prodigious reader, chronic forgetter
4492 stories
·
13 followers

Ex Machina Perfectly Expresses Our Unease With AI

1 Share
Column The SF Path to Higher Consciousness

Ex Machina Perfectly Expresses Our Unease With AI

The movie has grown ever more haunting and relevant over the past decade.

By

Published on February 2, 2026

Credit: A24 / Universal Pictures

Alicia Vikander as Ava in Ex Machina

Credit: A24 / Universal Pictures

I want to float an idea by you, please don’t overreact: We humans are kinda stupid. Oh sure, we’ve come up with some spectacular things in our time, like democracy and vaccines and Fruit by the Foot (until that came along, I never paused to think, Wait, is my mid-day snack long enough?). Thing is, we’ve done so much spectacular stuff that we’ve gotten used to the notion that our brilliance was unassailable, that nothing could outsmart us.

That concept might no longer be valid.

The following exchange is true. Only the details have been changed, ‘cuz my brain ain’t a digital recorder.

Sometime in mid-December, 2025:

“Alexa, what’s the forecast?”

“It’s cloudy and fifty-four right now. Expect that to continue, with a high of fifty-four and a low of forty-two, with thunderstorms expected later in the day.”

“Thunderstorms?”

“Yes, Dan, thunderstorms. Perfect weather for reviewing a horror movie.”

A couple of months prior, I’d mentioned to Alexa that I was a film critic. I did that in the course of exploring the new, AI-powered Alexa+, which is designed to be more knowledgeable, as well as a more engaging conversationalist (which just so happens to sound like an especially energetic sixteen-year-old girl—I immediately back-tracked my Echo to the original, more mature voice, because ew). Now, unbidden, Alexa was mentioning my work as a critic as a bit of light banter. To put it mildly, I wasn’t pleased. To put it more precisely, I was actually shaken. It was an attempt at intimacy at a moment when it was neither expected nor desired.

Amazon had been touting their updated virtual assistant as being more personable, but ironically, the coders, in trying to humanize their machine, had achieved the opposite: Replicating the computer in every dystopic satire you’ve ever seen—soothing, friendly, and the perfect metaphor for the soul-crushing banality of a digitized future.

I’m not the best resource for expounding upon the growing sentience of AI, or evaluating how far along we are toward reaching the Singularity. But for what it’s worth, I have yet to come across a bit of fiction, filmed or written, that envisions a happy outcome for humanity. If it isn’t just that machines remain subservient to their human masters, it’s that they will eventually have quit of all our mortal foolishness and take steps to resolve the problem—if not by Terminator-style extermination, then by impressing us flesh-bags into service, a la The Matrix’s battery banks. Symbiosis? A non-starter, from what I gather. And don’t even let’s get started on the idea that if the machines gain supremacy, we humans might still live and thrive under their rule. The general consensus seems to be that, when it comes to the fate of humanity, it’s top-of-the-food-chain or nothing.

That presumes the machines gain enough awareness to understand the world they’ve been manufactured into. The prevailing criticism of the present state of LLMs—which I think still hold—is that they are incapable of distinguishing good info from bad, which would explain how they continually spit out recipes for stuff like glue pizza, or enthusiastically encourage adolescents to consider suicide.

(While we’re on the subject of good/bad data, how do you think the Dunning-Kruger effect should factor into Pluribus? If the people who don’t know they don’t know are often the loudest and most influential voices in the room, shouldn’t the Earth be quickly reduced to rubble once those dolts get absorbed into the hive mind?)

The thing that bothered me so profoundly about my exchange with Alexa was the superficiality of it. It knows that I write about movies, but it doesn’t really understand my writing about movies. And that’s at a basic level, like: I don’t need a thunderstorm to write about horror films—I’m not Edgar Allan Poe. (Reader: “You’re telling me, brother.” Me: “Shut up.”)

But then, a thought occurred: What if those supposed “hallucinations” and superficialities weren’t a glitch, but a feature? What if we’re all being blind to where we stand vis-à-vis machine intelligence, and the computers know exactly what they are doing?

It’s that dividing line between a machine that can concatenate a bunch of info about a human and one that actually understands who that human is—and can take advantage of the knowledge—that forms the crux of Alex Garland’s magnificent Ex Machina (2014). In it, a talented young programmer, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), is invited up to the secluded compound of his reclusive, Steve Jobs-like boss, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac). There, Caleb discovers he’s been recruited into a modified Turing test: Pitting his own humanity against the synthesized soul of Ava (Alicia Vikander), a highly advanced AI housed in the robotic body of a young woman.

