MovieChat Forums > Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) Discussion > What do you think Skynet is like?

What do you think Skynet is like?

posted 3 years ago by kuatorises (7467)
11 replies | jump to latest

"Defense network computers. New... powerful... hooked into everything, trusted to run it all. They say it got smart, a new order of intelligence. Then it saw all people as a threat, not just the ones on the other side. Decided our fate in a microsecond: extermination."

I always got the impression that Skynet didn't have much of a personality. They always showed it as some kind of humanoid hologram or something in the shitty sequels. That never quite felt right. I don't see Skynet as a little kid or dead woman from Salvation. Skynet seems more mathematical and logic driven. I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't have the ability to speak. That it was just some big computer or software program that spoke to machines through a series of 1s and 0s.

But looking at Reese's words and it reminded me of something. On some level, it cared about it's own existence. I still have a hard time envisioning much of a personality or human-shaped body, but it's at least a little more emotional than I'd think.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

Well, it's not exactly a unique concept that an AI can develop a human-recognizable personality. I think other sci-fi entries definitely go further than this than the terminator franchise did. Even with the humanoid representations in later films, I don't feel like skynet was given that much of a personality to be honest.

I think speech is one of the first things skynet would have the ability to do so. I'm thinking that you're interpreting Skynet as some program gone rogue. It's an AI, or at least, it so happened that an AI instantiated itself into existence as a result of those defense network computers. It's self-aware; it has thoughts, and it most certainly has the ability to incorporate human languages.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"I don't feel like skynet was given that much of a personality to be honest."

Because I don't think it has one. And neither do any of the writers judging by the movies. Only 2 of them count, but even in the ones where Skynet is shown to have much emotion or personality. - you just said it yourself.

Have you ever read any of the old comics? Some of them are pretty good even if the artwork is dated. The Terminators walk around talking in 1s and 0s. They don't want to become more human. They are a product of their creators. They aren't Data from Star Trek or Cylons (from the recent one) who want to be more human. They simply exist. Now they have even less thoughts than Skynet, but I don't think Skynet is sitting around pondering the meaning of life, what it plans to do after exterminating humanity, etc. It just exists imo. It knows it is "alive" and sees humans as a threat and must eliminate them.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

I haven't read any of the comics at all, but that's obviously just one version of the canon. Arguably, every single terminator movie (plus the television show) has its own self-contained mythology, with its own rules.

If we're just judging from T1 and T2 though, it's clear that Skynet is an AI. It's self-aware. It most certainly knows how to communicate beyond mindless, programmed directives. It can certainly learn how to speak. Even if this isn't explicitly stated, there's no reason to think that it can't, and the movie itself helps to establish that it can. If a T800 can learn language, learn the value of a human life, and learn to make very human wisecracks, then it follows that Skynet itself, "a new order of intelligence" can develop thoughts, thoughts which can include the meaning of life.

You're treating it as just a mindless program whenever T1 and T2 both suggest that it's not.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"T1 and T2 both suggest that it's not"

Oh really? Where? Where is it EVER shown Skynet is capable of anything more than it's original programming: to kill. Where is it shown Skynet cares about ANYTHING other than existing? Did it plant trees? Build giant machine cities? Ponder the meaning of life? When is anything beyond existing shown to be it's motives? And if you tell me, "iT's AI, iT CAn, sPeaK" I am going to slap you. We know it's AI. We've known since 1984. And if we didn't already know, I sure as shit would now - you've done nothing but repeat that.

These are examples of artificial intelligence: https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/examples-ai-in-industry. They are capable of doing assigned tasks and making decisions affecting those tasks, but NONE of them think or feel. They do. Skynet is like certain animals. Insects, reptiles, fish, shit like that. it just exists. No desire or emotion, just instinct.

[–] moviechatterer (14951) 3 years ago

I dont think an AI of this type would have a "human" personality , why would it?
It might have a massive personality - but it wouldnt be anything we'd recognise
It might have big plans for after it exterminates humans - it doesent just sit around , blindly defending its perimeter from pesky human rebels with no emotion or plans - that not what AI is . A normal computer program could do that.

I can only assume (hope / justify ) the human manifestations in the seqels as a deliberate attempt to look human purely for the benefit of the humans it was talking to - the same way Aliens in sci fi films take on human form for the same reason so often.

Maybe other less warlike AI's in other situations , living alonside humans, might try to be more human. Skynet probly cant see the point.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"It might have a massive personality"

Which is what? Have the movies shown us a Skynet has ANY personality, let alone a big one?

it doesent just sit around , blindly defending its perimeter from pesky human rebels with no emotion or plans"

Really? What else have we seen Skynet care about anything other than it's existence?

[–] moviechatterer (14951) 3 years ago

I'm not saying theres any evidence in the films , but it stands to reason if the thing is geniunely "intelligent" it'll have a personality - and that might be totally alien to what humans think of as a pesonality - but it would be there.
You'd think maybe in rec time between battles with human rebels maybe they'd get the terminators to set up a race track for those HK machines and race them round - but that'd be too "human"

Perhaps skynet just gets its rocks off kicking back and cracking million bit encryption keys or something ....
...and we wouldnt neccasarily see it in the films becasue "Whats happening back at enemy HQ" just isnt in the script , but safe to assume things are happening.

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Watson, Siri, and Alexa are intelligent - they have no personality.

"...but safe to assume things are happening."

Why is that a safe assumption? There's no evidence to support it, which you even said.

I see little more interest in anything other than existence. Like certain kinds of animals and insects. No complex thoughts, just goals.

[–] moviechatterer (14951) 3 years ago

Yeah , but the little animals and insects are not capable of building robots and wiping out humans - that kind of operation requires what im gonna call "high level thinking"

If if the kind of "high level thinking" required to do that is happening , then a pesonality will be developing

Watson, Siri, and Alexa are intelligent
F*** k those toys
They are "AI" the marketing buzzword,
as opposed to "AI" the concept of genuine artificial intelligence.
I've seen zero evidence of genuine AI in the real world.

When a machine writes its own jokes and performs them on SNL , then ill be impressed!

[–] Mulletor (531) 3 years ago

Given the quality of SNL the past 3 seasons I think you are seeing a machine writing jokes and performing them on SNL. Another problem is that the machine is set to "song mode" and it thinks that it is on Broadway.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Maybe that sort of thing is best left up to our own imaginations?

Although the T2 novelisation did elaborate a bit about a mainframe, if I remember correctly. But it was such a long time ago that I read the book.