What I don't get is why would they waste their time raising humans?

@MongoLloyd said:

What I don't get is why would they waste their time raising humans?

They were programed to.

@acontributor said:

It's ridiculous to think that a machine could ever raise a human child at all much less one who is so well adjusted. Machines especially have no idea how to answer questions of ethics as exemplified by the hypothetical scenario where the machine asks if a human life should be sacrificed to save 5 others who need his organs. The answer to that is an obvious and resounding no.

You do realize it's possible in fiction, right?

@chilone said:

@MongoLloyd said:

What I don't get is why would they waste their time raising humans?

They were programed to.

We're talking about an AI, not a computer program. AI's are sentient, so you can't just tell it to do something and expect it to not deviate.

@MongoLloyd said:

@chilone said:

@MongoLloyd said:

What I don't get is why would they waste their time raising humans?

They were programed to.

We're talking about an AI, not a computer program. AI's are sentient, so you can't just tell it to do something and expect it to not deviate.

Actually no. I most sci-fi movies, AIs generally have a hard coded, prime directive or failsafe. Mother mentioned hers which was something like preserving human life. Unfortunately, also in most sci-fi movies, these safeguards either fail or the AI starts putting their own spin on them which was the case here. I guess you're partially right about the deviation. ;)

Hmmmm, Morgan, Ex Machina, Her, Blade Runner, Automata, and Terminator 2 all come to mind.

I don't think this is horrible. It isn't good and I would never have paid money to see it, but it passes the time. Like almost all SF there are moments of sheer stupidity in the writing and questions that never seem to get answered: 'how could such a scenario ever come to pass, and what is the point?'.

I long ago stopped bothering to care what a writer actually intended in a film. If it isn't actually on the screen in some way or is a necessary implication of what is presented, then any further explanation is just masturbation.

The Netflix effect means that we are probably going to see a lot more 'ordinary' movies that would probably never have been made even a decade ago. It will probably get worse (or better if you work in the business) when Disney, Apple and all the others start up their own streaming content.

I'm almost sure Mother said it was its idea to build a new mankind, which implies it wasn't programmed for that. But it also says her objective is to value humanity, implying she'd not kill Visitor, but which is a lie because she had killed many daughters before.

From what we know, Mother could pretty much had finished extinguishing mankind to then start raising humans from scratch teaching them its values. Visitor claims that she saw those bots burning babies, that could pretty much be true but she might had lied too.

Regarding the rat, the sealed shelter was a lie, there was no infection that'd kill humans. From what we see on outside, it was clear that Earth had gone barren and only peste animals like a few rats were living. The crop field was started by Mother to produce food and start rebuilding life on Earth.

And I was also bad on how Mother was unaware of what was happening, inside and outside of the shelter:

1. How could Visitor get close to the shelter, with all the drones and ships outside?
2. How could Visitor get inside the shelter?
3. How could Visitor and Daughter flee?

Only hours later had Mother found Visitor's small shelter. At least Mother was hearing their dialogue and showed it wanted to avoid Daughter from knowing it knew. And from what we see Mother was indeed surprised with Visitor arrival and believing and confused with her talk about mines.

I also don't like how no character has name. It was acceptable while it was only Mother and Daughter, but once they started talking about birthing more humans it started seeming odd they remain calling each other like that instead of their names.