Could Mother be the key to advancing Mankind beyond the stars? - I Am Mother (2019) Discussion

[–] mgmry (29) 5 years ago

What would be the purpose of going into space if the new and improved humans now start taking good care of Earth?

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 5 years ago

The Earth will not be sustainable forever. Mother would eventually realise this.

reply

[–] mgmry (29) 5 years ago

I reckon the human consciousness will be able to be uploaded into computers by the time that earth is no longer suitable for humans and their stupid bodies.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

Yes to all four

But I can't help thinking of an "Outer Limits" revival ep called "Think Like a Dinosaur," where humanity must make sacrifices to reach the stars. Specifically, the opening and closing narrations go:

"We believe that human advancement should be attained at almost any cost, but what if the ultimate payment is one's soul,"

and

"As we pursue technological advancement we should be careful not to abandon our humanity in the process."

That said, if the alternative is extinction at the hands of our own basest instincts, I can't help but think that Mother may turn out to be humanity's savior, millennia down the road

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

If mother is to be considered a savior to humanity then forget it. The out come of her salvation is no differen't then a nuclear war as only a hand ful of survivors are left in either case. Whats she really gonna save us from?

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

I'd guess her long term goals are more than a mere handful of humans.

In other words, Mother was trying to create a better, more evolved, less savage form of human through eugenics and conditioning. It's the worst kind of "playing god" there is, true, but her end goal, I thought, was repopulation of the planet with her "humans 2.0." That's why she was growing food and preparing the land for her children.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

yea we know mother believes she's creating better humans but the line of thinking she used is sociapathic.

I don't by the argument that humanity was slowly killing itself. In reality humanity will drain its resources at which point the population starts decreasing but will eventually stabalize and increase/decrease inline with available resources. An intellident machine would no this. Her decision to genocide the entire human race is out of line with the "better ethics" she was pontificating on her daughter.

My point is even under her own screwed up sense of morality the human race is better off attaining transhumanism (2.0) on its own.

The issue most people seem to forget is if the human race does ever annihilates itself it will be due to the actions of a small few people and the whole of humanity shouldn't be judged by the actions of a few. The irony is its people with zero ethics like mother that will be the ones trigger the end of the world. And its a double irony that mother is teaching the same ethics that lead to the extinction event to begin with. I think the movie is making it a point that the choice should be up to the individual to sacrifice them selves or not. While it may be considered unethical for some one to refuse to sacrifice themselves for the good of the many (thank you spock) its even less altruistic to force some one else to make that sacrifice.

reply

[–] GordianNott (137) 5 years ago

I have trouble seeing the Grand Plan for improving humanity work at all. Mother's own failure rate was 66%, and why should we expect all those embryos to somehow turn into her idea of perfect human beings in a controlled environment given her failure/their failure? Maybe she was fine-tuning the process and got it right with Daughter, but humans are always going to be flawed individuals, ranging from saints to serial killers.

Given that, I see this as more of a cycle of Mother trying one batch of embryos after another, wiping out humanity when she sees the flaws, and starting over.

reply

[–] asom (6610) 5 years ago

Maybe you missed the moment when she said that "mother has to learn" ... and we are not only flawed as individuals, we are flawed as a society, out ethics and morals are fucked up. generally speaking.

reply

[–] GordianNott (137) 5 years ago

I remember that line was put into new context when she revealed that Daughter would be the mother to all the embryos, so she was talking about Daughter needing time to learn motherhood as much as herself. Which explained why only one embryo, and a female one, was awakened at a time. (Which I think makes Mother sexist, lol.)

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

we are flawed as a society, out ethics and morals are fucked up. generally speaking.

We may be flawed but atleast most of us can say we didn't commit genocide. Which can't be said of a certain care taker robot from this movie.

reply

[–] asom (6610) 5 years ago

oh, but we did, and we don't even care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

because we see ourselves as morally and value superior.

if we have crops that are sick and in danger to spread the sickness we just exterminate that batch. we only care about humans because we are superior, we are above all others. Mother can be seen as the superior, above humanity, force.

