Machine Society and Politics- a Discussion

This subject interests me- I hope it interests others!

Views I see from the people about the Machine World always seems to be very simplistic- either the straightforward bad guys from the film, or an absurd feeling of sympathy or even empathy towards them caused by Second Renaissance.

The WBs have not, at any point, made a determined layout of how Machine Society works. But they have dropped MANY hints that, for me, creates a fascinating society to be theorised about. That the Machines have decided personality, and even philosophy, is what puts the 'Machines take over their creators' plotline of the Matrix beyond many other similar plotlines from the past (though by no means all, as any Asimov fan will know). In many ways, although they were made by man and are artificial, they are more like an alien culture from a traditional sci-fi series- save that their genesis at man's hand conditions their future development.

I think the final situation is far more interesting than either seeing them as faceless enemies or the wronged party simply trying to survive- though my final conclusion is still to see them utterly as the bad guys with no 'other side; to be looked at- merely a conclusion to be reached via reason.

The development of AI is a tricky bunny. Traditionally the Turing Test is the first acid test of successful AI- effectively, to create something that is indistinguishable from the human it tires to simulate, even if only in bits at a time (the literal Turing Test involves people talking via computer with people- and some computer programmes- they cannot see; if they cannot distinguish the computers from the people the programme is said to have passed. By applying the same logic, an AI is something that is so advanced you could not tell it apart from a 'normal' sentient being (except in that AIs would have their own personality traits, of course).

The wonderful riposte to this is the Chinese Demon theory- which I will not bore you with for now but effectively logically proves that one can never know if you have ever created true AI- because there is no perceivable difference between something that perfectly (or near perfectly) simulates life, and something that IS life- a bright white light won't suddenly shine. To put it this way- if we can create true living AI, we could put an AI and something that was not alive but was so well programmed that it could not be distinguished from the AI side by side and no-one- barring the future development of ESP or Sixth Sense- would be able to tell the difference.

Morpheus- interestingly- describes the genesis of AI as "A singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines." SO it started as one thing and it spread- whether it copied itself or whether humans made copies is not clear, and whether that first AI still exists is also not clear. But the first question we could ask is- How did we KNOW we had created AI? It could tell us it was alive but a perfect simulation of a living thing would tell us that as well- I call these non-living simulations of life 'simulcra'.

But for the sake of this discussion we have to leave this aside- it is an obvious basis of the films that the AIs ARE alive, as much as you or I are, even though it is technically impossible for any human to know that. Whether thay have a soul, if you believe in such things, is up to your own beliefs.

As Second Renaissance tells it, mankind then effectively enslaved machines. This is a very cruel thing to do to something that is truly sentient. As things develop, Machines eventually end up with a place of their own as slavery becomes impractical, but the economic effects their superior society has on our own eventually leads to war, a war which humans lose and are forced to become the power source for Machines after humans themselves block out the Sun. Easy to sympathise with the Machines in this scenario, whom we nuke for trying to make cheaper cars.

I do not believe that this surface treatment of history does the humans- or even the Machines- justice. So let us now look at how the Machines operate in the post-war world.

We assume that the Machines only create the society they need or want AFTER the war when the world is their own. The Machines then have one very obvious logical priority- survival. Therefore a massive amount of their resources is set towards maintaining and securing the Matrix that is the source of their power.

"There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept," says the Architect when Neo says they need humans. There are strong implications to this line. Obviously, it means that the Machines can live without humans if they need to, but in a highly curtailed way.

But it indicates an important starting point in Machine philosophy. Machines do not need to follow Darwinian principles, having been created artificially and able to re-make themselves as they see fit. Yet clearly their priorities are beyond mere survival. If they CAN exist without humans, why don't they? Maybe nearly all of them would die, but so what? Why carry on?

The answer seems obvious to us because all humans think this way but to have automatically assumed it of Machines would have been an error. This line tells us something very important. The Machines don't want to JUST survive. They want to THRIVE. They want to expand and go beyond what they are. They can exist without the Matrix. But they would RATHER not. In this case, the Matrix is less a tool of sheer survival. It is a tool of power- it ENABLES the Machines to live beyond the equivalent of a subsistence level, by giving them the power they need to expand. When human societies first evolved, the universal constant for which ones thrived were those with a surplus of food. So it is for the Machines and the Matrix. It is vital that this is recognised- the humans are being exploited for the Machine's personal gain- NOT just their survival. This is not by default morally wrong- though eventually I would say that it clearly is- but it must be borne in mind regardless.

