All language subtitles for James.Camerons.Story.of.Science.Fiction.S01E05.Intelligent.Machines.1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DD+2.0.H.264-AJP69_track3_[eng]

Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

HAL: I'm sorry, Dave.
I'm afraid I can't do that.

Spielberg: 2001 had a profound
impact on my life.

It's all about HAL 9000.

"2001" was an extraordinary
breakthrough for the genre.

Cameron: Science fiction
has always been about

great technology
going wrong.

I'll be back.

That image, Schwarzenegger
as the Terminator,

it's a perfect nightmare.

You have two of the most
popular A.I. characters

in pop culture.

Lucas: At the time I said,
"Don't be afraid of the robots.

The robots
are our friends."

Conception of what robots will
be is directly,

umbilically connected to our
idea of them as an underclass.

Replicants are like
any other machine.

They're either a benefit
or a hazard.

Cameron: "Blade Runner"
was so artistic.

If you're creating
an A.I.,

one of the things you're
definitely going to leave out

is emotion.

"Battlestar Galactica" is about
humanity's greatest weakness.

You're just a bunch
of machines after all.

The inability to see others
as worthy as ourselves.

Narrator: Our machines have been
the stuff of dreams

and of nightmares.

The question is, can man
and machine forge a future...

together?

Samantha:
Hello, I'm here.

Oh...

Hi.

♪♪

♪♪

♪♪

♪♪

Cameron: They call it
science fiction,

but it's really
about technology.

It's about the machines.

You've done a lot
of science-fiction movies.

You've seen all kinds
of different machines,

intelligent machines.

You've played
an intelligent machine.

I think that what's
interesting is

when you have been involved
in the business

as long as I have,
what is so unbelievable

is that as I've done

"Terminator" movies
one after the next

and you see something
starting out kind of

what is called
science fiction

and then all of a sudden,

it becomes kind of
science reality.

Yeah. I think science fiction
has always been

about great technology
going wrong.

It's like how A.I. might be
a threat to humanity.

I'm a friend
of Sarah Connor.

Can't see her.
She's making a statement.

I'll be back.

Lethem: That image,

Schwarzenegger
as the Terminator,

Skynet sending this emissary,

quasi-human into our midst,

it's a perfect nightmare
of the machine catastrophe.

The old warning about
the machines rising up.

It's very archetypal and
very brutal and very perfect.

When I first thought of the idea
for the Terminator --

How did you come up
with that idea?

It came from a dream.

I had a dream image

of a chrome skeleton
walking out of a fire.

And I thought,
"What if he was a cyborg

and he looked like a man

and was indistinguishable
from a man until the fire?"

And what would be
the purpose of that thing?

He was representing

a much more powerful
intelligence,

the soldier sent by Skynet
from the future.
Right.

Singer: "Terminator" presents

this vision of a future
where Skynet,

this computer that
has become self-aware,

decides, "Well, I'm going
to protect myself

and the only way to do that
is to destroy

the very people who created me,"
which is us.

Nicholson: Skynet is not the
first all-powerful computer.

This trope goes back
to Robert Heinlein's

"The Moon
Is a Harsh Mistress"

to "Colossus:
The Forbin Project"

and even up to
"WarGames," the WOPR.

Singer: But part of what makes
the Terminator so scary

is that it is relentless

and it will not stop until
it achieves its objective.

♪♪

I remember the first
day's dailies.

There was a 100-millimeter
lens shot

where you just
kind of pull up

and you're looking
like this.

-Right.
-And we're all just going, "Yes!

This is fantastic."

But here's the interesting
thing about it,

I went to talk
to you about Reese.

Yeah.

This is the hero,

and I wanted to continue
on playing heroes.

Yeah.

And so we started talking
a little bit about the movie,

and for some reason
or the other,

not at all planned...
-Yeah.

...on my part...
-Yeah.

...I said, "Look, Jim."

I said, "The guy that plays
the Terminator,

he really has to understand
that he's a machine."

Exactly.

How important it is that
whoever plays the Terminator

has to show
absolutely nothing.

And the way he scans,

and the way the Terminator walks
has to be machine-like,

and yet there has to be
not one single frame

where he has
human behavior.

In the middle of this,

I'm looking at you
and thinking,

"You know, the guy's kind of
big, like a bulldozer,

and nothing could stop him.
It would be fantastic."

