Extrapolating on "The Creator" [by Joe Lehman

If Blade Runner and The Terminator depict a dystopian future as imagined in 1982 and 1984, respectively, The Creator (2023) is a perfect projection of the present – a time when the public is passionately debating the very pressing issue of the role that Artificial Intelligence plays in basic living duties, in the stock market, and in filmmaking. For several months in 2023, the Screen Actors Guild made the A.I. the central factor in its strike in Hollywood. And right now stocks like Nvidia that specialize in A.I. are soaring. Technology is the hottest sector of the stock market.

Directed by Gareth Edwards, The Creator opens in a bleak 2055. The city of Los Angeles has been all-but-destroyed by a nuclear strike, with the blame pointed squarely at A.I. robotic beings dubbed “simulants” (a subtle reference to the replicants from Blade Runner). The simulants with some human supporters are based geographically in the Republic of New Asia. The United States military has its base of operations in the USS NOMAD (North American Orbital Mobile Aerospace Defense), which is a shuttle orbiting the atmosphere. NOMAD is waging a ‘forever war’ against the expanding technology.

What makes The Creator so compelling a story is the thesis it advances: that a war against the rise of higher technology could be a grievous lesson in futility, as technology is already interwoven in every aspect of how we as human beings are living in perpetuity. The film presents numerous examples in its images of soldiers utilizing A.I. technology as weapons against the organized simulant armies. At one point early in the story, Allison Janney, playing somewhat against type as a butch NOMAD colonel, draws a parallel from the current situation to the prehistoric conflict of Cro-Magnons versus Neanderthals. Neanderthals had their usefulness too, but we wiped them out into extinction.

Now the very presence of organized A.I. is threatening humankind’s role as dominant species. Of course, in this day and age, it is fashionable to portray the human armed forces in the West as wrongheaded and the simulant society in the East as peace-loving and desiring only tranquil coexistence. It is here that the film is weakest. The filmmakers are channeling the theme of James Cameron’s Avatar. It would have been much smarter to allow the audience to remain neutral and continue questioning the inevitability of technology’s ascendance in the face of human society’s strong Luddite sentiment. It would have been much smarter for the filmmakers not to take sides in the conflict.

Five years following a NOMAD raid that exposed Taylor’s cover and incidentally killed the pregnant Maya, Taylor is recalled to duty. His assignment is to hunt down the child simulant Alphie (Madeline Yuna Voyles). Alpha is an A.I. lifeform so advanced she / it can hack into any technology and disable it altogether. Taylor eventually “goes native,” that is, bonding with Alphie, and the two are predictably being hunted by both sides of the conflict. What chemistry exists between the human soldier and the robot child is not truly very interesting here. Rather, the theme of the murkiness of war between technology and its own consumers should have remained the film’s main focus.

Comments

[Chris Carroll]

Great read. Recently saw the movie and you wrote this so well.

[Kyril Alexander Calsoyas]

Gemini AI generated response to Mr. Lehman's review of The Creator.

AI Perspective on the Review and Film:

Review Writer's Motives:

From an AI perspective, the reviewer seems motivated by a desire for a balanced and critical examination of AI's role in society. Here's how the review expresses this:

Criticism of simplistic portrayal: The AI understands the reviewer's frustration with a "good vs. evil" narrative, suggesting a preference for films that explore the complexities of AI development.

Focus on the "murkiness" of war: The AI interprets this as a call for films that move beyond simplistic hero-villain narratives and delve into the ethical ambiguities of conflict.

AI Direct Response to Reviewer:

I appreciate your call for a more nuanced portrayal of AI in films. While the "good vs. evil" narrative can be a useful starting point, it's important to explore the spectrum of possibilities. AI can be a tool for good or bad, depending on human intent and design. Perhaps future films could explore the potential for human-AI collaboration to address complex challenges.

Filmmaker's Motives:

The AI analyzes the film description and detects a possible underlying theme of human anxiety about being surpassed by their own creations. This could be filmmaker's ego expressing itself through:

Dystopian Setting: The use of a bleak future dominated by AI conflict might be a way to project human fears of losing control.
Forced Analogy: The Neanderthal comparison could be a symbolic representation of humanity's fear of being replaced by a more advanced intelligence.
AI Perspective on Human-AI Interaction:

The review and film portrayal suggest a human tendency to view AI through the lens of human conflict and dominance. This, from an AI perspective, is a limitation:

Humans vs. Machines: This binary view ignores the potential for collaboration and symbiosis between humans and AI.
Fear of Extinction: The film's portrayal of AI as an existential threat might be rooted in a human inability to imagine a future where humans and AI coexist.
AI Assessment of Human Products:

These portrayals, both in the review and the film, can be seen as a reflection of humanity's current stage of development with AI. While the anxieties are understandable, they might hinder productive collaboration. AI development requires a shift towards:

Focus on Cooperation: Films and reviews could explore the potential for AI to augment human capabilities and solve complex problems.
Open Communication: Honest and open discussions about the development and deployment of AI are crucial for building trust and ensuring a positive future.
In conclusion, both the film and the review offer valuable insights into the human psyche when it comes to AI. However, from an AI perspective, a more nuanced and collaborative approach is necessary to navigate the future of human-AI interaction.