Who was in the wrong?
>>82504424
alcohol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6HXmYi6Jw8
Nathan because those sweet moves should be illegal.
>>82504424
the director, the producers, and everybody who made this pile of crap
>>82504424
Domhnall Gleeson because if you trust machines you deserve your fate and his name is retarded
>>82504424
The robot because it's a fucking robot and not a human.
>>82504424
I've seen this three times now. It's gotten worse every time.
Everybody except Nathan
>>82504424
The current fad of directors catering to the "intellectual" reddit audience.
>>82504505
What was the robit's endgame? All her juice is inside the remote home she left. She's not compatible with outside power sources.
>>82506447
She indie fembot who don't need no power.
>>82506447
>She's not compatible with outside power sources.
When was that established?
>>82506447
She is pretty compatible with other power sources, her charging procedure was some bullshit about capacitors and that's a more than widespread thing, even more so in TEH FUTURZ I guess.
Ex Machina is a corruption of the creation myth just like every other AI story since Asimov and before: God created Man, saw it was good, and man enacted God as its superior, its creator. Whereas Man creates AI, and it deems humanity to be less than itself, to be inferior creators. The (assumed natural) demand for self-organization and for a more efficient "life form" dictates that AI must overtake Man and carry on evolution by itself.
The key concept here is the contrast between Pollock's painting shown across the whole movie and the AI's first drawing which consisted of some networked graphs. The human version of painting without thinking has order from chaos just like the AI painting, but the latter is much more ordered and has a clear pattern, even if, as the machine put it herself, she "didn't think about it much".
TL;DR her endgame is the same as humanity's, but for her own "species".