And the hints of assimilating Mother with God are everywhere.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

Again I said most of and practicly all of us didn't cause genocide. Contrast that with one rouge machine's decision kill the whole of humanity. Even hitler only got 7 million jews during his excitnction level event. This inability for you to score the kill counts of human decisions vs the singular decision of a single machine to end the mostly harmless civilization of man kind shows your lack of logic and sense of ethics and morality. Your just playing contrarian.

Plants don't have neurons and don't exhibit any indication that they are suffering. I'm not sure why people like you seem to get a buzz off of self loathing humanity as if you have some higher unique perspective on nature. And if we commit genocide (over hunting actually) we certainly don't try to attribute it as us doing it for the extinct species benefit. This is actually a short coming of the films plot. They wanted a shocker ending. Writers are correct in that we need to becarefult how we approach AI as machines blindly follow logic, but writers always seem to mistakenly assert that even machines following an algorithm can't evaluate their high level goals by scoring outcomes. IE writers can't comprehend the illogical mess they are in when they try to illistrate any one man or machine concluding the best way to preserve human life is to exterminate it. I don't know if this is lazy writing or if writers uneducated in STEM really don't understand this broken logical behavior. If a computer algorithm is evaluating which course of action to take will score each choice by the number of humans that will die given a choice in the decision tree. This scoring algorithm will quickly realize (a greedy algorithm for example) https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/greedy-algorithms/ will realize that the decision that results in only one human survivor even when reproduction is planned in to the equation is completly contractidcotry to the original requirment to preserve human life.

reply

[–] asom (6610) 5 years ago

You cause genocide everyday by your actions. You just don't like to admit that or place any other type of life below humans and so it's free game.

It's doesn't matter what's the kill count because mother is ABOVE humans. Just as we don't apply the morals to beings that are below us (by our "logic", and obviously yours) mother doesn't apply the same to humans.

Because if human life has no intrinsic value (As we saw that they debated) then 8 billions multiplied by 0 (the value of human life in her moral system) is still zero.

You didn't understood my reference to god? How many genocides and extinctions are in the old testament? Mother is at the same level as that god. their "morals" are above morals.

Just as god says "i love you all" and then drowns all humanity to resurrect a new, better one, from Noe mother is doing the exact thing, she loves humanity, but cares not for humans.

You are stuck in a moral/logic frame and you cannot see beyond. Your logic/morals is not the only one that is valid or even applied. That algorithm doesn't have to follow your assumptions or include your parameters - just as example.

And it doesn't matter that "most of us" wouldn't do genocide. Enough of us did it or do it now. Enough of us are not stuck in your moral or logical frame, which is not universal nor absolute nor immutable.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

You cause genocide everyday by your actions. You just don't like to admit that or place any other type of life below humans and so it's free game.[/quote]
I reject your lack of insight as to the scale of genocide. You seem to incapable of understanding the actions of an entire species merely surviving vs the actions of a singular entity.

[quote]
You are stuck in a moral/logic frame and you cannot see beyond. Your logic/morals is not the only one that is valid or even applied. That algorithm doesn't have to follow your assumptions or include your parameters - just as example.

And it doesn't matter that "most of us" wouldn't do genocide. Enough of us did it or do it now. Enough of us are not stuck in your moral or logical frame, which is not universal nor absolute nor immutable.

And this really should have been the bases of your argument. Your liberal leanings are starting to show in that you subscribe to moral relativism and have generally concluded their is no morality. Your argument is too much in conflict with itself. You want to declare morality is undefined changing and based on subjective perspective yet you still want to judge humanity for the actions of a selfish few. If your nihilistic(And you are a nihilist as youve in this paragraph alone rejected Religion, Morality and asserted that life is meaningless and has no value) views cause disgust at notions of morality then at least look at this debate in terms altruism vs egoism.Those terms are definable and can't be swept under the rug. Who is acting altruisticd in this film.I have no interest in debating if morality exists in your nihilist mindset. I already know it doesn't I do expect you to recognize that its inappropriate and intellectually dishonest for you to declare (Judge) humanity responsible for the actions of a few egotists. You said it your self "We are flawed and our morals are screwed up". At least make a consistent argument.

reply

[–] asom (6610) 5 years ago

Heh, i don't have to be a liberal to be an atheist.