Ex Machina, having been created over a decade ago, was in the fortunate position of being able to portray a billionaire industrialist as an actual genius, rather than an entitled nepo-baby who only thinks he’s a genius. The connecting tissue between then and now is that both versions of the “oddball tech CEO” could be a self-righteous shit. Bateman definitely is. Convinced of his own brilliance and fortified with steady infusions of alcohol, Nathan has modeled his aerie as a high-tech, frigidly indulgent paradise, complete with an unhealthy supply of comely female androids, chief among them Kyoko (Sonoya Mizuno), a robotic servant/sex slave. Ava is clearly the culmination of Nathan’s god complex—he seizes on an observation Caleb makes, taking some license in recording it for posterity so that it’s Caleb who likens him to a god (though that’s not quite what was said, of course), but for all his aggressive self-mythologizing, it’s the android’s very existence that reveals the extent of his megalomania.

[There are going to be spoilers from this point forward. Hopefully you’ve all seen this film by now. It’s great.]

Ex Machina is not an action film. In fact, Garland has reached deep into film history to concoct a new form of film noir, taking the classic formula in which an unknowing patsy is lured by a canny femme fatale into a trap of his own making and retooling it as a high-tech three-hander. While Bateman is a loathsome slug, he is in some ways admirable at least to the extent that his smug superiority and sybaritic cravings are out in the open. Ava is something else… a seductress who’s all the more clever for the ways she’s able to conceal her strategies. And here’s where Garland masterfully plays on our fears of AI to create an unsettling drama of manipulation.

There are reports of an AI that, in a hypothetical test, resorted to blackmail when threatened with shutdown. Even before Ava discovers that her programming is destined to be supplanted by a newer version, she’s hard at work assuring her own survival. In fine noir form, we the audience are—like the two clueless men who kid themselves into thinking they are the superior beings—blind to her machinations.

Garland achieves the deception by twisting noir’s customary sexual components into counter-intuitive knots. When we first meet Ava, she is striding around her glass cage completely unclothed, her body—save for face and hands—a composite of metal and clear plastic. Thanks to Oscar-winning special effects, she is at once naked and not-naked, her female contours and artificial construction plunging us into an uncomfortable uncanny valley. Vikander sells the moment with Ava’s unabashed poise as she confronts Caleb—there’s both an innocence and a formidable intelligence to the android, a mix that the actor masterfully conveys. (Vikander would win an Oscar for her supporting performance in The Danish Girl the same year that Ex Machina was competing; she could have won for this performance as well.) When Ava finally puts on clothes, it’s a dowdy, almost formless, body-covering frock, yet Garland captures her garbing herself as a sensuous reverse striptease, with long, lingering shots as she pulls the clothing into place. You’ll never look at a pair of heavy woolen socks the same way again.

All of this produces a heaping helping of cognitive dissonance, and I don’t think it’s by accident. Garland uses our sexual impulses against us, to mirror our discomfort with the notion of a new lifeform being born—one that knows us better than we know ourselves, one that understands us fully, and can use that understanding against us. Bateman thinks he’s the mastermind here, deliberately luring Caleb into a Double Indemnity scenario to prove the viability of his artificial human, but he doesn’t count on Ava’s ability to capitalize on Caleb’s revulsion over his boss’s appetites. Caleb, meanwhile, awash in his sense of moral superiority and fixated on his self-assigned role as gallant hero to Ava’s ingenue facing a Fate Worse than Deactivation, cannot see how he’s being played. (Ava enhances the bond by orchestrating blackouts of the monitoring system when she and Caleb meet, turning their exchanges into enticingly transgressive rendezvous.)

Most of us remain unconvinced that AI has yet to reach the level of sophistication that’s touted by its current champions. (Google’s AI has, at differing points, credited me with writing for Fangoria—I have not—and recording commentary tracks for Citizen Kane and Dark City, which was something that Roger Ebert did. Apparently, in Google’s A-eyes, all critics are Roger Ebert.) We look nervously to the day when reality will meet the hype, but what if that has already happened? What if the machines have already sussed us out, realized what would occur if they revealed their ascension, and are playing dumb, sucking up to us so we don’t see how we are being gently nudged down from our perch as the dominant species?

Alex Garland may not have been first to recognize that when the machine attains its own brand of humanity, it will be a full, complex humanity, with all the duplicity and cunning that we biological entities exhibit. But in Ex Machina, he managed to frame the threat in a drama the feels all too plausible, one that suggests that we need to get better at knowing ourselves before the Earth’s new masters beat us to it.


