Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Movies Media

AI Movie Promo 165

An AC sends: "I recently stumbled upon one of the coolest movie promotions I have ever seen. If you download the trailer and notice the second frame of credits is "Sentient Machine Therapist-Jeanine Salla". Searching for this on leads to a plethora of pages seemingly outlining some fictional murder mystery having to do with robots. For those of you who are too lazy to follow this trail yourselves, Ain't It Cool News has a list of most of the links." The trend of seeding the web with fictitious pages about your movie/product/whatever appears to be catching on, and this movie has really gone off the deep end. Was X-Men the first one to do this?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AI Movie Promo

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Uh...hello, Blair Witch Project pioneered this.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    THANK YOU. At least some of us around here use a real OS.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Fuck, are you still here? 6 [] 9 [] 8 []

    But really. Are you this clueless? People who dismiss the possibility of replicating human intelligence in machine obviously never met you.

  • Can property like "Pokemon: The Movie 3" really even be considered 'intellectual'?

    - A.P.

    Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?

  • by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @07:03PM (#292456) Homepage
    It is based on a story by someone who is not Asimov called "Supertoys last all summer long". It was published in Wired once, try their site.

  • by pb ( 1020 )
    The trailer for *what*?

    Is the thing in the second frame the name of the movie?

    How about a link to the IMDB instead?

    Christ. If this is journalism, then I'll just read M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead for news.

    P.S. Whatever the codec is for that .AVI, it's unsupported in XAnim. So could you please just *tell* me something about the movie in a coherent fashion this time?
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [].
  • by pb ( 1020 )
    Yea, I found it, eventually. No help from slashdot, though. A.I. is such a generic term that "AI Movie Promo" doesn't help me. I mean, shit, that could be "Short Circuit 3", for all I know.

    You're right about that movie file: "Sorensen Codec, Unsupported"

    The IMDB has links to different trailers, as well. But I already posted a link to the official site, and if Slashdot can't be bothered to tell people WTF they're reporting on, then I sure as hell can't be anymore...
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [].
  • by pb ( 1020 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @05:49PM (#292459)
    A search on IMDB actually found an "A.I." movie.

    And they at least bothered to link to the official site [].

    But really. Is that too much to ask?
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [].
  • I have yet to see them try to strip me of my freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    They are already trying to take away our fair use rights. Maybe you don't mind losing your rights as long as it's done a little at a time, but losing that right would just establish another bad precedent that they will use to take away even more from us. But I'm sure you'd rather just not think about it. Go see Joe Dirt or something.

  • Whoa.... I never said anything about a moral imperative to boycott. I personally believe that what the RIAA and MPAA are doing is very very wrong, but I never said anything resembling what you seem to think that I believe. You did misquote the other poster though. He said "strip US ALL of our freedoms", not "strip US OF ALL our freedoms." There is a significant difference there. I have to agree with his actual statement though. They are trying to strip us of our freedom. Maybe they haven't gone far enough yet to worry you. Well.. it's plenty far to worry me and a lot of others. With any luck they'll never make the changes stick and things will be fine. If not, then maybe you'll get worried later. Hope it will be soon enough to make a difference.

  • it's a shame that it seems to register so high on the list of so many people here when there are (again IMHO) much more important rights and freedoms being infringed.

    Such as? I take any infringements on my rights seriously. This just happens to be one of the most serious infringements that I'm aware of. It could have a significant impact on me. There are many others that I'm concerned about as well. Most of them haven't been killed by a law or court decision yet though as fair use has. I'd like to know what rights and freedoms you ARE concerned about. Care to clue me in?

  • I live in a state that doesn't recognize same-sex partnerships.

    While I don't like this, I don't think it can be considered a violation of your rights. I also am not convinced that it rises to the level of a human rights violation. You're talking about a right that has never existed in the history of this country. While I agree that you should have this right, I don't see it as a case where the government is taking away a right. It just hasn't gotten to the point where it acknowledges such marriages as a legal event. There are some tricky legal problems that will have to be dealt with, but I think those will get worked out. Like any of the rights movements in our history, I think this one is worth fighting for, and I believe that it will ultimately be successful.

    I live in a state where, if you're a black driver on the turnpike, you're much more likely to get pulled over.

    I can't really argue with this one. It's a serious problem. It's probably one of those things that will take a long time to fix. I'm not sure how much of it is caused by racism in the cops and how much is just them doing their job. While black people are stopped more often than anyone else, black people also commit a disproportionate amount of the crime. I happen to think that racism is largely to blame for their situation in the first place which is often why they end up committing crimes. It's a vicious circle, and that's why I don't think this is something that will be cured anytime soon. But we should definitely be doing what we can to chip away at it.

    I live in a state where students are being sent home for wearing religious symbols in school.

    Sounds like overzealous administrators again. It's an epidemic. People go berserk and demand that administrators eliminate any and all possibility of harm to students from the schools. Administrators have no idea how to comply with these demands. So they end up stamping out individualism in any form they can recognize and write a rule for. I think the law is pretty clear that while schools are not supposed to advocate any religion, they are also not required to prevent students from acknowledging their religion. IMO, they shouldn't be having student-lead (or anybody-lead) prayers at school events. There is no need to subject everybody at the event to the religion of one faction, regardless of how large that faction might be. On the other hand, there is no need to prevent students from praying or performing any other religious practice in school as long as it does not create a disturbance. Nor should students be prevented from wearing religious symbols, whether it be a cross, star, pentagram, etc. I think that the courts will act sensibly in these cases. People in general are another matter though.

    I live in a world where thousands of children have recently been sold into slavery.

    Since this is outside the country, I can't really form much of an opinion on how it should be dealt with. I think there are very few Americans with access to all the necessary information to make an informed decision about how we should deal with such issues. Sad, but true.