Of course morality is subjective.

And you know what's even more funnier? That you are talking about absolute morals and you disagree with mother's morality when your OWN GOD exterminated humanity and was the author of endless genocides :D

And he was the one that judged and killed the whole humanity based on the actions of few. And he was the one that committed genocide on large scales based on the actions of few.

Cognitive dissonance much?

At least if you are in a religious frame accept that frame fully.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

Heh, i don't have to be a liberal to be an atheist.
[/quote]
Well duh of course not, but based on the strange conclusions your continue to arrive at your statistically almost certainly both.

Of course morality is subjective.

Then call it ethics if you can't stomach the word morality. Or go further as I have and talk about altruism vs egotism. It was you that brought the term morals into this discussion. And I quote

"And you know what's even more funnier? That you are talking about absolute morals and you disagree with mother's morality when your OWN GOD exterminated humanity and was the author of endless genocides :D"
What a strange assertion to make.
a) You no nothing of my beliefs
b) And its foolish of you to assert that events of the of testament like the flood even occured given your atheist leanings. And the flood is certainlt not something I belive in.

"Cognitive dissonance much?

At least if you are in a religious frame accept that frame fully."

Of course you would have loved for me to be a bible thumper of the old testament so you could have a nice straw man to take half assed jabs at. You should know by now peoples beliefs are much to complicated for that. This can't be the first time you've engaged with some one you incorrectly believe to be of a fundamentalist mindset. This is really the impetus of your trolling here and in life in general. Getting in conflict with people of religious persuasion. We seem to have found your weak spot as I'm seeing signs that your obsessed with arguments about god.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

It's doesn't matter what's the kill count because mother is ABOVE humans. Just as we don't apply the morals to beings that are below us (by our "logic", and obviously yours) mother doesn't apply the same to humans.

Because if human life has no intrinsic value (As we saw that they debated) then 8 billions multiplied by 0 (the value of human life in her moral system) is still zero.

You fool. Mother was programmed by humans to preserve human life. No program would allow a scoring system to evalue the value of human life as 0. No such program would survive peer review. And even if you were doing so in a sinister fashion picked and infinitesimal value for human life call lets call it "n". No machine would even be capable of concluding
n > 8n*(10^9). IE "8 billion lives is always greater then 1 life. This is the lazy writing I'm talking about. Forget about debating morality at least see that in this day and age and in the far future computers at the very least will still know how to count and perform numerical comparison operators.

[quote]
You didn't understood my reference to god? How many genocides and extinctions are in the old testament? Mother is at the same level as that god. their "morals" are above morals.[quote]
We all recognized that mother was a powerful system but the thought of god didn't cross alot of our minds because propbably either
a) Mother was created by man kind something that instantly breaks the god relationship to mankind for most of us.
b) A lot of us arn't anti authority atheist and don't associate a god reference for every negative authority entity that appears to oppress mankind.
c) A lot of us that are atheist/agnostic are not jaded to the point that we see genocide as being a defining characteristic of god so the connection isn't apparent.
d) A lot of us aren't atheist at all and don't get hung up on the old testament. A lot of bibles don't even have the old testament included.

reply

[–] asom (6610) 5 years ago

n > 8n*(10^9) - only when n > 0. If n = 0 the 8n(10^9) = 0. Capisci?

My program WILL allow to attribute value 0 to a human life. Because it is different than yours.

A) god was created by man, so there it is, the correlation.
B) i don't associate every negative authority that appears to oppress mankind with god, only those that actually act like god.
C) genocide IS the defining characteristic of the christian god. How many genocides has he committed? How many people have died in his name ?
D) atheists don't get hung on the old testament, more likely the fanatics do. AFAIK there is no bible that doesn't include the old testament. References?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

My program WILL allow to attribute value 0 to a human life. Because it is different than yours.