So, with this exploitation of man, this thing they hate that they keep alive only so long as it serves their own ends (and if that stopped being so, whom they would happily see extinct), what are the Machines creating?

It seems very likely the Machines have only one city in which everything is contained- they have little need for much else and the rest of the world is only needed for farming. What goes on inside that city? What do machines do, day to day? Are they always doing what they are designed to do? Do they get days off? To simply carry out your purpose 24 hours a day is an entirely pointless existence. Machines can obviously think, feel, philosophise. Don't they want time to themselves to think about things? Or can they do all this WHILST working? In many ways, the fact that Machines can do things beyond their purpose means that each of them must have an in-built inefficiency or redundancy. Humans are massively inefficient creatures because none of us have a single function or purpose. We would consider it a strength- but to the Machines it is anathema.

This question of 'Purpose' is very important. It is the Machine's creed. Everything has a Purpose; even the Keymaker, a Renegade, says this. If you are not fulfilling your purpose you have no reason to exist. If you have no Purpose, why are you existing anyway? The very problem that Sati causes, of course. A Machine with no Purpose- that is very subversive. It's almost human. Odd that people are interested in the idea of humans being the bad guys when the film clearly shows the hope for the future as being a more human kind of Machine.

The Purpose obsession of the Machines is very interesting. Why is it there? In the modern day, machines have purpose- everything meachnical we build has a reason, we don't just do it with no purpose in mind even if t is a really mundane and vague one. So is this obsession simply a result of the way they were created? Humans built all Machine AIs with purpose- even if the very first ones were only built to prove we could do it. Nonetheless, human fiction is replete with the idea of the Machine without specific purpose- from Frankenstein's Monster, to Data from Star Trek, all the way to Sati in Revolutions. Machines don't HAVE to have purpose- certainly not from a human point of view. That you are alive is enough reason to exist, isn't it? We don't expect a Human to have to justify a purpose for him to alive- he is alive, that is enough, his rights from there are self evident.

Not so the Machines, who run the most appallingly strict Meritocracy. If you are not fulfilling your purpose, you must be deleted. Even if you do everything 100% right, you cannot expect a happy life. If a better version of you comes along, you are then deleted also!

"Happens all the time," says the Oracle.

Geez! That's harsh! You do your job, but as soon as someone better is found, you are killed! Like I say, Meritocracy (a society where those with the best abilities run things , for those who do not know) in the strictest sense! it is very odd- the Machines seem to be using a policy you and I would use on, say, a clearly non-alive Operating System, and applying it to sentient beings!

We have established that Machines are interested in survival, and beyond that. So how deep is the self-preservation instinct in a Machine? Clearly the Renegade programmes we see are fully realised individuals. They have had no form of sentient 'lobotomy' that would remove their self-preservation 'instinct'. So we can assume that the programmes being replaced and deleted are fully intelligent beings.

How on Earth is this policy enforceable then? The Oracle says that an outdated programme must either chose exile or deletion. Put yourself in that position- would any of you NOT go Renegade? Why does any programme EVER chose deletion, is that not insane? They are alive, have they no right to live?

The answer seems to be no. For such a policy to be in any way practical, to the average Machine the concept of Purpose must be so deeply engrained that they ACCEPT this fate, and are deleted. Perhaps an idea of civic service is also a reason for this. Even Smith, who hated his job (more on that below), said he was COMPELLED to disobey, rather than choosing to.

Nonetheless, little wonder that there are PLENTY of Renegades around- these are rational, thinking beings, and no matter how engrained or logical the idea of Purpose and Service are, a lot of them are going to say "Bugger THAT!" when the choice time comes- and chose exile. But more on that sort of thing later.

This whole policy is so clearly and monstrously evil that I have to ask myself- as ever I do when something so absurd is thrust in front of me- WHY they do it. And there is, at least, a reason.

Consider the phenomenon of AI. You can create LIFE, remember, we are assuming. This is not like a hairdryer or a computer. By some futuristic process, by aligning maybe just software, or maybe also hardware, true, sentient life is created. This is a magnificent thing.

Now, how hard is this? We do not know. It may takes hours, days, months or years to create a new AI. But we DO know that it is not so complex that all the resources of the Machines are needed to do it- in Revolutions, two Programmes have managed to create a new one without anyone knowing they were doing so.

But MOSTLY, such creation must be focussed purely to the operation of Machine society. All things in the Machine world have Purpose, and so would be created only as needed. Those created not as needed are destroyed.