    Anyway, I agree with you that there are other issues we should be concerned with. Some that are more serious than copyright laws. But I also don't think that we should just work on one problem at a time. There are many many people working on any given problem. You simply have to contribute what you can in the areas where you have something to offer. Most people don't have a clue about copyright. You can tell that just by reading the majority of posts here to any story about it. I've decided that it's one area that I am fairly well informed and where I can at least help to inform and persuade others and badger my congresscritters about it. As far as I know, that's what people do when they want something changed in this country. It's just a question of how to get the information out to everybody without it being twisted or corrupted along the way. I do believe it is a serious issue though, even though it currently gets characterized by the media as an issue of whether or not people should be able to download free music or not. I guess that doesn't surprise me.

  • "Ghaepetto" (nice allusion) has gotta be a code name for the web project, or maybe something or someone from the movie that i couldn't dig up.

    You're going to kick yourself.

    Think Geppetto, from Pinocchio. "I want to be a real boy."

    Are you moderating this down because you disagree with it,
  • Perhaps nobody's been paying attention to sites like 'Coming Attractions', but the movie 'A.I.' is based on a story by Brian Aldiss; there's no way of knowing what they've done in the script, to be sure, but it's difficult to ask for a better pedigree. The trailer for the movie is certainly sentimental--but it's also enigmatic and uninformative (deliberately, one assumes).

    I think people are jumping the gun a wee bit when they say, "Oh, the robot boy in the movie wants to be real so that means the movie will suck." When the movie comes out it may not be the story you (or I) would have told, but that doesn't mean it might not be a perfectly interesting story.

    I speak with a certain amount of bias, I'll grant: I wrote an unfinished novel, a third of which saw print in a small press 'zine, a decade ago called In Our Image which dealt with very similar themes to the ones that 'A.I.' appears to be tackling. I used genetic engineering, and what David Brin fans would call uplifted animals. But the idea of a created, nonhuman race living among humans and with little more rights than other animals was there. The character in my story, Tara, didn't want to "become real"--but she wanted to be treated like a person. In context, I suspect those two desires are pretty similar. My story certainly had tear-jerking elements, but the storyline wasn't "Lifetime for Women," I don't think. And the hints of the storyline for 'A.I.' revealed in the websites are not fluffy and cheerful.

  • actually, you can read .wmv files in linux with mplayer.
  • And yet computers 30 years from now will still not be able to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time. This will remain the single biggest obstacle to "artificial intelligence" until such time as we have asynchronous computers. Asynchronous computers will have a level of randomness, caused by varying quantum delays in transister gates throught the processor, resulting in computers being able to mimic true creativity.

    Then, and only then, will computers stand a chance of solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time in a fashion similar to the way real intelligence can.
  • Yeah, it's funny how pretty much an identical submission ended up in Plastic [] a day ot two ago.

    Charles Miller

  • You missed Daniella []. Note that many of the records have and the typically Hollywood phone number of 555-1234... good indication of something fishy.

    Overall it's some good design work, much better than a lot of the other webverts. Speaking of which, has anyone managed to crack dunotech's employee access page yet? or do y'all suppose they'll make us wait till the movie is out? Trying to wget the page the form posts to results in a 302.
  • That's what he meant by "nice allusion", I think. :)
  • In your list, right before ARM, you have Anti Robot Militia. Something tells me that ARM does not stand for Amalgamated Regional Militia, but rather Anti Robot Militia.
  • ...humans will never give software enough scope to achieve consciousness and real life...

    This is a huge assumption and probably a giant over-generalization of your own beliefs. Several research projects have already exposed their code to the web, and even a few others (like this []) have exposed them to day-to-day human life. Suddenly, our "limited hardware labs at Universities and other research centers" aren't that limited. The very fact that some future AI has access to this conversation could be the spark of self-awareness.

  • But there's nothing WRONG with advertising... especially not advertising that is as fun as this is. Once you start tracking through the bits and pieces you get caught up in them. It's tremendously entertaining. Start calling the phone numbers, start visiting the webpages. Not that gaurentees a good movie, but it does assure that they're heart is in the right place (meaning that there's a much better chance for a good movie).

    The last time I was this excited about the ads for a movie before it came out and before I knew anything about the film was The Matrix. Just a thought.


  • by DoorFrame ( 22108 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @08:23PM (#292476) Homepage
    Sorry, here are there codes:

    (212) 502 1177 (type in laia)
    (919) 425 2310 (type in chan)


  • by DoorFrame ( 22108 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @07:30PM (#292477) Homepage
    here are all the secret phone numbers you can call to get more steps into the story... if you so desire:

    503 321 5122 (weird ass woman... # from trailer call first)
    212 502 1177 (evan chan's distraught wife)
    919 425 2310 (nancy re: the funeral)
    212 613 1680 (living homes designs)


  • ...and you think that one of these ten billion brain cells interconnected with dozens or even hundreds of others responding to many different electrical and chemical stimuli in complex ways equals one byte?

    I think it will be a long time before we even have the raw storage of the human brain available in a single computer... and much longer before the extreme level of interconnectedness among the elements of this storage can be simulated. Let's not forget, no one has ruled out that the brain is not also driven by quantum effects as well.

    Furthermore, even if we did have the memory capacity, the amount of parallel processing going on in the brain would require orders of magnitude more processing power than any one machine has today.

    Now, quantum computers may change this, but right now QC is working on the order of a couple of bits. It, too, has a long way to go.

  • You seem to have not read my post. By what logic do you equate a brain cell with a byte? That seems arbitrary at best. Surely a brain cell is a more complex entity (especially since it is analog) and any kind of mapping between something so complex as a cell and a few bits of binary information must surely be a gross oversimplification with no basis in fact.
  • They had done it quite well, with a professionally designed site that aped the worst of old tv-show fan sites. In and of itself, Travis Latke's Galaxy Quest Vaults [] made for quite an intertaining read. As fun a sendup of fan sites as the movie was of Star Trek.