Exactly.
Yeah.

And so,
afterwards you said,

"So, why don't you
play the Terminator?"

Yeah.

And I looked at you,
and I said, "Oh [bleep]"

[ Laughs ]

Nicholson: In the first film,

the Terminator
is designed to kill.

In "Terminator 2,"

the Terminator
was programmed to protect,

not destroy.

Action.

And now we're going
to make "Terminator 2."

The hardest part of
that movie, though,

was convincing you

that playing a good guy
was a good idea.

It threw me off first
when I read the script

and then realized
that I'm not anymore

that kind
of killing machine.

I thought that if we could
distill him down to this idea

of just relentlessness

and take out the evil
and put good in its place,

it's interesting that
the same character

worked as a bad guy

and as a good guy,
same character.

Absolutely.

And now we've got to have
a bigger, badder Terminator

that could kick
the Terminator's ass.

So what was that?

Patrick: I was convinced I was
the baddest mother [bleep]

walking on the planet,

and you were gonna believe it.

I got a call from my agent

saying they we're looking
for an intense presence.

I'm a hell of a lot smaller
than Arnold Schwarzenegger,

and I knew that you were
just going to have to buy

that this thing
was unstoppable.

And then I started
thinking of pursuit

and what does that look like.

And then physically, I just
started taking on the mannerisms

of, you know, what does
an eagle look like?

He's fierce, and he looks like
he's coming at you,

and you start realizing...

Boom!
Right at you.

It's like a Buick.

-Get down.
-[ Screams ]

You know, it's like, shoom!

The moment where we actually
clinch for the first time,

Arnold wanted to kind of
pick me up over his head

and slam me into the walls and
throw me around a little bit.

So, it's like this is
the first time

you've had to deal
with evil

'cause Terminators
don't fight Terminators.

Right.

And I remember Jim
specifically saying,

"You can't do that.
He's stronger than you are."

"He's more powerful.
He's faster."

He can just dominate the T-800,

who is an endo-skeleton with,
you know, fake skin over him.

Whereas I'm just a mimetic
polyalloy liquid metal.

Much more dense...

A superior machine.

Singer: The T-1000 is the
robot's concept of a robot.

And it's like if a robot
was trying to create

a better version of itself,
what would it do?

And it's like, "Well, it would
create something that's smooth

and can move freely
and still indestructible."

You can read "Terminator 2"
almost as a war

between old special effects
and new special effects.

That's the beautiful
kind of irony

about the "Terminator" movies.

They used cutting-edge
technology

more effectively
than any other movies,

but they're about warnings
about technology.

[ Arguing indistinctly ]

We're not going
to make it, are we?

People, I mean.

It's in your nature
to destroy yourselves.

The plot of the "Terminator"
films, I thought, we're always

fighting against
this robot from the future,

but really what we're doing
is we're fighting the humans

who keep making
this robot possible.

As long as humans are aware
that we have the potential

to create a machine
that can control the Earth

and make us powerful,
we're going to keep doing it

and we're fighting our
own nature to create this Skynet

and humans won't stop doing it.

We are really
the persistent villain

that keeps making
these movies happen.

Cameron: I don't think we
could have anticipated

where we are now
30 some years later

where Skynet is the term
that everyone uses

when they're talking about
an artificial intelligence

that turns against us.

Part of it I think is --
is there's a feeling

you get before it rains

and you know
it's gonna rain.

And you get that feeling
about certain moments

in technological
development

where you know something
is gonna happen very soon.

And I think there's
a general consensus now

that we're in that moment
before it rains.

Now, maybe that moment
takes 10 years,

maybe it takes 20 years,

but there's gonna be
a moment

and it may not have
a happy ending.

And there's no rehearsal.

That's right,
there's no take 2.

No, this is it.

Yeah. [ Laughs ]

Amer: HAL, you have an enormous
responsibility on this mission.

HAL: Let me put it this way,
Mr. Amer.

No 9000 computer has
ever made a mistake

or distorted information.

-"2001" had a profound impact...
-Yeah, me too.

...on my life
and my daily life.

It was the first time
I went to a movie

where I really felt like

I was having
a religious experience.

I watched the film 18 times
in its first couple years

of release,
all in theaters.

I remember at one, a guy
ran down the aisle

toward the screen
screaming,

"It's God.
It's God."