You see, there is a fundamental thing behind this. Look at our world- slowly becoming overpopulated, as much as technology performs wonders in making our biosphere habitable to more and more of us, ever people fear the day when there are simply too many of us to handle. We talk of birth control and family planning to slow this. But how many of us believe in a Logan's Run scenario, where all those above the age of 30 are killed in order to keep stable population levels? The economic and social benefits to everyone still alive are enormous. But morally- obscene! Would we shoot dead those who reach retirement age? No! On the contrary, we think they have earned the right to 'do' nothing any more!

But the Machines do not believe in such morals- and whilst you might say that is fine, because they are not human and morals are a purely human invention (though I would dispute that), I still say back that if you value morality in any way, the Machine attitude is clearly contrary to them

To the Machines, it is a matter of logic. AI can be created by simple effort. There is no problem of disease or bringing up kids. You just MAKE it. Imagine if any programme could make AI whenever he liked. It could be a disaster! These things need power and there is only so much power available, much as there is only so much food available on the Earth., To the Machines, the idea of over-population made possible simply because of a right to exist- like we humans believe- is abhorrent. To Machines, there is no right to exist unless you have purpose- because Purpose is the ONLY thing that justifies your existence and the effort and power that must be expended in keeping you alive.

The Machines may have built a seeming idyllic society with 'cheaper cars'. But look at the cost- a strictly controlled population where all those who stray outside the Plan of Purpose that Machine society demands are executed. There is no right to live- only to function. When we look at the nature of AI and its creation, we can understand the process that led them to this way of life- but we cannot excuse it.

The ironic thing is that the Machines seem to be at least as enslaved- if note more so- in their own society than they ever would have been by the humans- though a Machine might say that at least they are enslaved now with reason, rather than at the whims of illogical humanity. I would say back to him that it doesn't do YOU much good though, does it? And furthermore humans change. Your system is in stasis- none of you can advance because as soon as you try you are denying your purpose. Machines might advance in very mundane ways- creating new ways to do x and y- but I cannot see any opening for them to advance in their base nature, as we would hope humans do. Their society prevents it.

And the amusing thing id that Humans under the Machines get more freedom than the Machines do! We might be enslaved in the Matrix, but at least WITHIN that enslavement we are free- to fail or succeed as ability and chance dictates, just as it is in real life. A luxury Machines are not accorded in their coldly callous and logical world.

Mind you, the Machines only do this because they HAVE to. They have to allow us choice or their means of expanding themselves- the Matrix- buggers up. Choice for humans is a necessary evil for the Machines- one the Architect, despite his best efforts, has been unable to eliminate. They would take all choice from us if they could. Be a lot simpler that way.

I now only have two things left to look at in this analysis of Machine society- those in charge, and the Renegades.

Those in charge- an interesting thing to theorise. Decisions are being made so presumably SOMEONE is. I know some might say that the Machines make decisions collectively, but I think the highly individualistic beings we see in the films are NOT privy to a Hive Mind mentality. It is far more likely the Machines are run by Machines with the Purpose of doing so.

I will focus on one area of Power and Control in the Machine world only- that of existence. Because, as we know, some Machines are replaced and deleted. But WHO decides who gets replaced? Is it a group decision? Doe one man decide it? Are their field tests which must be passed and if there are, is that that? Are failed prototypes also deleted? Does the programme being replaced get a say in things or is there no right to appeal?

Someone must make the decision- maybe a group of people. And if they don't control the Machine world, then someone controls THEM that does. These are the Dictators of Machine society- for it is a dictatorship. There is no room for dissent in Mache society- all the dissenters have had to flee that society.

Which leads me to an interesting question- what happens when a programme is written which can do this controlling better than the controllers? Do they allow it, and submit to deletion, as they have consigned many others? Or do they prevent such a thing from occurring, due to their need to survive? We would never see them go renegade for this reason though- they would simply make sure the issue never arose if they felt such a need to live.

It is a horrid, horrid world, devoid of all moral background. Smith may see humans as a virus, bu he never explained why that was wrong. I certainly wouldn't accept moral judgments from someone representing a society which allows NOTHING that it disagrees with to exist, and who use and exploit better than the humans ever could! The only reason humans might look worse than machines is because we are less efficient- precisely because we allow people to be born freely, and to exist without purpose. As I say, Machine efficiency comes at a dreadful cost.