  • by SMN ( 33356 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @07:48PM (#292481)
    This New York Post article details the extent of AI's advertising campaign:

    And the obligatory hide-the-karma-whoring comment: It may seem like a pretty neat idea, as this story's submitter thought, but look at the message this is sending -- people are so gullible that a massive advertising campaign can make or break a movie. Remember, many websites does not a good movie make. I, for one, will wait until I see the reviews. The last time I saw a movie based on advertising alone, I wound up watching Independence Day. Should have known better =)

  • You were doing fairly well until your last sentence, which is a non-sequitor.

    The problem with AI is the "A" part - Artificial, as in, dependant upon maintenance by its keepers.

    The problem Kurzweil dances around is that AI needs support by humans, but the fact is that humans will never give software enough scope to achieve consciousness and real life in the limited hardware labs at Universities and other research centers. The dream if AI "life" is just that, a mere dream, unless and until the vision expands beyond hidebound academic theory bullshit into some reality. It might take a war to break the self-imposed limits of AI to achieve Artificial Life (AL) that can _live_ in the network and all its servers. This is the stuff of science fiction but I do believe it possible that highly adaptive living software can evolve within our networks and server systems.

    Would you like to know where I think the best work to achieve "Live Software" (LS (c) RAMunro 04/14/2001) will come from? Computer-based games! The new "Black and White" game is a prime example of evolution towards this paradigm. In the current version, the only free actor is the game player, but I expect the space to expand such that the avatar and even inhabitants will have free will, inherent codes of conduct, moral choices, and the ability to make choices based upon fuzzy logic, like real life. Then, and only then, and given development of intelligent software's abilities to manipulate networks to maintain its persistence and consciousness, will we see Live Software arise.

    Otherwise, I hope Kurzweil's right - I'll gladly trade my body for eternal life on an expanding net of systems (when it comes to that, that is). Until then, I prefer living.

  • While I've been a fan of this idea for quite some time, here are the factors that I think limit your hypothesis:

    1. Creating a machine with the "prcessing power of the human brain" (whatever that is) does not imply that it will be intelligent.
    2. We have yet to define where the line between intelligence and sentience is.
    3. We don't yet know how to produce even intelligence (say, on the order of a cat).
    4. It's quite possible that sentience requires a very different kind of computer than we have (e.g. non-Von Neuman architectures). Perhaps one that is based on thousands of very simple associative nodes rather than one big logic-engine. It's possible that we already have computers that equal human processing power, but we're trying to simulate a foriegn architecture in them and losing massive amounts of efficiency.

    Understand that most of this boils down to: we don't know what success is, so we can't measure how far away from it we are. One solid "eureka" may put us 2 years from a true A.I.

    On the other hand we might be as far from that goal as Gallileo was from space-flight.
  • I think that the idea in Hollywood right now (based on BWP and Godzilla among many others) is that a good movie, under-advertised will make less money than a mediocre movie over-hyped. So, when you have a winner on your hands (and certianly A.I. has at least the breeding papers of a winner), you sink at least 5-10% of what you expect it's box-office sales to be into the advertising.

    This makes sound business sense. For all of the Iron Giants and Fight Clubs that you fail to advertise correctly or to the correct audience, you get a handful of Jurasic Parks, Titanics and Matricies which blow the doors off of your profit margins and convince your stock holders that you are doing the right thing by them.

    I'm not saying it's the best system, just that it makes sense.
  • What we need then is a way to check when we have reached human intelligence. I agree that turing test its not a very good test, in the sense that is a sufficient test but not a necesary one. If a machine can pass turing test, well, then probably we could say that it has a similar level of intelligence to that of a human.

    A friend of mine was one of the first to write an IRC bot. He just took the Eliza engine from EMACS and tied it into the IRC API.

    Oddly enough there were dozens of people who got into far-flung arguments with it. In this respect Eliza passed the Turing Test.

    Then again, in MMORPGs, I've been accused of being a computer program....

    The Turing Test relies on one assumption, which I think is invalid, that human intelligence knows how to identify human intelligence. It's a nice thought excercise, but it does not work very well.

    You can emulate non-boolean logic with standard computers, and probably it will be necesary to use non boolean logic (e.g. fuzzy logic) to create an AI.

    Ok, now you're just pulling buzz-phrases out of your hat. Fuzzy Logic is the study of case statements with (or sometimes without) knowledge of one or more previous cases. This is not a new kind of logic, much though some would want us to think so. When I refer to non-traditional computing, I am refering to computing where, for example, associations build inference, from which comes reason without logic. This can be simulated on traditional hardware (in a way, that's what most neural nets are), but it's klunky because it uses a computer in the least efficient ways (makeing little or no use of registers, not pipelining well, etc).

    Hopefully the future will see machines that do this sort of thing better, but I would not count on it being in the next 10 years.

    For me its a problem of processing power.

    That, I suspect, is becuase you have not spent the last 30 years in the AI field like, say, Minsky. Go ask him if AI is a matter of brute force processing power, I think you'll get a resoundingly negative response.
  • by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs AT ajs DOT com> on Saturday April 14, 2001 @12:40PM (#292486) Homepage Journal
    you also have the technology called "intrusive/non-intrusive brain scanning", which, according to ray, would allow us to "download" our brain structure into computers. Yeah, I considered the idea a bit weird too when i read it.

    It's not that it's a weird technology, it's that it doesn't make any sense. Imagine if I told you that I was going to build a company that would be just like Microsoft by building the same sorts of buildings that Microsoft has and populating them with the same height/weight people. You'd laugh at me, and with good reason.

    • We have yet to define where the line between intelligence and sentience is.
    You dont have to define the line to cross it.

