines are simply machines with a decision tree (no matter how complex), then it makes sense to talk about us deciding how to program ethical issues into that tree.
If the systems we create are truly 'intelligent', then they will develop their own ethical guidelines, just as we do. We can discuss these with them, but we cannot force an intelligent being to do something against their will.
Incidentally, a truly 'intelligent' replica of a brain would presumably suffer from all the issues that our brains have, They would get bored, lose attention, behave immorally or recklessly and probably find a way to get drunk or high....
"We can discuss these with them, but we cannot force an intelligent being to do something against their will."
Oh, really? Robocop would like to have a word with you*...
* starting to argue on what is and isn't possible with an intelligent brain while we have hardly any idea what either of those two words really mean is not a worthwhile use of anyone's time IMHO. But placing constraints on intelligence is definitely a neither novel nor unexplored concept.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019