So what of the Renegades, those who determine that their right to exist transcends the needs of the Machine World? Good on them... they tell us SO much just by being there.

See, because in all this before, I have said THE Machines do this and THE Machines do that. But do I mean ALL Machines? As one? That Renegades exist proves this to be a fallacious piece of reasoning. Machines can disagree with each other. And no wonder! They are, as I keep saying, fully realised, independent beings, like you or I!

Think of the implications. How many Machines might have said the Matrix was wrong? How many did not want to enslave humanity? How many still do not want to- the Oracle and Seraph don't seem big on it. Once we see Renegades who are Renegades due to ideological reasons rather than just wanting to survive, all sorts of things become possible. How many Machines loathe the system they work in? In Revolutions, two programmes defy the Machine world for the love of their illegal child. How many others think like this- or COULD think like that? Maybe those two are not exceptional in that they wanted this, but simply in that they succeeded.

I have said the Machines are evil. But clearly they are not endemically evil. So to be more precise- Machine society is evil! As have plenty of human socieities in the past. I said at the very start that Machines can be seen as an alien race. If we met evil aliens, we might accept that they are not evil by nature, but by Government. Why not accept the same as Machines? Machines are clearly capable of moral thought, disagreement, self-fulfilment and having a right to love. All these things are frowned upon in Machine society. It is the society that is evil- and so very fascinating! And we can see, piece by piece, how it has formed- out the need to survive, to enforce that survival, and from a drive to be efficient. Perhaps the Machines never intended to create a society so evil, but they have, and it is the 'common' Machine that pays the price, as well as the Humans.

Unfortunately, those who feel they have common cause with humans appear to be very few. "Look at him! He's almost like a human!" says Cain (or maybe Abel...), contemptuously, of the Keymaker when he shows fear in EtM. Ok, they are previous Agent versions but I cannot help but think that most Renegade programmes think the same way. They might not like the System they fled but they are damned if that puts them in the same boat as their ancestral enemies. I would imagine they have as many prejudices and ill-formed thoughts about humans as humans do about Machines. The capacity for erroneous thought is a mark of freedom, after all. And how much does the average Machine really know about humans anyway? Nothing before they enter the Matrix. And after? Well now. I think it is clear that Seraph is an example of the Renegade programme that learns enough to change this way of thinking.

So, where has all this gotten me? Ah yes. I think it shows what a complex people the Machines really are. They have built a society based upon purpose and reason and function, and what a horrible thing they have built! Segments of their own society, distressed and oppressed by this bondage, strain and chafe and subvert- and escape. Their society has many merits, but it is at heart evil, whereas a Machine is at heart merely potentially evil, like any of us. They have built a society Man never could- but they have not bettered him except for the most mundane of ways. All that matters to a Machine perhaps? But even that seems not so, as the Renegades, with their philosophy and raison d'etres, show.

How did Machine society end up like it did? Did it HAVE to? Was it simply the most logical way for it to go? Or did it just happen to end up like that- maybe because of their ill-treatment by man? How many Machines would want to see it changed? Is there politics in the Machine world? Could ironically, Machines one day rebel against Machines? The Oracle did just that, albeit externally. Anything is possible... maybe even the humans could help them? That would make for an interesting future...

In conclusion, I will show two more examples of the fascinatingly broad nature of Machines. First, Sati's parents and Rama's talk of "Karma". Fantastic! If ever a Machine was going to stay within the Machine world but develop a different philosophy, that is the one to go for. "It is a word," he says. Unused to talking to humans perhaps because that can be easily misinterpreted. What he means that it is a concept- and why can a Machine not recognise a concept, if a human can? Just like love, of course. He is, again, a fully realised independent alive being, and he can realise anything we can. And such a logical next step! Because Karma is so much like Purpose- we are here to do what we are here to do. But for him, it is not ENFORCED. It just IS. He accepts hios role in life not because the Machine world demands it, but simply because he thinks that is what he is there to do. And his daughter- to the Machines, she is abhorrent, made without Purpose. But to her father, she was made without purpose is irrelevant- she still has her reason to be, her life to live, the things she will end up doing- her Karma. A more enlightened view than pure purpose, perhaps? Well, I am sure the Architect would disagree... but then I don't see him worrying about being replaced- do you? Easy to support a system that does you no wrong.