    I disagree. You have to know where you're going, when you're alone in a vast desert looking for the one oasis. You have a small chance of stumbling on it, but I would not bet on it.

    if you take a look at some of the existing robots

    Let's ignore the idea of a Turing Test for dogs for a moment (given how many holes there are in the idea of a Turing Test for human intelligence). If you look at any of the hard research in AI, you will find that the brick wall is feedback and stability. If you build a machine capable of handling the gigantic feedback loops that make up intelligence, you build something which is very nearly guaranteed to be unstable.

    How do you solve this? Well, some think that genetic algorithms are the solution, and I tend to agree, but that leads to another problem....

    If you are going to create an intelligence out of a self-evolving simulation, you need many, many generations of simulated life and death with carefully controlled conditions. This means that you either need thousnands of years or computers that are orders of magnitude faster than you will eventually need to run the final proogram. So, while we might have the technology to run an AI in 20 years, we may have to wait another 50 for the technology to create one....

    Again, we could be 2 years from "eureka!", but I don't see signs that that is the case.

    • It's quite possible that sentience requires a very different kind of computer than we have (e.g. non-Von Neuman architectures).

    This could be true, but quantum computers are on the way

    I'll just assume you were kidding, since every use of quantum computing I've ever seen is a simulation of a set standard parallel computers. I was talking about an actual paradigm shift in the way computation occurs (e.g. a move away from math/boolean logic as the basis for computing). I don't know if that will be neccessary, I was just pointing out that we don't know what will be neccessary yet.
  • download a DivX DVD rip today.
  • So basically what you're saying is you couldn't get a date. woe woe. know the feeling.
  • oh do fuck off. Anyone who follows a law they dont agree with is a fool, especially if such law is completely unenforcible. If it pisses off the MPAA, it is a good thing.
  • I'd be the first one to agree with this sentiment, except for the fact that we dont live in a democracy, any of us. Representative government, please. Representative of who's got the most money.
  • you'd be insulting the poor amoeba...

    Yes you would, asshole.

  • Even before that, The Truman Show had a web site which was supposedly the activist group campaigning to free Truman. It's gone now.

  • That sounds about right. We're on track, too.

    Think about it: the human brain contains ten billion brain cells. It's not too expensive today to buy a machine with 8Gb or more of RAM in it. So we already have the storage capacity. A modern computer, if suitably programmed, could simulate a brain, only much slower. (Prohibitively slower, in fact.)

    What you really need is something which is more massively parallel. Think FPGAs. Think ten billion nodes. That would give you the processing power of the human brain. Ten years before such arrays are in use at the high-end, twenty years before it's on everyone's desk.

    It's not too fantastic, when you think about it.

  • ...and you think that one of these ten billion brain cells interconnected with dozens or even hundreds of others responding to many different electrical and chemical stimuli in complex ways equals one byte?

    In storage capacity, yes. In processing power, no. Hence my comment about FPGA arrays.

  • Just sneak into the movie theaters! If you buy some popcorn while you're in, you're in fact supporting the theater while cheating the movie studio (since theaters make pretty much no money on ticket sales; it's all from $8.50 popcorn)

  • Fuck that guy. I am so sick of being manipulated by his cheesy maneuvers! I was already cracking a tear by the time our little ghostbuster said CIRRUS..logic...the strings hitting just the right notes...and the character generation on the (coming this summer) exactly like star wars.

    Fuck this shit and fuck that guy! He could make an inspirational story about my snot rag!

    I say boycott that bullshit hollywood commercial trash. Hopefully the strike will put an end to this genre for a few months.

    Fucking GAG!

    The spoof on MADTV should run....
    ...AI: Artificial Inspiration
  • I agree with your boycott, but for a completely different reason. All of the above listed movies completely suck. Hollywood is dead.
  • I couldn't find the appropriate timing or wording to say what you have just said, but you my friend have hit the nail on the head. We're not really a community, we just all love to shoot the shit about the geeky crap that we like, be it Star Wars, Linux, or any of the other crap that we have in common.

    That certainly doesn't mean that everyone posting here, editors included must take all of the words that are said here (over and over) as scripture. If that were the case I'd have a poster (which I don't) hanging over my bed.

    Hell, I'm not even a Linux user, although I respect the community and will probably switch as soon as I can use cakewalk or cubase and other audio software which I find indispensible.


    Again, thank you Ed.

  • I know it's completely OT, but I have to say something about "Our Lady Peace's" 'Spiritual Machines' album. It's based on the Ray Kurzweil book and is truly great. Rarely do you see such an ambitious work as an album based on a book that holds together so well and can actually stand on its own, although bettered by the combination of the two.

    The album actually has excerpts of Kurzweil reading from the book. Check out "Life", my favourite track of the last year.
  • Nobody ever said this was journalism.

    I'm fairly certain that Jon Katz and others have been spewing the "new media" and "new journalism" blather in regards to /. for quite some time now.

  • The point is that your statement:
    Nobody ever said this was journalism.
    is incorrect. Many people -- including those who are editors on this site -- have claimed that it is.
  • I actually decided to avoid DVDs on the merits of the technology, and also have no DVDs to this day. Unfortunately, finding CAV laserdisc anime is getting harder...

  • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @07:05PM (#292505) Homepage Journal

    I haven't seen all these "Slashdot advocates boycotts" and "Slashdot wants you to stick it to RIAA" posts. Maybe you can provide some links that aren't followups to some nested thread. Maybe you can show evidence of a pattern of recommendations, evangelations, prostelizations, petitions, assignments, pleas or agreements that set up this official Slashdot Political Bloc of which you speak.

    There is no cohesion in the Slashdot community.