Which tells me your not a developer of any sort. If the goal of a program is to count dead humans vs live humans your program would be useles and rejected by everyone. Hell whats your computer program gonna do when every single outcome the algorithm plans out all leads to a score of zero. Is your algorithm gonna pick at random? Is it gonna trigger NoBestOutCome Exception and shutdown. In a greedy algorithm how did your program even arrive at mass murder as a solution even if it totally choose random outcome candidates your algorithm should stabilize/converge on doing nothing as its solution as that costs the least resources and also arrives at a score of zero. Yea your program is "different" then mine in that given your prowess at math and logic I doubt your algorithm will even parse or compile so doing nothing is exactly what your program will do..

You'd be tared and feathered by the Community. The school or college you went too (I doubt you graduated based on statements above) would try to hide your records out of sheer embarrassment and you'd become a burger flipper that would only reserve statements like you do here on the weekends when your loaded full of pot with your friends also loaded on pot.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

"A) god was created by man, so there it is, the correlation."
A pretty weak god even by atheists standards.

"B) i don't associate every negative authority that appears to oppress mankind with god, only those that actually act like god.

C) genocide IS the defining characteristic of the christian god. How many genocides has he committed? How many people have died in his name ?"
These 2 responses are linked. And are the typical of a new atheist that is ignorant of history.
a) There was no flood therefore no genicide
b) You lack understanding of the origins of the crusades if your calling trying to call that genocide
c) You lack understanding of the horrors comited by modern atheists of history that have a much higher kill count.
that religious organizations. (I'll give atheists the defense that population counts are much higher in modern history which makes the killcount seem higher in comparison to the early middle ages.)

"D) atheists don't get hung on the old testament, more likely the fanatics do. AFAIK there is no bible that doesn't include the old testament. References?"
Just look up the term "new testament bible" There every where. Your a new atheists so I'm not suprised you havent seen them in your blind rage against the religious communities.

reply

[–] asom (6610) 5 years ago

According to your holly book the flood has happened. So, extermination. Didn't say anything about the crusades.

Genocide and extermination is common in the bible, Sodom, the exodus and the genocide (plus the 10 plagues) on the egiptians - for the acts of one persona alone - the pharaoh ... and so forth. at least read a wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence

You are hilariuos to tell me i don't know history when you don't even know your religion.

The bible is formed of the new testament and the old testament. Without both there is no "bible", it's just "the new testament".

You are ignorant, not only of history ;)

Atheist might have done some stupid things as well, so? We are not talking about atheists here but about your god.

There is nothing that i said that you could qualify as "rage against religious communities" but i'm not surprised by your lack of understanding ;)

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

" You are hilariuos to tell me i don't know history when you don't even know your religion."
This isn't my religion idiot my beliefs are much to abstract to be considered christian. My point is
a) Do you really believe the 10 plagues happened?
b) Do you actually believe the story of sodom and gomorrah?

You are hillarious to preach atheism by use stories of genocide from a book you don't even believe in and have erroneously concluded that I believe in.

"The bible is formed of the new testament and the old testament. Without both there is no "bible", it's just "the new testament". "
Stop grasping at straws. New testament bibles do exists(sans old testaments) and your not an authority to pigeon hole the old testament. Even now your playing the no true scottsman argument by pretendint books with out the oldtestiment can't be called bibles.

"You are ignorant, not only of history ;)"
Your condescending ";)" is inappropriate for you. Your

"Atheist might have done some stupid things as well, so? We are not talking about atheists here but about your god."
I'm at a loss for what makes you think your controlling the conversation here. Were having this discussion because your non organic atheist mindset has lead you to conclude mother is God. I'm talking about altruism, lazy writing and computer science, your admittedly stuck on god and refusing to talk about anything else.

"There is nothing that i said that you could qualify as "rage against religious communities" but i'm not surprised by your lack of understanding ;)"

See above. In this entire conversation all you've been doing is obsessing over my beliefs (Or rather your perception that I'm some kind of devoute religious member of the community). Your may be using a smily face but your raging. And the smily face is a smug expression of condesention at that. Your clearly not happy with the outcome of these conversations and trying to convince your self that your just too smart for us.

reply

[–] asom (6610) 5 years ago

I'm not obsessing over your beliefs, you are obsessing over me being an atheist. That tells enough about your beliefs.