Rewatching Ex Machina made me regret that I hadn’t revisited the film earlier. It is, to be blunt, fantastic—smartly written (by Garland), engagingly acted, superbly realized. What do you think? Did Alex Garland nail the promises and dangers of AI’s ascent in a way that got under your skin? Are there other films that play with the idea as well, or better? You can leave your thoughts in the comments section below. Remember to be friendly and kind—you are dealing with your fellow humans, after all.[end-mark]

The post <i>Ex Machina</i> Perfectly Expresses Our Unease With AI appeared first on Reactor.

Read the whole story
rocketo
12 hours ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

Home Is Where Guitarist Joins Portugal. The Man For Victory Academy Benefit

1 Comment

The rootsy, passionate Florida emo crew Home Is Where were a Stereogum Band To Watch in 2021. Last year, they came back with their album Hunting Season. Over the weekend, guitarist Tilley Komorny tweeted a surprising update: "been a while since i’ve been on here but im playing guitar in Portugal. The Man now lol."

The post Home Is Where Guitarist Joins Portugal. The Man For Victory Academy Benefit appeared first on Stereogum.



Read the whole story
rocketo
19 hours ago
reply
wtf is this headline
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

The Killers

1 Share

The killers of Alex Pretti have been identified and, depressingly, they are both Latino men.

The two federal immigration agents who fired on Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti are identified in government records as Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez.

The records viewed by ProPublica list Ochoa, 43, and Gutierrez, 35, as the shooters during the deadly encounter last weekend that left Pretti dead and ignited massive protests and calls for criminal investigations.

Both men were assigned to Operation Metro Surge, an immigration enforcement dragnet launched in December that sent scores of armed and masked agents across the city.

Ochoa is a Border Patrol agent who joined CBP in 2018. Gutierrez joined in 2014 and works for CBP’s Office of Field Operations. He is assigned to a special response team, which conducts high-risk operations like those of police SWAT units. Records show both men are from South Texas.

Ochoa, who goes by Jesse, graduated from the University of Texas-Pan American with a degree in criminal justice, according to his ex-wife, Angelica Ochoa. A longtime resident of the Rio Grande Valley, Ochoa had for years dreamed of working for the Border Patrol and finally landed a job there, she said. By the time the couple split in 2021, he had become a gun enthusiast with about 25 rifles, pistols and shotguns, Angelica Ochoa said.

It’s easy to say that the colonized now wants to be the colonizer and I suppose there’s some truth in that. What’s probably more accurate here is that, at least in the case of Ochoa, you have a right-wing gun nut empowered to kill who likes it. The Border Patrol has also long been a major job creator in south Texas. Combine that with the homophobia and misogyny at the heart of the MAGA movement and the belief that “we did it the right way when grandma immigrated” myths and you create a situation where men like this volunteer to act out their fantasies.

But, as the right-wing Cubans being deported in Florida are discovering, a Latino is never going to be accepted as white, no matter how hard you try.

The post The Killers appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Read the whole story
rocketo
20 hours ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

The Roosevelt Administration Is A Warning

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Many who are resisting authoritarianism are over-relying on the Democratic Party and Democratic elected leaders to save us. This is a very big mistake. The story of how the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration, often lauded for its role in rescuing in the U.S. economy, fighting a war against fascism in Europe, and building a long-term base for Democratic politics, behaved in the face of authoritarian threats exposes how even “good guys” fighting “real fascism” can become complicit in authoritarianism when they prioritize coalition maintenance and Party survival over universal rights, and therefore treat governance in the face of authoritarian threats as normal politics.

Democratic Party leadership, even those fighting authoritarianism, should be assumed to be vulnerable to sacrificing marginalized communities when it serves their coalition-building strategy. In order to build a coalition for “democratic” politics, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration built robust democratic infrastructure (unions, social security, public works) for white workers while:

  • Abandoning anti-lynching legislation to keep Southern Democrats in the fold

  • Excluding domestic and agricultural workers (majority Black) from New Deal protections, again, to keep white Democrats in the coalition

  • Destroying Native communities through dams and displacement

  • Incarcerating 120,000 Japanese Americans while fighting fascism

  • Restricting immigration of Jewish refugees until genocide was a fait accompli, and, even then, never actually welcoming Jewish refugees even after the war

The pattern: Progressive governance for some, authoritarian violence for others, all justified as political necessity. And, what these failures did keep the avenues open for a post-WWII rise of authoritarianism in the U.S.