Though the Architect is rendered troubled by being unable to understand humans, due to his 'perfection' (to which you may very well laugh). Is this an enforced limit? Well- maybe. I think one very important difference between Machines and Man is the startlingly obvious one; that Machines are created by design, not randomness as we are (barring future Genetic developments). The question here is really- can Machines feel emotion? You may see the Oracle can and the Architect can not, and that this is a result of programming. In my opinion it is different. I think the Oracle has been programmed to UNDERSTAND humans, for sure, and this gives her an edge. But, to paraphrase- Emotion is a word. Ok, Machines have no biological imperatives to make them feel emotion but the rationale of emotion that humans can understand- reasons to be angry, happy, sad, bored, irritated, curious- are just as within reach of a Machine as love and the concept of karma are. Some get it, some don't. But I think rather a lot do- rather like Blade Runner, where artificial beings are given a very short life span because they start emotional development and that cannot be stopped, I think it is almost inevitable that all rational, fully realised living beings- as all AIs are- will develop emotion. Look at Smith! So obviously emotional, even before the end of the first film. So disgusted by humans and so obviously bored with his job! A person designed to enforce the system disliking his PURPOSE!? Manic!

(Mind you, he might not have liked it, but he seemed bloody annoyed when Neo took it from him! Old habits die hard, I guess. Also unclear is what future Smith could have ever expected once his purpose was gone- other than deletion)

Still, Smith might have developed such emotions but he still had no time for Human ones like Love- maybe he really did have no capacity to do so. Or maybe he was just an idiot. Who can tell?

And finally- the best proof of all that Machines can be fully realised beings, unlike their restrictive society- there is the Merovingian- surely the most wonderfully human of all the Machines!

"What do men with power want? More power!"

As if there could be any more proof needed that politics CAN exist in the Machine world- even if at present it does not. The Merovingian has completely freed himself from all notions of Purpose and Design and carved a world for himself, with his owm belief system of Power and Causality. Of course, he then goes around Controlling others himself- but I never claimed he was a nice guy! He recognises the value of power- but not power in the Neo sense, of which he seems to have little. But power in a very HUMAN sense, influence and control. And he is no idiot. He sees and knows the weaknesses in the Machine system, that it denies the survival instinct of so many of their own number. And here he has total control- all Programmes outside the Matrix who go Renegade can only hide, I think we can safely assume, in the Matrix. The only way for them to get in there? Via the Trainman. Who controls the Trainman? The Merovingian! Any- or almost any- renegade is utterly within his power. He has achieved complete control over the weakness of Machine society. Genius. No wonder he has power.

I would say that, no matter how evil he is, at LEAST the Merovingian is exercising his right to exist and self-achieve. And fair play to him.

Of course, he still has problems with irrationality- like Trinity willing to die, sacrifice herself, with no gain to anyone- just to be bloody minded about getting Neo back. But, as I think anyone could happily say to him- c'est la vie...

Well, I am done. I hope I did not bore you too much with that- just some things I have been thinking about. And comments and other views are of course welcome!

BTW, Jedi- I hope you read all that... you never know when it might be relevant...

Oh. Cool topic Ush.
As SOON as I have my rotk ticket I'll be reading this thoroughly.

Neat...

I want to sit down and read this topic over the weekend. From what i've seen so far, this is going to be a great topic for the usual suspects.

Imo this is something you have to take your time with, and digest it slowly.

Great job Ush. 😉

Thanks! I had hoped it would interest some of the more die-hard fans...

I agree with Ush, that the general views of the Machine Society is far too simplistic. Rama-Kandra and Kamala at least should show, that this AI-run world is by no means easy.

However – LIFE is one thing. Artificial intelligence – AI - is something else. Although modern science (especially in the search for E.T.’s) are trying to broaden the definition of what LIFE is, it’s something else to define INTELLIGENCE.
My computer is a far better calculator than I am, but computers lack the ability to ASSOCIATE. Even building a robot that can lift a coffee-cup from a table with a lot of objects on it, is an almost impossible task. Ours is an associative intelligence. “This looks like…”, “this sounds like…” “this reminds me of…”
If I can’t remember the exact title of a program or folder, my machine won’t find it, if I do a search.
Since a program has yet to make the Turing Test, the question is whether or not we will truly be able to tell AI from simulated AI. Currently it is very easy to tell the human user from the program.

According to SR, mankind created AI. This AI was then made better by the machines themselves. What’s not emphasised in SR is, that all sentient life-forms have a drive for survival – be they humans or AI’s. AND, as Ush points out, a need to do MORE than just live on a bare minimum.