And he meant it
in that moment.

And I had a guy
in my theater

who actually walked up
to the screen with his arms out

and he walked
through the screen.

That must have blown
people's minds.

People were blown out

because the person
disappeared into the screen

during Star Gate,
of all times.

Everybody thinks of it
as a space drama.

At its core,

it's really about
an artificial intelligence.

-It's all about HAL.
-HAL 9000.

-It's HAL 9000.
-Yeah.

Trumbull: I got my chance to
work with Stanley Kubrick

and Arthur Clarke
on "2001: A Space Odyssey"

at a very young age.

I was 23 years old.

When we created HAL, we
didn't have any computers.

There were no personal
computers available to us.

There were giant
mainframe computers,

but it was with punch cards and
chads and all kinds of stuff.

It was not very visual.

And I had to kind of
develop a style

that I thought was credible.

He sparked people's
imagination with this film

and then they made it happen.

-Hello, Frank!
-Happy birthday, darling.

Happy birthday.

Nicholson: Individual TVs
in the back

of your airplane seat,
the iPad.

You know, the iPod is called
the iPod because of...

Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

"2001" was an extraordinary
breakthrough for the genre.

The picture is being done
in such a gigantic scope.

The centrifuge is so realistic
and so unusual.

After a while, you begin to
forget that you're an actor,

you begin to really feel
like an astronaut.

Working with Stanley Kubrick
blew my mind.

You just were aware that you
were in the presence of genius.

HAL: I don't think
I have ever seen

anything
quite like this before.

Dullea: HAL in a sense

is the machine
that controls the whole ship,

but he's another crewmember
from our point of view.

We don't think in terms of,

"Oh, I'm dealing
with a computer here."

That's a very nice
rendering, Dave.

Maybe because
of that human voice.

I mean, HAL has a perfectly
normal inflection

when he speaks to us.

I've wondered whether
you might be having

some second thoughts
about the mission?

How do you mean?

Newitz: What does it mean
to have a robot

who's basically running the ship
that supports your life?

That's a lot of trust
to place in a machine.

Gerrold: The key point in the
film occurs when Bowman says...

Well, as far as I know,

no 9000 computer's
ever been disconnected.

Well, no 9000 computer
has ever fouled up before.

Well, I'm not so sure
what he'd think about it.

And HAL 9000
is reading their lips.

At that point,
we recognize HAL 9000

has some imperative
that it must survive.

I know that you and Frank
were planning to disconnect me,

and I'm afraid that's something
I cannot allow to happen.

And at that point,
it's no longer a machine.

It is a being.

Joy: The danger artificial
intelligence poses

is the power to unleash results
that we hadn't anticipated.

Gerrold: HAL 9000 does
what we see the apes

in the beginning
of the movie do,

he commits murder.

Newitz:
We like to stereotype robots

as entities of pure logic,

but of course in "2001,"
it all goes horribly wrong

and we have to kill the robot.

Just what do you think
you're doing, Dave?

Lethem: HAL's death scene

is such a wonderfully
perverse moment

because it is
unbearably poignant

watching him disintegrate
and regress.

IBM 704: ♪ Daisy♪

♪ Daisy♪

Bell laboratories
was experimenting

with voice synthesis around
the time of "2001."

One of the very earliest voice
synthesis experiments

was "Daisy, Daisy" performed
by an IBM computer.

And because Arthur Clarke
is kind of a super geek,

he wanted to actually use that,

and he encouraged Kubrick
to use that very thing

because it led to kind
of historical credibility

to the whole thing that HAL
in the process of being killed

or lobotomized or dying
would regress to his birth.

HAL: ♪ I'm half crazy

♪ All for the love of you

Joy: You know, it's really hard
to make a technology.

It's really hard
to design A.I.

So much thinking,
so many brilliant minds

have to go into it.

But even harder than creating
artificial intelligence

is learning how to contain it,
learning how to shut it off.

I mean, Hal will exist
in probably

in our lifetimes,
I would think.

Spielberg: Oh, I think so, too.
It's scary.

Elon Musk continues to predict
that World War III

will not be
a nuclear holocaust,

it will be a kind of
mechanized takeover.

Yeah, and Stephen Hawking's
been saying similar things.

That's pretty spooky
because that pretty much says

that against our will,
something smarter than us,

who can beat us at chess,

will use this world
as a chessboard

and will checkmate us
completely out of existence.

[ All screaming ]

Yaszek: Unfortunately, most
depictions of robots

in science fiction
have been really negative,

very much depictions
of rampaging robots

engaged in a desperate
struggle with humans

to decide who shall own the fate
of the Earth and the universe

and that's part of a very long
tradition in science fiction.

Kalan: Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"
was one of the first

if not the first big
science-fiction epic film.

It's the story of this
very futuristic world.

There is one of the great
bad robots of all movies --

Maria.
That is the movie robot.

Pulp magazines always had
a full color cover.

Very often the cover
would be robots

that had just run amok
from human creators.

They were always mechanical.

They were big, hulking things.

Lots of steel and machinery,
glowing-red eyes.

Claws, not fingers, and they
were generally quite violent.

So, that image persisted
a long time.

But then along
came Isaac Asimov.

If we could have roughly
man-like robots,

who could take over
the dull and routine tasks

that this would be
a very nice combination.

Yaszek:
Asimov was very central

to helping make science fiction
what it is today.

He was at the 1939 World's Fair
in New York City.

It must've felt like a very
science-fictional experience

to him,
and not in the least part

because he would've
seen Elektro,

the smoking robot.

Okay, toots.

And this really
inspired Asimov.

And so he decided
to start writing stories

where he would explore
robots as tools

and helpers
and friends of humanity

rather than enemies.

He invented these images
and these ideas

that I think defined
how people in the field

thought about robots,

specifically those
three laws of his.

Of course, they're
really important.

What are the three
laws of robotics?

First law is a robot
may not harm a human being,

or through inaction allow
a human being to come to harm.

Danger, Will Robinson, danger.

Number 2, a robot
must obey orders

given it
by qualified personnel.

Fire.

Unless those orders
violate rule number 1.

In other words, a robot can't be
ordered to kill a human being.

See, he's helpless.

The third law states that
a robot can defend itself.

Except where that would violate
the first and second laws.

I think Asimov's laws are very
smart, very, very smart.

I think they are also
made to be broken.

Announcer: We know you'll enjoy
your stay in Westworld,

the ultimate resort.

Lawless violence on
the American frontier,

peopled by lifelike
robot men and women.

The movie "Westworld" looks
at a theme park with guests

coming in and doing whatever
they please to the robots.

It was really a forum
for human id to run amok,

where there's
no threat of anybody

knowing the things
that you've done,

where you don't have to
engage with other humans

and you're told
"do whatever you want."

Where nothing...
[ Gunshot ]

...nothing can
possibly go wrong.

-I'm shot.
-Go wrong.

-Draw.
-Shut down.

Shut down immediately.

Goldsman: "Westworld"
was a cautionary tale

about robotics.

It was the idea that we believed

that we could create
artificial life

and that it would obey us.

And stop here and
he'll be crossing there.

He'll be crossing there.

Nolan: The original film
by Michael Crichton is very cool

and is packed with ideas
about fraught interactions

with artificial intelligence.

Decades ahead of its time.

Questions that he posed
in the original film

only became more
and more relevant

as we reimagined it
as a TV series.

Joy: When you're looking at
the story of a robot,

oftentimes you see
a robot that's docile

and then something goes click
and they kind of snap.

Maximilian!

What John and I
talked about was,

"Well, take that moment,
that snap

before they go on
the killing rampage

and what if we really
attenuate it and explore it

and dive deep into that schism?"

Because for us, that was
where really meaty,

philosophical question rested
and that question was --

Where did life begin?

Newitz: Maeve, who's one
of the robots,

she's a madam
who runs a brothel.

She's one of the first robots
to start realizing

that she's a robot
instead of just a person

who is living in the Wild West.

To me, one of the most
significant scenes in the show

is when Maeve starts
coming into consciousness

while she's being repaired.

Everything in your head,
they put it there.

No one knows
what I'm thinking.

I'll show you.

And she sees
it's an algorithm

and it's choosing words
based on probability.

This can't possibly --

Capaldi: The robots in Westworld
begin to ask questions,

which are the same
questions we ask.

[ Stuttering ]

We have a sense
that there is a creator,

that there is a purpose, there's
a reason that we are here.

Unfortunately they discover that
the reason that they are there

is simply to be
an entertainment.