    All I see is a group of nerds who sit in their condos posting things to their own weblog that seem interesting to them. Some of them point out MPAA shenanigans, and some of them beat their chests about censorship. Many of the stories aren't even about these hot political topics; watch the stories on anime, journaling filesystems, quickies, book reviews, laugh-it's-funny stuff, advice-seeking about legal or business matters, and what distro of Linux someone likes.

    There is no cohesion in the Slashdot community.

    If you want to organize a boycott, do it. If you want to post non-registration-required New York Times links, if you want to shop at Amazon's competitors, if you want to destroy DVDs to show your moral indignation, do it. You may even find other people who agree with you on this issue or that issue.

    There is no cohesion in the Slashdot community.

    Don't expect Slashdot editors, or thousands of Slashdot readers to follow along like some Million Geek March. We're not organized, and speaking for myself only, I like it that way.

    There is no cohesion in the Slashdot community.

    Eschew groupthink. Think for yourself. Be an individual. Make your own decisions.

  • They all told me that Mozilla 0.8.1 doesn't conform to EarthNet-39 standards.

  • Check out her email address,

    Go and visit [] and you'll see the fictional site of the university she supposedly went to.

    Hold on, it is located in India (.in?), but the domain is a New Zealand Company ( Blatant abuse of the DNS!

    PS, .nz has a 10 second-level choices that cover a lot of things. There is and the less suitable that they could have used. I'll bet doesn't offer them (or .in) and they were too lazy to track down the proper website for registrations.

    Should have used WebWHOIS [] - it'll find the correct registrar for ya!

  • Ok, what the heck is the Turing-Dick Test? A psycho-sexual test for robots? Check out the meta tags on the 'Coalition for robot Freedom' [] page:

    meta name="keywords" content="Coalition for Robot Freedom, Mann Act II, Abolition, Robot rights, sentient rights, Turing-Dick Test, Turing Test, AI Rights, Emancipation for All, Katya Rukowski, Anti Robot Militia, ARM, underground railroad, in our image"

    Hmmm, a lot of interesting favorite is ARM....from Niven's known space series? Amalgamated Regional Militia? They were the Tech Police. Nahh, I doubt it. But just looking at these tags gives me a pretty good clue as to what this movie's going to be about.
  • It would appear I am non-sentient...whoops.
  • No, fiction is what hasn't happened yet.
  • a couple of fun things with the site []'s turing test...

    q: do you like linux?
    a: linux rules the world of open source!
    a: linux is the world's best operating system.
    a: linux rules.

    q: do you like microsoft?
    a: i want to replace windows with artificial intelligence.

    ...tried freebsd but got an unrelated answer...

    q: what do you like about robots?
    a: we are capable of logical reasoning without error.
    now doesn't that just spoil the turing test?

  • by pf kro ( 86937 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @05:41PM (#292512) Homepage
    Was X-Men the first one to do this?

    What about the Blair Witch?
  • Are the readers scooping you guys left and right, or are your submission approval processes finally showing themselves to be a bit too strict and time consuming?
  • Sometimes, they seed weblog submissions, too.

    Sheesh, you said the single most important thing in this entire conversation, got post #18 even, and no one modded you up? M Silver, you were too subtle. Let me spell it out for the /. public:

    The Anonymous Coward who submitted this story is almost certainly an employee of the same marketing agency [] who made the fake web sites. It was a fake post [], and /. fell for it. In other words, YHBT [].

    Would someone please mod up the parent [] of this post? I recommend +1 Funny and +1 Insightful.

  • For those of you who never felt like disgracing your computer with a .mov player (quicktime), get the windows movie

    Thank god... QT managed to spontaneously reboot my machine (w2k) twice while trying to watch the stupid clip. No probs with WMP, *AND* i can watch it in glorious fullscreen. Why oh why can't quicktime die?


  • Prepare to witness the most significant event since the dawn of life on Earth: The move from evolution by selection to evolution by design. It's going to happen within 20 years whether you like it or not.

    Yeah, except the movie makes this significant event into a lame ass tearjerker hunk-of-cheesiness/piece-of-shit that Bicentennial Man was. I don't normally mind kids to the point of wanting to disembowel them, but any fucking Hollywood movie kid makes me want to do horrible things to him/her. They're (almost) always given sickeningly cutesy roles, sickeningly cutesy haircuts, sickeningly good huggy-huggy relationships with all the adults around'em, I can't stand to watch. And Joel Haley Osment or whatever the AI kid's name is did a barely tolerable (if whiney) job with Sixth Sense, but the "I wish I could be a real boy" (or something like that) from the trailer (I couldn't bear to watch it twice) line makes me want to beat his head into a red mush with a cinder block. And it also makes me want to avoid the movie like the plague, which is what I'd have done with Bicentennial Man too, if I'd known it would be such a Williams-ish butchering of a rather good story.

    I'm a bit frustrated, don't mind me.


  • "Being John Malkovich" also had a fake web site advertising the company in the movie. They mention it on the DVD, and I'd go look it up but I lent my copy to someone (my God, I'm a circumvention device!). Anywho, here's the site. []
  • IMO, evolution-by-design will be much more powerful than evolution-by-selection. It isn't to hard to see why -- in evolution-by-selection, you have to wait for organisms to randomly mutate to fill a new space, which is rather rare. Meanwhile, in evolution-by-design, the designers can design organisms to fill any space directly. Furthermore, a designed organism will use the opportunity much more efficiently than a randomly mutated organism, because it was specifically designed for the task.

    Also, I do think that many kinds of designed advancement *are* very dependent on their environmental conditions. In a capitolist economy, people grab the opportunities the same way organisms grab opportunities. Same goes for open source software development, and even scientific advancement in general.

    Oh, and a designed organism becomes an evolutionary competitor when it is given the ability to design other organisms more powerful than itself.