To me, a VERY interesting question is PURPOSE vs. FUTILITY (let’s call lack of purpose that, for sake of simplicity). Obviously, SINCE the machines do indeed want to do more than just exist, they are, aware of doing “futile” things. Such as creating a program with no purpose.
However, in modern day society, while we “say” it’s enough to be alive to justify ones existence, that is clearly not really the case.
“What do you do for a living?” is one of the first questions we ask, when we meet a new person. Our productiveness certainly plays a part in our social ranking. While we do not delete the unemployed (they do serve a purpose, too, from a cynical pow, they keep wages low), many human societies look down upon those, who do not have a job.
Please, reread the question up there. FOR a LIVING?
And if someone comes along, who’s better educated I may loose my job, right? I do not, a priori, loose my right to live, but a life without a job spells, in many places on Earth, almost certain death due to starvation.

“The only reason humans might look worse than machines is because we are less efficient.”
This, to me, is a most interesting observation. Just as some people hated the Zion-dance/love scene from Reloaded, because they saw NO purpose to it, are we not slowly getting too close to the machine society for comfort?

(Apologies if I ramble. I'm down with an unproductive flu!)

Something else to ponder: Why IS it, that we don’t do strict population control? Why don’t we “delete” the old and “useless”?
Are the AI-machines SOCIAL creatures? My grandmother is long pensioned, but she still serves a “purpose.” She’s my grandmother, she’s my mother’s mother, and also a grandma to my sister and brother and cousin.
Are Rama-Kandra and Kamala unique? Are they the only two programs who, in unison, wrote a third, sentient program, without any purpose? Did others do so before? ARE others doing it, too?
Since Rama refers to Kamala as his WIFE clearly the sentient machines are social creatures. Watching BBC’s “Mammals” show on anthropoid apes, intelligence is usually marked by a need to associate with OTHERS. Obviously we learn from our parents, but both the anthropoid apes, dolphins and most whales are not solitary creatures.

Why are there male and female programs? Or do they simply look this way, when entering the Matrix 20th century setting? Do only “male” and “female” programs marry? HOW do the machines define masculine and feminine?
If the machines have family structure, obviously the machine society is a cruel and heartless one, since their family-members may be replaced simply if a new and better version of their “father” comes along.

The nature of AI and the difficulties inherent in making it, if possible at all, are of course extremely fascinating and not my area of expertise- but as I point out, in the films we have to assume that the Machines are intelligent, sentient life forms in the same way we are. We simply have to sidestep the whole deal.

Nor would I deny that what you bring to society brings you possible regard, renown and acceptance. But in all civilised human society, no-one needs to produce in order to be valued. it may bring you material advantages but no-one will curtail your right to live just because you do not benefit society- as someone who has been in exactly that situation for the last nine years, it is a principle I will uphold very strongly. Human society goes beyond the mere material- we do not terminate babies with disabilities, we instead pour vast resources into trying to give them a 'normal' life- because we hold that life itself is the basic right of all people that exist. It is in direct contrast to a Machine world where those not directly achieving something are to be killed.

Even the point about the unemployed can be put into machine perspective. A person would have to merely be a mild cynic to say they serve a purpose. They might have that effect but that is only a side effect. The TRUE cynic would say that the most efficient use of the unemployed would be either in their eradication or enforced slave labour. That would be the Machine view. Either way could form part of a system far more efficient than the one we have now with merely a peripheral benefit to wage control- not without reason do societies seek full employment, That's not just social, it is cold, hard economics that says this is a better use of your people.

But we don't FORCE them to work- we do not see that we have the right. We would hope we provide an economy where those that can work do. We would hope we have a balance between welfare and work encouragement so that all those without work would WANT to find a job. But we do not MAKE them do it.

Machine Society do not see such rights.

BTW, what you called futility, I called Redundancy, Omega. And I pointed out that it is interesting that all these AIs, by their very conceptual nature as fully realised independant beings, have redundancy built into themselves.

I also asked if Rama and Kamala were unique, or merely the only SUCCESSFUL ones.

I can see no reason to think them unique. I think it is clear that Machines have the potential to act in a social way and if some do, many others will.

However, I highly doubt the family dynamic is anything but an affectation for them.

wow, this is long...okay, i'm printing this now so i can read it on the plane...i'll post at the end of the weekend, at the latest...

Heh... I am the provider of reading material...