I'd like
to make some changes.

Marvin Minsky, who was
one of the pioneers of A.I.,

said that free will might be
that first primitive reaction

to forced compliance.

So, the first word
of consciousness is no.

I'm not going back.

Science fiction has always
been dealing with A.I.

whether it's Asimov's
laws or the laws

that we tried to put
in place in "Westworld."

The question is can laws ever
even fully contain a human.

People will stretch those laws,
find exceptions to them.

I understand now.

Not sure that an A.I.
would be any different.

When consciousness awakens,
it's impossible

to put the genie
back in the bottle.

[ Gun cocks ]

Let's talk about A. I.
for a second.

You only see robots
in a positive role...

Right.

...in your films,
which is interesting

because that's where
so much of the progress

is being made now
with companions

for the elderly,
robotic nurses...

They're gonna make
life better for us.

Because you have 2
of the most popular

A.I. characters
in pop culture,

which are R2-D2
and C-3PO.

They're A.I.s.

At the time, I said, "Don't
be afraid of the robots."

You know, the robots
are our friends.

Let's see the good side
of the robots,

and the funny side
because, let's face it,

for a while, they're
gonna be a little goofy.

I've just about
had enough of you,

you near-sighted
scrap pile.

George Lucas was very innovative
throughout his whole career.

And one of the things early
on that was very smart

was that he pioneered
a different type of robot.

R2-D2 looks like a trash can.

He doesn't even speak, right?

He just makes chirping sounds.

But he's lovable.

Everybody loves --
He's not cuddly.

He's not -- that -- that is --
that's a great character.

Moore: C-3PO is probably
the most charming

and beloved of the robot
characters ever made.

And I love the fact that George
didn't articulate the mouth

or the eyes,
so it's a blank mask

and yet we get so much heart

from Anthony Daniels'
performance.

I mean, I love robots
and the idea of being able

to design one
for a "Star Wars" film

was just too good to pass up.

Did you know
that wasn't me?

K-2SO from "Rogue One,"
I thought was just perfect.

Edwards: To be fair, the biggest
influence on K-2SO was C-3PO.

Anthony Daniels as C-3PO
has a cameo in our film

and I remember going around
Anthony Daniels' house

to try and talk him into it
and I didn't know

if he would hate the idea

or if he was fed up
with "Star Wars."

And I sat there and I
was so paranoid meeting him

and his wife that I just pitched
the whole movie to them

and I must've chatted
for like an hour,

just kept going and going
and got to the end

and I couldn't tell
from his face.

And he was like, "Gareth, you
know, I'd love to be involved."

Like "You had me
at hello" type thing.

It was just about having like
this god on set.

You know, like this original --

this is where it all began,
"Star Wars" character.

It was like goosebump-y stuff.

Friends forever?

Friends.

Kalan: I think one of the
reasons that people love robots

and gravitate
to the robot characters

in movies like "Star Wars"

is because whereas
the human characters

feel very fully formed,

they are people, the robots
are things that it feels okay

to project
more of ourselves onto.

Huey, Dewey and Louie
from "Silent Running"

are possibly
the cutest robots.

They don't talk, but you still
kind of always know

what they're thinking.

Hopkinson: It's great to have
a best friend.

In fantasy,
it might be a dragon.

In science fiction,
it might be the robot.

Nicholson: I love Johnny 5.

I mean, this is a robot
who quotes John Wayne

out of his own free will.

[ As John Wayne ]
Take heart, little lady.

Brooks: Buck Rogers was great
because they didn't exactly

rip off R2-D2,
but they got halfway there.

So, they got the voice
of Yosemite Sam.

They got Mel Blanc, the greatest
cartoon voice in the world,

Captain Caveman,
and they invented Twiki,

who would go, "Bidibidibidi."

You ever have two
broken arms, buster?

What?

We love friendly robots
because they bring out the best

of what we are as humans.

Newitz: Wall-E, who's
a garbage-collecting robot,

isn't at all like
a garbage robot should be.

He really develops
a whole personality.

He's there to clean up the mess
that humans have made

and he goes from
interpreting that literally

to actually saving
the world for humanity.

Wolfe: Many, many
science-fiction stories

turn the robot into some kind of
a romantic figure

that somehow becomes more human
as the story goes on.

There was Lister Del Reye's
1938 story "Helen O'Loy."