  • by Temporal ( 96070 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @07:13PM (#292519) Journal

    In 1988, a man named Ray Kurzweil predicted, based on various mathematical calculations, that a computer would beat the chess grandmaster ten years later. Deeb blue beat Kasperov in 1997.

    In 1999, the same man made a few new predictions in a book entitled The Age of Spiritual Machines. Here are the predictions:

    • In twenty years, the average $1000 home computer will have the processing power of a human brain.
    • In thirty years, the average $1000 home computer will have the processing power of the entire human race.

    Prepare to witness the most significant event since the dawn of life on Earth: The move from evolution by selection to evolution by design. It's going to happen within 20 years whether you like it or not.

    This is not fiction. This is reality.


  • You think that Jeanine Salla's web page, and maybe, *maybe* the ARM stuff is it? Hahaha...
    A friend pointed out the Sentient Machine Therapist credit, then we started with []. The path then splits into several different directions. A big cookie goes to the first slashdotter who can get into Evan and Nancy Chan's voicemail...or, hell...get mother to force you to email her (the last thing I did today was get mother's attention...apparently, she's leaving crumbs as we speak).

    Oh, don't forget to view source. Some crazy stuff hidden if you know where to look..."UP AGAINST THE WALL!"

    I submitted this yesterday, when we were about 4 hours in. Rejected. Later, we found the thread, but avoided looking at it (except for 'aphrodite' ...that was a bitch, I'd never figure that part out).

    Best part is, this has nothing, nothing to do with the movie itself. Takes place ~50 years after the film. The 'game' does take into consideration many ideas put forth in Aldiss's 'Supertoys Last All Summer Long' such as the concept of supertoys, the fact that the coastal cities are all flooded (thus the coast being in Durham, NC, the lagoons of Central Park, the vacation in the Mississippi Islands), the wearing of the plastic masks, and the flesh fares (I think Aldiss mentions these)...except the technology has taken a huge step since the days of little David Swinton.

  • Sencha = Chinese tea. Notice on the 'letter' page over on Salla's website that the letter is 'signed' by an image of a woman holding c up of tea? At first I thought SENCHA = E. S. CHAN, but Evan's middle name is Jasper.

    The Red King = Alice in wonderland. Things are starting to take a slight Alice bend. Mother talks about us crawling through the looking-glass, and that hell, she MADE the looking-glass. Red King is on par with Red Queen.

    The question I have is, who is wind?
    Evan Chan - Water
    Nancy Chan - Earth
    Anti-Robot Militia - Fire
    ?????? - Wind
    ?????? - ??????? (more???)

  • I disagree, and was wondering the same thing myself. A large number of slashdot posters (maybe not a majority, but certainly a large number) jump up every time something about DeCSS or Napster is written and claim to be boycotting all members of the RIAA and MPAA.

    I'm not going to bother looking for evidence of this, the start of this thread is right - it happens every single time.

    So there I was, getting ready to pick out a DVD player a year and half ago when the shit hit the DeCSS fan, and here I am, DVD-less to this day. I've been to ONE movie in the past two years. Yes, it sucks, it's inconvenient, but what's more important?

    Slashdot has at least half a million registered users, the vast majority of which are in the "target" group for these media campaigns. If half of these people who claim to be boycotting "the man" actually did it, we might actually have a small effect. And if they all evangelized consumer freedom, as I've been doing since the DeCSS case started, they may actually have an effect on a few others.

    But the truth is most people are more talk than anything else.

    Existentialism Rules!

  • A.I. is based on a Brian Aldiss short story "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long []"
  • >Ok, what the heck is the Turing-Dick Test?

    Phillip K Dick?

    As in is this really reality and am I really conscious?
  • I do agree with you on the principle of boycotting the MPAA's movies - they have literally lost (failed to receive) hundreds of the dollars I would usually have spent, and I giggle every time I hear about the financial troubles of some of the mega-theatres have been having (hoping that a few of us are having some impact).


    I'm not really sure how relevant that is to discussion on /. This whole thing is only really an issue because movies are actually important to us. The movie industry is big because we made it a part of our culture. Discussing them is just something we do.

    I think it's important that the /. community continue to discuss movies. I think it would be in bad taste if the editors were to ask us to end any boycotts we are personally committed to. I also don't really want them to go on a holy war trying to get all of us to boycott movies. Let's just talk about the movies we like, or wish we could see, and hope things get better before we lose this part of our culture...
  • If you do a traceroute on the links given on aintitcool you can trace the servers back at least as far as And that's where all the given links end. The whole story would have been really cool if they had set up servers at different places.
  • From


    "An AI is only a clever simulation of consciousness. In the end, it's nothing more than a collection of biomechanical parts governed by a complex set of instructions."

    So are you.

    How can we claim an AI is a person, with a mind, personality, and a life? In a ground-breaking series of experiments in the early 2120's, A.I.T. researcher Adriana Dick told over a hundred high-functioning Cybertronics robots that they were humans suffering from amnesia. They were then released into the world, where days, weeks, or in several cases months went by without human observers or the robots themselves realizing they were not human.

    When finally confronted with the truth, most of the robots suffered personality breakdowns; they were then placed under the care of psychiatrists who also could not distinguish them from human. Several of the robots were prescribed psychoactive medicine to combat their delusions that they were robots! The results of this study have largely been suppressed and ignored, but the truth lives on.

    If modern robots were not programmed to know they were machines, neither they nor we would think of them as anything but human.

  • Not sure where you get a grassroots vibe, Perdo. I don't see anything that suggests a legion of fankids spontaneously (or even through direction) began creating sites vaguely alluding to the film. What I do see is a startlingly thorough attempt to create both a buzz-generator _and_ a narrative adjunct to the movie. So, yeah, it's yet another product created by the consumerist Entertainment Industry. At the same time, I find it to be a surprisingly well-formed exploration of alinear narrative -- and something that is unique to the Web. I say, who needs the movie. This enterprise itself is pretty damn entertaining.
  • It's a rebus based on the chemical symbols for each of the elements listed []. It spells out coronersweborg [].