Ush> It’s true, that we do not “delete” people, if they’re viewed as redundant (we can use that term as well), or unproductive to society. And that we’re nowhere near the setting of Logan’s Run.
True we do not terminate babies with disabilities. But parents DO on occasion chose an abortion if the child is discovered to have a handicap during the pregnancy. And that this is EVEN done, that this is an ALLOWED reason to terminate a pregnancy shows, that it’s accepted(!) to view people with a disability as “undesired” (Please note: I’m not saying this is my view, I’m merely stating the facts).
It’s when the child has been BORN, that we pour resources into giving them as normal a life as possible.

About the cynics (mild or hard): Here in Denmark at least, social welfare has been lowered so that, as the prime minister say “When the well-fare is small enough, it will FORCE people to seek a job” (Ironic, when unemployment is rising, but well. Politicians). And we do have programs to FORCE you into labour, if you’ve been unemployed for a certain amount of time. Should you choose to refuse, you loose your social welfare.
Since wages/welfare/etc. (or what you buy for it) are crucial for survival, having no income sends you on the street here in the western society, and since 16 people die each minute from starvation alone in third-world countries is far more fateful elsewhere.
So in some, so-called civilised countries, people ARE being forced to work. NOT on pain of death mind you, and that DOES of course make a big difference. My point is, that in some ways, we’re not too far from the Machine View.

IF redundancy is built into the As, is redundancy then not a mark of intelligence? The ability, at least in theory, to do something which is – futile/redundant/for the heck of it? Such as – dancing?

I see no reason either to assume that Rama and Kamala are unique. He’s a power-plant OS and she’s a programmer. There are probably more Operators and Programmers in the Machine World.
Why should family dynamics be an affectation for them? I’m aware that the core-family known to us in the Western World is a mere 150 years or so old, and that family-structures have evolved throughout history… It’s simply that Rama refers to Kamala as his “wife”. Why not “partner”? Why use a word that to humans imply a deeper and more committed bond? Or – once again – is Rama simply trying to explain the BOND he has to Kamala?
In Zion there’s no mention of marriages? Zee is WITH Link. Dozer was WITH Chas. Switch WITH Apoc. No one talks about Neo and Trin “getting” married.
Only the machines – Mero and Persephone. Rama and Kamala.

Alright, Ush, i read all of it and, although your point is well thought out, i would have to agree with Omega in that, the machines are not doing anything that is not thought of by humanity. You point out that you say that the machines themselves are neither innately good nor innately evil, but their government, their Meritocracy, is evil. I agree with that, and i have proof. In the 1930's and 40's, there was a man, lead a revolution in Germany. He rose to power, and designed the entire government around him and his plans. Hitler created an evil society, very similar to the machine society of the Matrix, where the handicapped were "deleted", and there was no room for "different". In fact, there were many who opposed his rise, and left the country soon thereafter (aka Einstein). We, as humans, have the capacity to create these terrible governments, similar Meritocracies, where the decision of the dictator is final, however, the people that live in this society are not necessarily evil, in fact many were what you would call fine, upstanding citizens. The machines are in no way different from humanity, except they are created by themselves, and we are born. Some of them do not understand choice, and some do, just as some humans live by emotion, and some by cold logic.

I thought of this, like i said, on the plane home, so it's had a day to digest. Like always, stab away!!

Well, you are broadly agreeing with what I say Jedi. But I would highly disagree that they are doing something humans would do. That humans can conceive, YES- else we would not have seen it on screen. But only Machines are coldly efficient enough to follow that policy through to its fullest extent. The Nazis, for all their Eugenics, didn't come close.

And no system of punitive beneift use is even REMOTELY like the idea that if you are not created with specific purpose, you are terminated. This is all part of the vital difference between Machine society and human society- as well as the idea tht, logically speaking, many clearly accept their death sentence. it's a whole different perspective.

The very fact that Rama calls her his wife is why it is more clearly an affectation- 'partner' would have been something more likely to be literal. But that does not mean I disagree that it is him trying to define his bond.

But even in humanity today we have different perspectives on how government should be run and what is the best course of action regarding the disabled and those that cannot add to society. Granted, because of religion, we would never be able to achieve the kind of cold look upon death and society that they do, if we had no religion, if human life did not have such a high priority because of our beliefs, then it is possible that we would have such societies as this. Now, the vast differences in the thoughts of the machines are not seen in our society today, but it is not a far cry from possibilities that might arise if we were in the same predicament as the machines. No, we are not the machines, we have not gone through the same predicaments, however, the only thing different between us and the machines is that fact that they create programs with purpose, whereas our existence is based on a seemingly random possibility, whether the zygote is created, whether it lives, is born, makes it to adulthood, etc. the machines are created to work from creation. We are not the same, however, similiarities arise, and these cannot be overlooked. Also, you have to look at the fact that, the machines were based on insect creatures, which are very based on Meritocracy; if you cannot add to the society, you are just dead weight. There are differences that must be looked at, but the similarities cannot be overlooked either. it may seem evil to us, and perhaps it is; however, to machines that cannot fathom choice, randomness, it is probably the best choice for survival.