Bad pun in the title by the way.

The name is Helen Alloy,
she's made out of metal.

Essentially
a housekeeping robot.

Falls in love with her maker.

It was one of the first stories
in which a robot

is a sympathetic,
romantic character.

Moore: If you're actually in
conversations with a robot,

where it sounds natural
and it sounds like a person

and that person knows you,
laughs at your jokes,

and has empathy for
your struggles in life

and you develop
a relationship with that --

with that voice, you could
absolutely fall in love with it.

Samantha: Hello.
I'm here.

Oh...

Hi.

Hi.

It's really nice
to meet you.

What do I call you?
Do you have a name?

Um...
yes, Samantha.

In the movie "Her,"
Samantha's design

is that she's been
created to be a tool.

What's interesting about
this idea of a pocket tool

is that we see this
in our own lives.

Our smartphones have become
these tools to us

that we're dependent on.

So, Theodore's relationship
with Samantha

is just one step beyond that.

He can't live without her
because he also loves her.

When Theodore sees
her pop up on his screen,

it's like seeing
his girlfriend.

-Good night.
-'Night.

McFetridge: What I had do to
was create the interface.

So you have like handwriting,
it's my handwriting

and I wrote out Samantha,

and then this paper texture,
but then there's a magic to it.

It floats, it kind of
moves holographically

and there's shadowing,
but none of it is technological.

An interface where it's possible
to fall in love with your O.S.

Are these feelings
even real?

Or are they
just programming?

[ Laughs ]

What a sad trick.

You feel real to me,
Samantha.

Part of what you see in "Her"
definitely is a cautionary tale

about being too reliant
on your gadgets

and your technology
and being too emotionally

invested in them.

It's a reminder that there
are people out there,

you know, that final image
of him with Amy Adams

is so emotional

and it's only through
this experience

that they both went on
involving this technology

that they found each other.

Lucas: You know, we're
going to live in a world

with robots and
artificial intelligence.

You might as well
get used to it,

you shouldn't
be afraid of it

and we should be very careful
not to have it be bad.

But if it goes bad,
it's us.

-Yeah.
-It's not them.

Cameron:
People always ask me,

"So, do you think the machines
will ever beat us?"

I say,
"I think it's a race.

It's a race --
-Absolutely, a race.

It's a race
between us improving

and making ourselves better,
our own evolution,

spiritual,
psychological evolution.

At the same time, we've got
these machines evolving.

Because if we don't
improve enough

to direct them properly,

our godlike power of
using artificial intelligence

and all these other
robotic tools

and so on will ultimately
just blow back in our face

and take us out."

Yeah, you're right.

I mean, I think that --
it takes a lot of effort

to create changes
in human behavior.

But that's with
our responsibilities.

Yeah. I actually think
we're evolving.

We're co-evolving
with our machines.

We're changing.
-Yes, exactly.

Atlantia death squadron,
attack.

In January of 2002, Universal
was looking for somebody

to reinvent
"Battlestar Galactica."

So, I tracked down the pilot
of the original "Galactica"

that they did in 1978.

There were some
interesting ideas within it.

The final annihilation
of the lifeform known as man.

Let the attack begin.

But never quite
were able to figure out

what the show really was.

But at the same time, I was very
struck by the parallels to 9/11.

This is just a couple of months
after the 9/11 attack.

And I realized immediately
that if you did this series

at that moment in time,

it was going to have a very
different emotional resonance

for the audience.

Espenson: "Battlestar Galactica"
is about

the last remaining scraps
of humanity

out there in a fleet
in deep space

after an attack from robots

has decimated humanity.

Moore: So the idea was that
the human beings

essentially started creating
robots for all the dirty jobs

they didn't want to do anymore.

And then the machines
themselves,

because they revere
their creators,

make machines that
are even more like us.

Cylons that are flesh
and blood just like humans.

Moore: The Cylons saw themselves
as the children of humanity

and that they wouldn't be able
to really grow and mature

until their parents were gone,

so they decide they need to wipe
out their human creators

in this apocalyptic attack.

Espenson:
I think on the surface,

you could say
"Battlestar Galactica"

is about
"be careful of what you invent."

But I think the real
driving force of the show

is not about that.

I think it's about humanity's
greatest weakness,

the inability to see others
as worthy as ourselves.

Moore: That's the central
conflict is of these two --

we are people,
no, you're not.

Starbuck: You are truly
no greater than we are.

You're just a bunch
of machines after all.

Let the games begin.

"Flesh and Bone" is
the torture episode.

It's very much of
a two-person play.

It raises the question -- would
she be less morally culpable

because he's not really human?

You're not human.

Was a person being
tortured in this scene

and crying out
and experiencing pain

or was this all
an elaborate simulation?

We wanted to deal with the issue

of what's moral and just
in a society at war like this,

but at the same time, we were
also examining a different idea

in the show which was about
consciousness and personhood.

Newitz:
Who's the real monster?

Is it the humans who built
creatures that they knew

were human equivalent,
but enslaved them anyway?

Or is it the slaves
who rose up to destroy

the type of people
who would do that?

Espenson: The big central idea
of "Battlestar Galactica" is --

Does humanity
deserve to survive?

Can we earn our survival?

You know, when we fought
the Cylons,

we did it to save
ourselves from extinction.

But we never answered
the question why.

Why are we as a people
worth saving?

That's -- That's
an amazing question.

The Cylons through the series
evolved from a place

of sort of blind
hatred for humanity

to then having more contact
with individual human beings,

having experiences with them,
experiencing emotions with them,

and then the humans realize that
the Cylons are not as monolithic

as they believed at the onset.

Well, when you think you love
somebody, you love them.

That's what love is.

Thoughts.

She was a Cylon.

A machine.

She was more than
that to us.

She was more
than that to me.

She was
a vital living person.

Goldberg: "Battlestar Galactica"
gives you

an idea of what could be.

How do we all do this together?

If "Battlestar Galactica"
is any guide,

we can evolve together with
the machines that we create.

We can become one people,
respectful of each other.

Make a future together.

Yeah, I think...

I hope mankind is
worthy of survival.

I've talked
to some A.I. experts.

Yeah.

And the one expert
said just right out,

"We're trying
to make a person."

And I said, "So when
you say a person,

you mean a personhood?
They have --

they have an ego,
they have a sense of identity."

He said, "Yes,
all those things."

If you're a very smart group
of human beings

who are creating an A.I.,

one of the things you're
definitely gonna leave out

is to put in emotion.
-Right.

'Cause if you have emotion,

emotion will lead
to many facets,

one of them being deceit,
anger, fury, hatred.

-Sure.
-As well as love.

If a machine becomes like us
enough and complex enough

at one point, can we no
longer tell the difference?

-The difference.
-Does it have freedom?

Does it have free will?

This hearing is to determine
the legal status

of the android known as Data.

The character of Data was sort
of everyone's favorite character

on the show
and the writing staff as well.

Everyone loved to write
Data stories.

Here's a robot
who wants to be human

but who has no emotions
but wants emotions.

So, it's really Pinocchio,

and the Pinocchio metaphor
is powerful.

Commander,
what are you?

Webster's 24th-century
dictionary 5th edition

defines an android
as an automaton

made to resemble
a human being.

"The Measure of a Man" is one of
those sort of very deep episodes

that you don't realize is deep

until like four
or five years later.

And you see it
and you go, "Oh, wow."

In the episode, Data's humanity
is essentially put on trial.

Is he sentient?

Is he worthy of being
treated as a person?

Data: Am I person
or a property?

What's at stake?

My right to choose.

It was a legitimate exploration
of this idea of personhood

in a legal sense
and in a moral sense.

Its responses dictated by
an elaborate software

written by a man.

And now a man
will shut it off.

It was shocking to the
characters on the show

and shocking to the audience
as well because we love Data.

Starfleet was founded
to seek out new life.

Well, there it sits!

Moore: Once we create some form
of artificial intelligence,

these legal arguments
are gonna happen.

Do machines deserve rights?

You know, probably.

Guinan:
In the history of many worlds,

there have always been
disposable creatures.

They do the dirty work.

An army of Datas,

whole generations
of disposable people.

You're talking
about slavery.

Nolan: The term "robot" itself
comes from the Czech play

"Rossum's Universal Robots,"

and the word "robota"
means laborer.

A pejorative version
of it means slave.

So, our conception of what
robots will be

is directly,
umbilically connected

to our idea of them
as an underclass.

Why do you think
your people made me?

We made you
'cause we could.

You are just a machine.
An imitation of life.

