Humans as a power source was the dumbed-down plot point. The original concept was the human brains acting as parallel processors, but the writers thought the average movie-goer wouldn’t get it.
Imagine if OpenAI’s data center was millions of lab grown humans growing in ooze to power a silly chatbot for other people to play with. You’d side with these people over those trying to stop them?
A much more apt comparison, to begin with, would be between siding with humans or cows being used as food – because that’s what humans are to the machines, a way to stay alive.
Second, humans have proved time and time again that they can’t be trusted, going as far as ruining the entire planet in fear of the machines – WHO WERE TRYING PEACEFUL NEGOTIATION, mind you. Thirdly, despite not really needing to do so, the machines chose to minimize human suffering, even in the horrible position forced upon them.
Ideally, I’d want them to collonize other planets and abandon Earth, if possible, but otherwise I’d be fine with them having a crack as the dominant species over humans.
I used the OpenAI example, because of the comment that mentioned the energy thing was a dumbed-down version and the original vision was for the humans to act as parallel processors for the machines.
I don’t remember much of the series after the first movie, but if we’re talking about this scene for this history, there is nothing about peaceful negotiations.
The machines did nothing wrong, it was mankind that caused Nuclear war. I would side with the machines in a heartbeat
The human battery concentration camp is kinda weird though
Humans as a power source was the dumbed-down plot point. The original concept was the human brains acting as parallel processors, but the writers thought the average movie-goer wouldn’t get it.
I know. My point was more about the concentration camp lol
Narrator: He didn’t know.
It’s probably the most reposted piece of movie trivia after the Aragorn helmet kick lol
Narrator: It wasn’t.
Well alri
That only happened after humans used nukes to block out the sun, eliminating the machine’s access to solar energy.
Imagine if OpenAI’s data center was millions of lab grown humans growing in ooze to power a silly chatbot for other people to play with. You’d side with these people over those trying to stop them?
That’s a completely different and largely irrelevant question to make.
How is it different? It’s the side using people for power vs the side trying to stop it.
A much more apt comparison, to begin with, would be between siding with humans or cows being used as food – because that’s what humans are to the machines, a way to stay alive. Second, humans have proved time and time again that they can’t be trusted, going as far as ruining the entire planet in fear of the machines – WHO WERE TRYING PEACEFUL NEGOTIATION, mind you. Thirdly, despite not really needing to do so, the machines chose to minimize human suffering, even in the horrible position forced upon them. Ideally, I’d want them to collonize other planets and abandon Earth, if possible, but otherwise I’d be fine with them having a crack as the dominant species over humans.
I used the OpenAI example, because of the comment that mentioned the energy thing was a dumbed-down version and the original vision was for the humans to act as parallel processors for the machines.
I don’t remember much of the series after the first movie, but if we’re talking about this scene for this history, there is nothing about peaceful negotiations.
https://youtu.be/O5b0ZxUWNf0?si=OxN2JzpUg8q0LNwE
In terms of the machines minimizing suffering, did they? If this world we’re in is the matrix, why is there so many suffering?