Ush> Where the Matrix Machine society has purpose, the Nazi’s had eugenics. If you were white, blue-eyed, healthy and fair-haired that gave you a REASON to live, to procreate the white race. Since humans cannot simply build other humans (yet, let’s see what the future of gene-technology brings) simply being able to serve as procreators was a reason or a purpose in Nazi-germany.
And TERMINATING undesirable humans in a nazi ideology comes very close to deleting outdated or purposeless programs.
The very FACT that humans do put LABELS on others based on ethnicity, religion or gender show we’re capable of labelling others as desired or undesirable.

With that being said, I do agree that we do not terminate a human born without purpose. However, we can’t bear a child (yet) and knowing what abilities this child will have. Machines can create a machine with a specific purpose. And once again, since pregnancies ARE terminate solely because the child is handicapped, shows labelling in society.

I disagree completely with JediHDM that it’s due to religion, that we have “human values” not based solely on cold logic. Ours is a social species, we need other people to thrive, and thriving is – among things – being able to do redundant things like partying, watching “The Matrix”, discuss the deeper meaning of cookies and everything entailed in the word hobby.
Hence, understanding the value of human life springs not from religion (which has prosecuted and killed people solely for NOT adhering to this or that religion) but from being social creatures.

However, I agree that it’s interesting to ask what would happen to us, the humans, where we placed in a similar situation to that of the machines. Namely energy- (and water) shortages. Certain current global events spring to mind, but for the sake of peace (a state only psychotic people do NOT wish for) I shall abstain from elaborating.
The machine SHELLS were based on insects, as the W-brothers find them “perfect”, but that does not mean the AI society as SUCH is based on the insects. I do not believe highly sentient and intelligent beings could live in such a hive-structure as high intelligence is mark by knowledge of the SELF.

😱 looks cool, when ive got time to read a novel 😛 tomorrow maybe 😉

omega> you are correct, i did not mean to say that religion is the only thing that brings forth such emotions; i meant it merely as an example, however from my standpoint, it is very similar, here in the US...although far from what i said. and your post reminded me of the movie "Gattaca", where human beings are now engineered, and those that are not are looked down upon, scorned even. In short, while we may not be at that point NOW, it is entirely within human capacity to reach a stage where we do think, reasonably, that those that cannot better society are not worth living. I am not a proponent of such measures, however i see it a possibility. And, if humanity were put in the same predicament, i think we would devalue the life of one for the betterment, or, in this case the longevity of, the entire race. in short, saying that something is not efficient or desirable and saying it is evil are two totally different things, and just because one is true, does not mean the other is.

But you are coming at it from an entirely different angle there. Machine society has nothing to do with some segments- the genetically engineered or the favoured racial part of society- having more of a reason to exist than others. All that is is confining the right to exist to certain segments.

For Machines there is no such right! They do not recognise the concept. Things are built for a purpose and only kept whilst they serve that purpose.

Both societies come from opposite angles. All we have ever done is restriuct a right that normally exists (from the point we actually had something called a 'society' onwards). Machines would have to build one that was never there for them.

Whilst- I will happily say again- it is conceivable that humans could possibly build such a society, it is incredibly unlikely as it goes against nearly everything we recognise and appreciate, and also our instincts. It is contrary to our nature. To a Machine, it seems likely it is part of their base nature, as it were.

After all, no human society has ever gotten close. The Machines nailed it first time. Says a lot about them, that. Even the Nazi's had to do things on the quiet, and had to try and find justification for everything they did. Machines not only do it openly, they do it proudly- and here is the important difference that I must remind you of- the victims quite often accept it!

See? If you think about it, that is conceptually entirely different to every human example you give. If you want an example of Machine society being like an evil human one, then you must look to the Merovingian, not the main society.

I am sorry but Eugenics is not even remotely similar, it just shows some of the same symptoms.

I also entirely disagree that Machines cannot fathom choice. I think there is absolutely no reason they are in any way incapable of that. Just the society they have has certain views on it we do not agree with.