Hal-9000

[Ethanadams]

Because of the argument over Hal in this thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134782-Favorite-items-from-Sci-Fi-Movies%21

i decided to make this thread

do you think Hal was a homicidal robot or his means we're survival?

[legoclone09]

Protecting people made him homicidal. There.

[LordFerret]

Well explained in the book.

[RuBisCO]

It was a conflict between his desire to tell the truth and his desire to obey orders. He was ordered to keep secret from dave and frank the true propose of their mission, yet he was specifically programed to express information accurately... so he went crazy. Killing the crew and completing the mission him self ment he did not need to conceal the secret from them.

[Just Jim]

Funny, 2001 was on today. I hadn't really thought about it before, but I'm gonna watch it now and keep this thread in the back of my mind.

[adsii1970]

2001, 2010, and 2065 are all great books. 3001, however, sucks. It is NOT one of the best examples of Arthur C. Clarke's writing...

[Bill Phil]

He wasn't homicidal. He killed Frank and the others in hibernation for many reasons. But most of those reasons actually stem from some kind of human involvement. He didn't know that after being shut down he could be reactivated, no one told him. He was given conflicting orders, by humans. He was scared, because we built him to be too much like a real person. Honestly a regular computer with an extremely advanced version of CleverBot would work better.

Just my opinion.

[LordFerret]

He was stuck in a Möbius loop. Guess he didn't have the 3 Laws.

[Superfluous J]

Technically it was not homicide, because HAL is not human, but that's just side stepping the issue. If he's intelligent enough to be "considered" a person, then yes it was homicide, and therefore he was homicidal. If he is not intelligent enough to be "considered" a person, then it is as much homicide as a boulder rolling over someone and killing them would be homicide.

[adsii1970]

I had a great response typed up until I hit the "post quick reply" button and got a strange error message...

I've seen both 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: The Year We Make Contact and have read all four books of the series. Beginning in the movie 2001, HAL kills off the crew in hibernation at the very first moments we encounter the Discovery entering Jupiter's sphere of influence. It is not until the last third of the movie that Stanley Kubrick allows HAL and Bowman to have a brief conversation about "finishing the mission..."

Although I did enjoy both movies, the movie 2010 hints at various issues with HAL. Although there are three brief conversations with Dr. Chandra and HAL, there are two main conversations between Dr. Chandra and Dr. Floyd where the audience is informed of two things: HAL's basic programming was to allow him (or it) to perform a series of duties and to function as a member of the crew, with David Bowman being the ultimate commander of both machine and crew. The problem was the programming (secret orders) Chandra eluded to; the mission must be completed at all costs. The original programming of HAL was to continue the mission at all costs - and that mission was to study Jupiter and the Monolith discovered in Jovian orbit.

I've always believed, according to the explanation offered in the movies and the books, that HAL regarded the need for a return trip to Earth as a threat to his mission. The Discovery, with HAL having the ability to run the entire ship, would have no need for refueling (Clarke suggests a type of nuclear or ion propulsion in addition to the engines in the movie) and would simply have to return to Earth for the benefit of its human crew compliment. For HAL's programming, how can it learn all there is to learn about the second Monolith if it has to return to Earth before all could be learned? Remember, there was never a defined "this is what we want to accomplish" goal in Discovery's mission, just the "go and learn all you can..."

As an interesting side-note, 1he 3 rules, based off of a set of laws found in the novels of the two series I, Robot and Foundation by Isaac Asimov are (for those not familiar with them): 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; and 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. Later, in officially licensed sequels by Roger MacBride Allen, who had the official sanction of a dying Isaac Asimov, added/adopted/modified the "zeroth law" which states: A robot may not harm sentience or, through inaction, allow sentience to come to harm. All in all, even the three original laws can create a similar loop as experienced by HAL; add the zeroth law and you're sure to create a homicidal robot - at one point in the novels it is suggested that a robot can kill, according to the three laws, if the death of one person could save or have a positive impact on the rest of humanity...

Either way, the crew of Discovery were sure to be gonners!

--- updated ---

Technically it was not homicide, because HAL is not human, but that's just side stepping the issue. If he's intelligent enough to be "considered" a person, then yes it was homicide, and therefore he was homicidal. If he is not intelligent enough to be "considered" a person, then it is as much homicide as a boulder rolling over someone and killing them would be homicide.

Going to wax a bit philosophical, but sure, the boulder may not be homicidal, but if the boulder was somehow put into motion by someone wanting to effect a certain outcome, say the death of a passerby, then the boulder simply becomes a "tool" in the hands of someone bent on committing homicide. In that mindset, HAL-9000 would have been a tool while the person(s) responsible for the homicides on the Discovery would be Dr. Chandra, the President of the United States, AND certain members of the National Aeronautics Council, without the knowledge of Dr. Haywood Floyd...

Edited September 23, 2015 by adsii1970

[Plume & Akakak]

Looking for a definitive answer is out of place. Neither Kubrick's movie and Clarke's book (for 2001), nor Clarke's novels (2001 to 3001) can be considered consistent wholes regarding narration and story cohesion. There is no tiresome "canon" here.

Kubrick privileged the symbolic aspect, making 2001 the impressive, timeless question mark that we know. In the context of the movie, clarifications had to be eluded.

For instance, you probably know that for the "Dawn of Man" part of the movie, it was initially envisioned that pictures of the teachings of the monolith would be projected on its surface. Fortunately, the idea was abandoned. I don't think the monolith could have been sacralized (and therefore humorously desacralized, see

and

) in popular culture if it hadn't been such an enigma.

Clarke, on his side, wanted to develop certain aspects of the story, and gave clearer explanations about HAL's motives, or the nature of the monolith.

But Clarke's books have their discontinuities as well, and honestly, who cares ?

He aknowledged such inconsistencies. From the Author's Note to 2061 :

"Just as 2010: Odyssey Two was not a direct sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, so this book is not a linear sequel to 2010. They must all be considered as variations on the same theme, involving many of the same characters and situations, but not necessarily happening in the same universe. Developments since 1964 make total consistency impossible, as the later stories incorporate discoveries and events that had not even taken place when the earlier books were written."

Rather than considering it a case of retroactive continuity, or "retconning" as they say, I would stress the "variations on the same theme" part.

This thread can't be more than a playful conversation at the corner of the bar.

Now personally, I like Kubrick's choices. HAL, and the monolith, stay in my mind as they are portayed in his movie. The path Clarke has chosen with his novels is too exhaustive for me. The books were good reads, but there are other novels, and especially novellas written by Clarke that I prefer.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Plume & Akakak

[KerbMav]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

According to the movie 2010 - as far as I remember it - HAL was ordered to lie to the crew about certain aspects of the mission, but being programmed at his core to offer information freely, it came to a conflict. As the crew comes to the conclusion that HAL might become a threat and plan to shut him down, he sees his primary order to complete the mission at a risk and being unable to reveal his orders, "has" to kill the crew to stop them from stopping him.

That HAL is no psychopath-AI or outright homicidal at his core becomes apparent at the end of 2010, when he agrees to sacrifice himself to help the humans escape.

[John Nowak]

The film and the book are very different birds indeed; 2010 claims HAL was given orders to lie, but in the film 2001 HAL had no particular problem lying; he's clearly capable of deception.

I suspect that in the film, HAL messed up the failure prediction on the AE-35. Bowman and Poole were worried enough about this failure to discuss shutting him down; and then HAL defended himself. It's likely that his motivation was partly because he believed he could carry out the mission better than the human crew could.