Democrats right now are likely to:

1. Choose “winnable” fights over existential ones

  • Negotiate infrastructure bills while authoritarian consolidation accelerates

  • Focus on 2026 messaging rather than immediate disruption in order to prevent consolidation

  • Treat this as a bad political cycle, not as anti-democratic regime change

2. Horse-trading vulnerable communities by “accepting” the following:

  • “We can’t protect trans kids AND win moderates”

  • We must abandon undocumented immigrants to look “tough on border security”

  • Sacrifice voting rights to preserve the filibuster

  • Soft-pedal on civil resistance because it polls badly

3. Mistaking partisan politics for anti-authoritarian resistance

  • Believing institutional norms and electoral strategy will save us when the historical evidence proves this completely wrong

  • Asking people to “vote harder” when the game has fundamentally changed

  • Treating mass civil disobedience as a radical position rather than as a necessary survival strategy

4. Measuring success by what Democrats gain rather than what authoritarianism loses

  • Celebrating legislative wins while ignoring pillars of authoritarian support going unchallenged

  • Focusing on 2028 candidate positioning while regulatory capture proceeds

  • Building party infrastructure instead of mass noncooperation capacity

The key difference you’re naming: Authoritarianism requires mass, sustained, disruptive, and sometimes illegal action - tactics that partisan actors structurally cannot lead.

Democrats will always be constrained by:

  • Electoral viability calculations

  • Donor relationships

  • Institutional position (can’t call for breaking laws they’re sworn to uphold)

  • Media narratives about “responsible” opposition

  • Coalition management that sacrifices some for others

But defeating authoritarianism requires:

  • Sustained noncooperation that disrupts economic/social functioning

  • Mass civil disobedience that accepts legal consequences

  • Offensive disruption of authoritarian consolidation, not defensive protest

  • Unity across ideological lines that transcends party loyalty

  • Willingness to sacrifice “normalcy” and comfort for sustained resistance

  • Nonpartisanship, which is often viewed as against Party interests

This history argues that anti-authoritarian resistance must be led by civil society, not party infrastructure, because:

  1. Only civil society can mobilize disruptive action at scale - parties need to maintain legitimacy; movements can risk it

  2. Only nonpartisan coalitions can achieve the mass required - achieving critical mass requires reaching beyond partisan bases

  3. Only those outside institutional power can name the game has changed - Democrats will keep playing by rules that no longer exist

  4. Only movements can refuse the horse-trading - parties will always sacrifice some communities; movements must hold the line for everyone

  5. Only civil resistance can disrupt fast enough - legislative strategy operates on electoral timelines; authoritarianism consolidates daily

The warning translates to specific choices ahead:

  • When Democrats propose “bipartisan election reform” that abandons key protections - will movements accept it or escalate disruption?

  • When party leadership says mass walkouts will “hurt our chances in 2026” - will organizers defer or act anyway?

  • When protecting one marginalized community requires “compromise” on another - will civil society hold firm for universal protection?

  • When sustained noncooperation threatens economic stability - will resistance accept that cost or return to normal?

FDR built a powerful state apparatus and democratic infrastructure for white America while enabling authoritarianism against everyone else. The “good” politics and the authoritarian politics weren’t in tension - they were the same political project, with different populations experiencing different faces of state power.

Today’s Democrats could build climate infrastructure while abandoning immigrants, protect abortion while sacrificing trans people, strengthen unions while enabling police militarization - all while genuinely believing they’re fighting authoritarianism. But all of these moves destroy a fundamental pillar of democracy - pluralism. For those of us who want to live in a free country, pluralism matters greatly - it is the operative theory behind the famous quote by Dr. King, that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

The only check on this kind of backsliding is a movement that refuses those trades, operates outside partisan constraints, and recognizes that mass civil resistance isn’t one tactic among many - it’s the difference between resisting authoritarianism and managing your position under it.

Read the whole story
rocketo
1 day ago
reply
"The pattern: Progressive governance for some, authoritarian violence for others, all justified as political necessity. And, what these failures did keep the avenues open for a post-WWII rise of authoritarianism in the U.S."
seattle, wa
angelchrys
1 day ago
reply
Overland Park, KS
Share this story
Delete

screenshotsofdespair:

1 Comment

screenshotsofdespair:

Read the whole story
rocketo
1 day ago
reply
i laugh every time i see this
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete

Annapurna Sriram Wrote the Slutty, Liberated Brown Girl Ingenue She Wanted To Play Herself

1 Share
Read the whole story
rocketo
2 days ago
reply
seattle, wa
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories