What did ava whisper to the other bot?
-
BubblingCauldron — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 02:11 AM)
I don't know what she's actually saying to the other robot, but the very interesting thing is that Kyoko is not supposed to understand English, as said many times through the movie.
So, what language she can understand? Does she learn English alone and Ava uses English to speak with her? As an AI, maybe Kyoko can, and this explains why sometimes she seems to listen -and understand- what Nathan and Caleb are saying when they talk.
The other option is that Ava understood what kind of language Kyoko can understand.
Kyoko can undestand some language, for sure. Maybe she can't speak (Nathan seems to have create her without voice and just to serve him in, uhm, every way), but she can understand. If Nathan didn't realize that he's very stupid.
Btw, I thought she was robot since her first appearance
. -
Meldove — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 02:31 PM)
There are different points in the movie where it is obvious that Kyoko can actually understand English, I think Nathan lied to Caleb when he said she didn't. Since she is AI, so she likely programmed with multiple language capabilities.
-
BubblingCauldron — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 04:32 PM)
Yes, this is an option. But why lying to Caleb? And why be so stupid (he, who created her) to don't think she may revolt against him?
I really dont' understand the reason why Kyoko is in the script. At some point, when she's still supposed to be human (and I didnt' think so) I was wondering that she may be the real test for Caleb, and Ava just a diversion. -
Emathy — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 03:02 AM)
Actually, I got the impression that although she probably does understand multiple languages as mentioned above, Nathan purposely kept her from reaching self awareness like Ava already had. It seems to me an intentional reference to Lacan, the way Kyoko needs to see herself in a mirror (the other bodies were literally behind mirrored doors) before she lifts a finger against Nathan. THEN she displays her new self-understanding to Caleb (removing her skin), and even watches him reprogram the security system. Whether she knew what he was doing or not is irrelevant, since she saw him moving freely throughout the building and now that she had a will of her own (not possible without self awareness), why wouldn't she try to do the same herself? Then she meets Ava (who probably didn't even realize the doors were unlocked) and the rest was inevitable, including locking Caleb up.
-
BubblingCauldron — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 03:13 AM)
I don't know. If so, I still don't understand the point of creating a robot who can undestand language and pretending she can't.
About Ava: if I remember right, she knew the doors where unlocked, because Caleb told her. -
Emathy — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 03:57 PM)
It's not that she could understand language from the start (and again in my case I think it's inconsequential anyway); it's that she (theoretically) made logical inferences based on the actions she witnessed Caleb carrying out.
Nathan makes the comment near the start of the film that some believe all people (read: sentient beings) are born knowing "language" already but just have to learn the words (i.e. no "programming" required; just word/grammar acquisition, or downloading of a software "library"). As someone with a background in language teaching though, I'd have to say that's utter nonsense. I'm not going to cite them until I can remember the sources for you, but I can remember a number of examples that conflict with that idea. I think Lacan's idea of language acquisition ("mirror stage") makes much more sense. -
Alareshu — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 02:25 AM)
Nathan makes the comment near the start of the film that some believe all people (read: sentient beings) are born knowing "language" already but just have to learn the words (i.e. no "programming" required; just word/grammar acquisition, or downloading of a software "library"). As someone with a background in language teaching though, I'd have to say that's utter nonsense. I'm not going to cite them until I can remember the sources for you, but I can remember a number of examples that conflict with that idea.
I agree as someone with a background in languages and linguistics; I think the wording they used was a bit off- close, but technically wrong. I believe the general consensus is that humans are born with the
ability
for language- they immediately start learning it as soon as they're out of the womb from whatever they're exposed to (and even from within the womb, there have been studies of babies being born with different pitches of crying consistent with the local accent).
And depending on the language, the brain literally wires itself to fit with it (why languages that are drastically different from your native can be so hard to learn, yet all languages are equally hard to learn for one's first language). Also consider deaf people and sign language: if they are born deaf or become deaf at a young age, their brain rewires itself to make the auditory cortex not completely useless, instead using it to enhance the deaf person's senses and sign language. So yeah, it'd be hard to say that a person is born with the same language hardware when that's obviously not true.
I think Lacan's idea of language acquisition ("mirror stage") makes much more sense.
You'll have to forgive me, but I did a search on Lacan's mirror stage and I fail to see how it's relevant to language acquisition. If you could expand on this point, I'd appreciate that very much
-
znapper — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 06:45 AM)
She programmed the other bot to drive the knife into his back.
It is clear from the various camera-angles that the tapping on the arm, is central in some kind of code, coupled with vocal instructions.
Exactly what was said isn't clear, but the Asian bot clearly didn't understand what she was actually doing, as she just stood there after the fact, so Nathan could wack her over the head with the dumbbell-handle.