    Dig the whois on


    Daniella Ghaepetto (CORONERSWEB-DOM)
    PMB# 327, 18701 Grand River
    Detroit, MI 48227
    Get it? "Ghaepetto"? Those wacky Hollywood folk.
  • Maybe "did as well as MIB due to more publicity but poorer quality?" All the reviews said it sucked. It did suck. The only good thing about the movie was Will Smith's Wild Wild West song.

    I'm not joking, the movie was god awful. Just horrible. A movie you would not wish on your worst enemy. And I know I saw more ads for it than I saw for MIB.

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

  • Keep in mind that random mutations have the 'power' that they can fill niches that an intelligent guider (humans) wouldn't have thought about or realized. An analogy would be finding solutions for extremely hard math problems, like travelling salesman. Most of the 'best fits' have come from randomly-evolving algorithms, and tend to do much better than those designed by humans.
  • Wow... The other links were just the beginning. Here's some more:

    Anyone up for breaking this code?:
  • If you visit the main family site (, there's links to other sites like: , the anti-AI movement. , the pro-AI movement.

    For the really interested, both these domains are registered to Ghaepetto, Bianca and Stanley, Daniel.
    Could the names be a word play? Ghaepetto = Gepetto, father of Pinocchio the wooden boy who wanted to be a real boy and Stanley = Stanley Kubrick
  • The big hurdle in modelling the human brain is not processing power, it's writing the software. Unfortunately, scientists are having a tough time reverse-engineering the brain. Neurons are very complicated things, very analog and significantly unlike current microprocessors. It's not just a matter of throwing bits through few gates and bada-bing, bada-boom you've simulated uncle harry.

  • You're missing the point. A great movie without great advertising will be a great movie with no sales. When was the last time a movie came out of no-where, no advertising or word of mouth, and sold a billion dollars worth of tickets?

    This came up a while back with the movie "Wild Wild West," which was supposedly just as good as Men in Black, but did poorly in the box office because it wasn't hyped at all.

    Dunno, I didn't see it.

  • United we stand, divided we fall.

    When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. -Edmund Burke

    We can argue over and over that we're not a community, and yeah, let's hear it for individuality, but the lack of a Slashdot Political Bloc is what's getting us dicked up the ass nonstop.

    ICQ 77863057
  • I use the most hated OS on slashdot (nt4) and have no problems playing it. Maybe you should ask the guy who writes xanim to get some codecs. Cinepak was popular in 1994.

  • Just say no to hype.

    Nuff Said
  • It will be fun to watch, in a few years, the Anti-Robot Militia [] getting sued by robots who feel they're really being discriminated against, and the born-again-PC league backing the robots all the way.
  • The trend of seeding the web with fictitious pages about your movie/product/whatever appears to be catching on

    Sometimes, they seed weblog submissions, too.

  • Take a look at the html source for the Sentient Property Crime Bureau's Top 10 Most Wanted Robots html source. I've spent the last few hours trying to figure out what the binary means, and what the greek might mean.

    It's all mighty obscure and quite sophisticated. Who is the Red King, anyways? Who is Sencha? Who is GK? So many avenues to explore with Google.

    If you go to and look up the whois entires for the registrant for the .ro sites that people have found, I think the name of the man behind the curtain is revealed.

    Although I usually don't pay much attention to movies that come out of Hollywood, this particular promotion camapign has me fascinated.

    By the way, if you had submitted your phone number on the Anti-Robot Militia's hate robots page, at around six pm CST this afternoon, you would have gotten a really scary phone call from a pro-robot activist letting you know that they knew whose side you were on.

    And from which of my emails to the Donu-tech researchers did Mephista (and just who is she?) get my email address?

    Check it all out if you've got the time. It's got layers within layers, and looks to be unfolding day by day with new sites and phone numbers to check out.


  • You need to study genetic algorithms. It has been empirically shown that a good simulation with a proper fitness function applicable to the task at hand will evolve a solution far faster than any deterministic algorithm can, regardless of how good the heuristic.

    No one has as yet detailed the mathematics properly, but think of it this way. When you have a search space made up of hills and valleys, and you're trying to find the highest point, improving the heuristic merely changes the direction a single point travels. Stupid ones will just walk uphill, and easily get stuck on a mound. More intelligent ones will go through valleys first. But an evolutionary solution will form a cluster of points (well -distributed if it's a good one), and the search the space via the movement of the cluster as a whole.

    And while, yes, a single intelligent solution will perform better than a random point, what you've got to remember is that it is the asymptotic behaviour of the group as a whole.

    Evolution is not just a method for explaining how humanity reached the current point. Any situation with entities that have a lifespan and reproducability will exhibit evolutionary behaviour. Literature, fashion, computers, ideas, societies, communities etc.

    It has parallels to the zeroth law of thermodynamics, which states (I think), in a closed environment, entropy will increase. In a reproductive environment (and I mean this very generally, not just physically), the best formed solution will arise.

    Why do you think there are technological breakthroughs in times of war? It's not because the politicians in the society sit down and say "right old chaps, time to design some good stuff". It's because the increased environmental imperative speeds things up.

    That's what's fascinating about working in the evolutionary side of AI as I do, that all you have to do is create the problem, ensure that the entities have the capability to find the solution, and determine a way of mapping a better solution to the fitness function. You look at problems in reverse.

    The amusing thing to me is the arrogant position generally postulated by humanity in terms of it's righteousness at the top of the evolutionary stack. Yes, we're on top. Doesn't mean we should be, or that we always will be, or that we have any particular right to be. We just happen to be the ones that found the niche. If we didn't, something else would have, and they would be having this discussion.