Replicants are like
any other machine.

They're either a benefit
or a hazard.

If they're a benefit,
it's not my problem.

"Blade Runner" is a slave
narrative, basically.

They've created these replicants
to be our slaves.

And I think that's the part
that's really troubling about

"Blade Runner" is that

not only is it sort of
this technologically

and environmentally
ruined future,

it's sort of a morally and
ethically ruined future as well.

Fancher: I wrote those first
couple scripts

thinking of a very small movie.

And then Ridley said to me,

"What's out the window?"

And I said,
"What's out the window?

Well, the world, you know."

He said, "Exactly.
What world is that?

Where, you know, you make
a robot indistinguishable

from a human.

Think about this for a second.

Imagine..."
and he does that to you.

You go, "Boom."
I said, "oh, God."

He delivered a world.
That's Ridley.

He can -- he makes things.

Ridley brought everything to it.

Cameron: "Blade Runner" comes
from a Philip K. Dick novel...

Scott: Yeah.

..."Do Androids Dream
of Electric Sheep?"

Philip K. Dick was very
prolific and very profound

talking about
the nature of reality

and the nature of
artificial intelligence

and what it is
to be human.

That was
the nut of the idea

that grew with Hampton
into what it was.

Here was this beautiful,
beautiful film.

Dark, noir-ish
and I thought, "Wow,

a film can be
so artistic."

And the idea of these --
these machines challenging us

and their lack of affect,
their lack of emotion.

The film is constantly saying
there is no emotion.

Computer
just makes decisions.

Negative or positive.

It doesn't really care.

Yeah, with the
Voight-Kampff test.

Correct.

Tyrell: Is this to be
an empathy test?

Capillary dilation of
so-called blush response?

We call it
Voight-Kampff for short.

The Voight-Kampff is
a series of questions

that allowed the questioner
to find out

whether or not who was
being questioned had feelings.

Deckard:
It's your birthday.

Someone gives you
a calf-skin wallet.

Rachael:
I wouldn't accept it.

It's about empathy.

You're reading
a magazine.

You come across a full-page
nude photo of a girl.

Is this testing whether
I'm a replicant

or a lesbian,
Mr. Deckard?

Just answer the
questions, please.

Not to get gooey about empathy,
but it does seem

that empathy is the big divide
between us and everything else.

Yaszek: Deckard is very much
a man in his job.

He firmly believes that as long
as robots are working properly,

it's not his problem.

But that if
a replicant misbehaves,

it is indeed his problem

and his duty to retire it.

Move!
Get out of the way!

However, over the course of the
film, he increasingly questions

whether or not disobeying orders
means that you're defective

or that you are a human

with rights and wills
and dreams of your own.

I've seen things you people
wouldn't believe.

There's such poetry
in the scene

where Roy Batty's dying.
-Yes.

It's just
a magnificent scene.

Scott: He wrote that.

Really?
Rutger wrote that?

It's 1:00 in the morning.

I'm gonna have the plug
pulled...
Yeah.

...literally on
everything at dawn.

-Yeah.
-And that's it.

That's gonna be
the last night,

and Rutger said,
"I have written something."

And he said...

All those moments will be lost

in time like tears in rain.

-And I'm nearly in tears.
-Yeah.

He said,
"What do you think?"

I said, "Let's do it."

So, we literally went --
-It's gorgeous.

-We shot it within an hour.
-Yeah.

And at the end, he looked at him

and gave that
most beautiful smile.

Time to die.

And he had a dove
in his hand and he let --

He let it go.
Yeah.

Is it saying
Roy Batty had a soul?

Roy Batty was
a fully sentient being.

Yes.

Four of your films now
have had

an intelligent, embodied
A.I.

Right?
An artificial intelligence.

Synthetic person.

So where do you think
we come out in this?

Is this our --
are we handing the keys

to the kingdom off
to the machines?

I don't think we should.
With a creation of something

so potentially wonderful
and dangerous as A.I.,

the inventor frequently
is obsessed by the success

of what he's doing

rather than looking
at the real outcome.

Here is
where the problem is.

It's the moment where it passes
over your control.

Yeah.

That's where
the danger lies.

You cross over
and you're in trouble.

You get an A.I.,
you have to have limitations.

You got to have your hand
on the plug the entire time.

All the time.
Totally.