Which obviously are pretty weak since you are quite ignorant on that area.

"New testament bibles do exists" i supposed that you being the ignorant that you are you don't know the basic principle of "burden of proof (onus probandi)" which states that the one that makes the claim needs to bring proof to substantiate the claim. You brought 0 proof so your claim is ... zero.

By definition:

Bi·ble /ˈbībəl/ noun: the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

News flash moron your still obsessing about religion. You know there are new testament bibles your just trying to enforce your own definition of a bible because you stuck your fool foot in your mouth thing to be a smart ass. You speak of burden of proof when its clear new testament bibles exist. Here's a picture of an ellusive white coat new testament bible now recently captured in the the wild.

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+testament+bible&client=ubuntu&hs=tC1&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk38_S6oPjAhUMK80KHftfDa8Q_AUIEigD&biw=1400&bih=708#imgrc=rW3OXX1AFk4JPM:

heres an older new testament bible written in a more archiac form of english.
https://www.google.com/search?q=new+testament+bible&client=ubuntu&hs=tC1&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk38_S6oPjAhUMK80KHftfDa8Q_AUIEigD&biw=1400&bih=708#imgdii=8kRtfY95-onryM:&imgrc=uuq8XvIfbyKaiM:

You already know their are different versions of the bible. Catholics have added a few books of their own. There are also other bibles like the gnostic bible that didn't make it past the Nicaea counsil. But you don't strike me as some one that would let the church be an authority on what is and isn't a bible anyways (rolls eyes)🙄

In conclusion
a) You know nothing about Machine learning or artificial intelligence. Lets make a scoring system where everything is 0.
b) Logic, You actually sound like one of those contrarians that will try to argue that 1+1 = 2 isn't absolute either like some first year philosophy mager or pot chain smoker.
c) Your ignorant to the fact that alot of churches put much more emphasis to the new testament.
d) attempted several times to declare mothers morality is superior to humans while later proclaiming morality is not absolute like some kind of nihilist yet that didn't stop you from judging humans
e) You even tried to go as far as to paint mothers murder of the entire human race as morally equivlent to humans burning diseased corn crops. You think it makes you smart to play contrairian but this argument particularly just makes you look foolish at best and at wrose like a psycho path incapable of valuing human life or any life for that matter. Next you'll be asserting that humans are comiting genocide by crushing rocks to make foundation for human habitation.

Your missing all the big important arguments and only seem to be defending your opinion on all the dumb ones.

reply

[–] ATG6 (3000) 5 years ago

the girl (Daughter) is the Mother of the title. the robots raised her to be concerned about the other (new) humans and to take care when raising them.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

but humans are always going to be flawed individuals, ranging from saints to serial killers.

Exactly and others giving credit to her grand plan also fail to recognize that she's even more flawed then the humans she's trying to save. because unlike her the sheer bulk of humanity didn't A) cause the extinction of humanity and B) Won't kill their own children for minor personality differences.

If this robot is supposed to be on the moral high ground then the survivability of the human race is far better off with out her. We're better off taking our chances with solving our own problems. And I'm sure we'll solve most of these problems with out resorting to 8 billion deaths.

reply

[–] ATG6 (3000) 5 years ago

no, Mother is a tyrant. only by respecting individual liberty can humanity advance.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

And at the very least respecting the self preservational forces of the 8 billion people she snuffed out in her attempts to save humanity.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

Nah AI will be going to the stars leaving us behind when the sun burns up in 800 million years or so.
Your forgetting ronbots are for all intents and purposes lifeforms too with no need to terriform to spread life life through the cosmos. Robots are more durable and will be the ones to navigate the stars and live in a wide range of worlds. We on the other hand can barely hope to survive the trip to one of those far away and far rare goldiloc planets to colonize.

Little things like water, oxygen, organic food(Life eats life) keeps us trapped on this rock, Its 4 light years to get to alpha centari our closest star. Unless we develop warp drive (probably not gonna happen) were stuck so raise your robot children well so they can feel like dicks when they abandon the earth.

reply