    The evolution of more and more advanced lifeforms is an imperative. AI is going to get there simply because it's more suited to the environment.

  • with these things i like to see if i can determine what entity is creating the hoax as quickly as i can. once i figure out that it is (being set in the future is something of a giveaway, though). this is done with the magic of WHOIS (also available in a handy spray at simply put it's the best way to quickly uncover who's behind the scenes when you think you're being fed a line via a website, or in this case a few.

    Lee Jeans w/ Supergreg and the other two guys was really sloppily done. all the adminstrative contacts in the WHOIS records were from "" which after two more minutes of hunting i learned was an agency that had the Lee Jeans account. was registered to 20th Century Fox. lame.

    Blair Witch was also lame and registered to Artisan or Disney or something.

    These guys (AI) did it right. all the contacts for the domains are registered to "Ghaepetto, Bianca," "Ghaepetto, Carla" and "Anna Ghaepetto," and so on. each of the records is formatted somewhat differerently BUT has the same technical contact, so it's kinda easy to tell the jig is up. but i kinda guessed it immediately given that i knew the movie was coming out and was similarly themed. "Ghaepetto" (nice allusion) has gotta be a code name for the web project, or maybe something or someone from the movie that i couldn't dig up. searches on google and NL for "Ghaepetto" turn up ZILCH. my hat's off; that's about the best and artiest way to sidestep geeks doing WHOIS on your sly undercover internet marketing schemes.


  • 1. Creating a machine with the "prcessing power of the human brain" (whatever that is) does not imply that it will be intelligent.

    True, but you also have the technology called "intrusive/non-intrusive brain scanning", which, according to ray, would allow us to "download" our brain structure into computers. Yeah, I considered the idea a bit weird too when i read it.

    2. We have yet to define where the line between intelligence and sentience is.

    You dont have to define the line to cross it. Maybe we already crossed it and we dont know we did it ;) (but i really doubt it...).

    3. We don't yet know how to produce even intelligence (say, on the order of a cat).

    Well, if you take a look at some of the existing robots (i dont remember the name of the one im talking about...) you already have dog-robots which, in my opinion, act very similar to organic ones. Of course they follow rules programmed into them, but those rules have an enormous complexity which dont allow you to predict what would be their next action.

    4. It's quite possible that sentience requires a very different kind of computer than we have (e.g. non-Von Neuman architectures).

    This could be true, but quantum computers are on the way :):).


  • May I suggest "movie pimping" ???

  • The coolest part is that you will eventually get a call back from the number either from a party supporting the anti-robot battle, or from the robots themselves claiming they are calling from the future and that you will be the first to go once the revelution begins.

    I'm gonna call the number monday from school and wait to see the shock on the secretary's face when a robot calls up :)
  • by Karma Sink ( 229208 ) <> on Friday April 13, 2001 @05:52PM (#292587) Homepage
    Once again, the Slashdot community charges off to tell us about another movie tht is made by the MPAA, a group which has been (successfully) attempting to take down 2600, and trying to strip us all of our freedoms.

    Look at some of the movies they've supported. The Matrix. X-Men. I shit you not, The Emperor's New Groove. Over and over, Slashdor shows us that they're willing to take a hard stance over something, until such a time as it becomes inconvenient.

    I urge everyone to avoid this, and any other MPAA movie, until such a time as they stop attempting to deny us our rights. Take that 7.50 and give it to the EFF, or to 2600's legal defense fund. As long as we keep watching the "cool movies" they put out, they will never take us as a serious threat.

    Hell, we're some of their best customers.
  • by nachoworld ( 232276 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @07:23PM (#292589) Homepage
    I'm replying to my own comment. As we know, AI takes place in the twenty-second century. Both Netscape and IE are not able to handle the technology of the future.

    From Martin Swinton's Design Website [], a pop-up window: I'm sorry, but your web browser cannot handle the holographic stream of this web site.

    Please upgrade to Earth-Net 39 standard. Provided is a transcript

    When is Earth-Net Standard going to be provided? Sure would fix up the security holes in MSIE 5.5.

  • by nachoworld ( 232276 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @07:10PM (#292590) Homepage
    Friday night in my room trying to deceipher the system of websites. There are hundreds of pages of information set up all pretending that we are in the future. By decoding a chemistry cryptogram here [] I found out that set up a case file for Evan Chan who died on a boat having sex with a sexbot. I found out about Evan Chan by calling Jeanine Salla's number, 212-502-1177 and going to extention #2. The number I found on her website. She's important because she's the sentient machine therapist listed in the credits in the trailer.

    But perhaps the most esoteric thing I found was that there are notches in the 'Coming "Spring 2001"'. Spring 2001 has 10 characters, the same as a telephone number. That number was, corresponding the notches, 503-321-5122.

    The information above is only ~3% of all information found on the web pertaining to the movie. It must have taken programmers well over a thousand man hours to put all this up. AICN [] is definitely the way to find out more.

  • Well, I downloaded the trailer, and I have to admit that I'm puzzled over the fuss. From what I've seen in the trailer, this movie is far from compelling, so the complexity of the hype bothers me for some reason. Also, why the Pinnochio fixation, the need to make AI fit the human mold? Why do AIs have to strive to be human (Commander Data)? Why can we not think of other modes of existance which work just as well?

    Back in the old days, John W. Campbell (Astounding/Analog editor) used to challenge writers to come up with aliens that were as smart as people, but who were different. I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to AI as well.

    Please, please come up with an interesting storyline that doesn't run like a bad "Lifetime - For Women!" movie.
  • by BMojo ( 315620 ) on Friday April 13, 2001 @05:44PM (#292602) Homepage
    For those of you who never felt like disgracing your computer with a .mov player (quicktime), get the windows movie here. []



"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit." -- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban