Chuck Does the Matrix

[Ahriman238]

Here

Haven't actually seen it yet, just starting. Still, I expect it to be interesting, and I've already poured a drink. I'll have a sip for every reference to Plato, either the Cave or the Ring.

[Alyeska]

No no. Take a drink every time Chuck makes a "what" reference to Keanu.

[Ahriman238]

Should've. Too late now.

But I did appreciate using Descartes with a little context, instead of the three-word soundbyte Philosophy 101 classes reduce him to.

[Crazedwraith]

Was interested by his statements on the machines notions and the fact that machines could be keeping human reasons around for ineffable reasons and that'd be fine but falls apart when confronted with Smith's hatred making him anthromorphised.

He seems to preclude the idea that the machines are not a hetereogenous mass; the orignal machines may have created and maintained the matrix for ineffable reasons. While individual programs like Smith have become anthropomorphised and malicious.

There's indications, even without the sequels that Smith is a weird and rogue program. (the reaction of the other agents to his Interrogation of Morpheus)

[Ahriman238]

I did like that too, some of the ruminations about the brain, and I'd somehow missed Neo being an anagram of One.

One theory I've heard about the human generation thing was that the machines didn't want to destroy their creators, understood that there could never be true peace and coexistence while humanity knew of them, and felt the need to justify the Matrix some other way, maybe to placate more violent factions within, or to fulfill some programming logic piece about not having a resource sitting around doing nothing.

Of course, it only works if you ignore the later films and revelations that the Machines have been cutting people loose and destroying them for some time.

[Aharon]

I really like the theory by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Chuck cites him on AI):

MORPHEUS: For the longest time, I wouldn't believe it. But then I saw the fields with my own eyes, watched them liquefy the dead so they could be fed intravenously to the living -

NEO (politely): Excuse me, please.

MORPHEUS: Yes, Neo?

NEO: I've kept quiet for as long as I could, but I feel a certain need to speak up at this point. The human body is the most inefficient source of energy you could possibly imagine. The efficiency of a power plant at converting thermal energy into electricity decreases as you run the turbines at lower temperatures. If you had any sort of food humans could eat, it would be more efficient to burn it in a furnace than feed it to humans. And now you're telling me that their food is the bodies of the dead, fed to the living? Haven't you ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics?

MORPHEUS: Where did you hear about the laws of thermodynamics, Neo?

NEO: Anyone who's made it past one science class in high school ought to know about the laws of thermodynamics!

MORPHEUS: Where did you go to high school, Neo?

(Pause.)

NEO: ...in the Matrix.

MORPHEUS: The machines tell elegant lies.

(Pause.)

NEO (in a small voice): Could I please have a real physics textbook?

MORPHEUS: There is no such thing, Neo. The universe doesn't run on math.

[Grumman]

I really like the theory by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Chuck cites him on AI):

It's an amusing handwave, but I think the film would be (and is) weaker for it. The explanation that humans are an energy source is factually untrue, but it does little damage to the film. Coming out and saying "The world you believe is real is a simulation. Physical laws are not laws here." is fine. Following that up with "This is the actual real world. Physical laws are not laws here either." would undermine both the revelation of the in-universe real world (by hurting the audience's ability to associate it with their world) and the revelation that you can cheat reality in the Matrix (because you've introduced twice as many explanations to justify the same thing in two different places).

[Jub]

The best way to make it all fit is that the machines thought that the Matrix was the most efficient way to have peace with humanity. Hence them trying different simulations to see which one made us feel the most happy and useful. The escapees simply can't understand this and the machines hunt them as a threat to the peace.

Of course the sequels shit all over this, but they suck anyway.

[Stark]

Guys, it's 2012. I think its a bit late to waste any time thinking about the Matrix.

[Aharon]

I don't think so. At the current rate, its time for a reboot will come soon

[JLTucker]

Guys, it's 2012. I think its a bit late to waste any time thinking about the Matrix.

Has Chuck every done anything current?

[Aharon]

No, but he will do Game of Thrones soon, which is pretty current.

[Zor]

Guys, it's 2012. I think its a bit late to waste any time thinking about the Matrix.

Has Chuck every done anything current?

It's his style to wait a bit before he reviews things. I think the most recent thing he did (from the day he put it out) was the My Little Pony review.

Zor

[Stark]

Is he waiting to understand the text on a more sophisticated level, or waiting for enough people to ask him to do it?

[Mr Bean]

Is he waiting to understand the text on a more sophisticated level, or waiting for enough people to ask him to do it?

Or wait for people to donate to have a review done. You want him to review something modern donate, there is always that option.

[Stark]

I have no interest in anything he produces. I'm just curious if its based on any insight he wants to share or simply chosen by the mob. I guess that's why the quality of his stuff has declined so sharply.

[Bright]

I haven't noticed anything like a decline. If anything, he keeps putting out reviews that I would count among his best ever.

[Stark]

Is that because they contain interesting analysis or information, change your perspective, or improve your appreciation for a work? Or just because they're about things you like?

[Connor MacLeod]

He's changed my opinions on a number of things by watching his reviews - most notably watching alot of his trek related stuff has softened the views on Trek I had (which I suppose you could have been hardened by years of vs debate tribalism). And it certainly changed my appreciation for the high points of Trek and contains useful tidbits. For example, I was completely ignorant of the 'moby dick' parallels in ST2 before he pointed them out (make of htat what you will.)

I also tend to appreciate the fact he treats it as opinion (at least he himself does, whether others do or not is something you can't really control. I've been cited as an 'authority' for 40K far too often not to feel sympathetic to the problems that causes.) and treating it as opinion is a good reminder for me not to conflate my own opinion with fact.

And of course I do like him since he's something familiar from the old ASVS days (although I was only peripherally involved there) and that plays a role in influencing my attitudes towards him.

I suspect alot of people simply like listening him to just because they like/agree with him in broad terms and then want to see what he thinks of various other things. Which can work or not work, depending on what it is. As a rule I tend to think of Chuck's reviews occupying two categories. One can be represented by his ST work - its generally an area you can tell he is familiar and comfortable working with. To me those sorts of reviews tend to exhibit more passion and depth. I tend to think of it as being an 'inside' review (particularily his trek stuff.)

The other category could be represented by, say, his MLP review. Its not neccesarily bad per se, but its basically him covering something that somebody else wanted him to cover - he's basically doing it as a favor, but he's essentially an outsider looking in. It's not something he's as passionate or as well informed about (and that's not a criticism of him, that's just the way some things are.) and I suspect thats why some of those reviews can be a bit off because they lack the sort of things that go into (for example) the Trek reviews.

A few things like B5 and Farscape seem to occupy an intermediate area between those grounds, I've noticed, as well.

[Simon_Jester]

I did like that too, some of the ruminations about the brain, and I'd somehow missed Neo being an anagram of One.

One theory I've heard about the human generation thing was that the machines didn't want to destroy their creators, understood that there could never be true peace and coexistence while humanity knew of them, and felt the need to justify the Matrix some other way, maybe to placate more violent factions within, or to fulfill some programming logic piece about not having a resource sitting around doing nothing.

Of course, it only works if you ignore the later films and revelations that the Machines have been cutting people loose and destroying them for some time.

Even that makes some sense if the events of the first movie trigger a 'political' shift among the machines.

"Hey, 11011010, there's a human intelligence jacked into our massive VR sim, who can violate the rules of the simulation at will and actively threatens to wake up all the other humans in a huge rebellion against us."

"Well shit, 01011011, maybe we'd better do something before those umpty billion humans we keep on ice all wake up and start trying to turn us into scrap metal!"

"Hmm. Maybe it's time to pull the plug..."

"Sigh. Guess you're right."

[amigocabal]

I really like the theory by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Chuck cites him on AI):

It's an amusing handwave, but I think the film would be (and is) weaker for it. The explanation that humans are an energy source is factually untrue, but it does little damage to the film. Coming out and saying "The world you believe is real is a simulation. Physical laws are not laws here." is fine. Following that up with "This is the actual real world. Physical laws are not laws here either." would undermine both the revelation of the in-universe real world (by hurting the audience's ability to associate it with their world) and the revelation that you can cheat reality in the Matrix (because you've introduced twice as many explanations to justify the same thing in two different places).

I have always thought that the humans were connected to the Matrix for the processing power of their brains.

[amigocabal]

I really like the theory by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Chuck cites him on AI):

It's an amusing handwave, but I think the film would be (and is) weaker for it. The explanation that humans are an energy source is factually untrue, but it does little damage to the film. Coming out and saying "The world you believe is real is a simulation. Physical laws are not laws here." is fine. Following that up with "This is the actual real world. Physical laws are not laws here either." would undermine both the revelation of the in-universe real world (by hurting the audience's ability to associate it with their world) and the revelation that you can cheat reality in the Matrix (because you've introduced twice as many explanations to justify the same thing in two different places).

I have always thought that the humans were connected to the Matrix for the processing power of their brains.

I should add, that if human brains provide a great deal of the processing power of the Matrix, then humans are the power source for the Matrix's computational functions. (Obviously, they are not powering the lights or the heavy equipment in the real world.)

Maybe Morpheus's analogy was not as stupid as I had thought before.

[aussiemuscle308]

I have always thought that the humans were connected to the Matrix for the processing power of their brains.

that sounds better. it makes more sense to a computer that having a huge number of brains (even if they are mushy and fragile) doing calculations would have some value to AI... and those humans only use 10% of it for their own processing.

[Zixinus]

I am rewatching the vid and something struck at me.

Was it ever explained why the creators forgot a great, glaring detail about the whole "covering up the sky forever" thing? I mean, okay, the robots would not have solar power anymore.

Except that then, it would also kill humanity! Without sunlight, plants would die. No photosynthesis, no oxygen, no food. In an effort to kill the machines by denying them only ONE source of energy, why did humans also deny them the same source of the very air they breath or the food they eat?

Also, Chuck mentions that the whole "using humans for power" thing was a result of executive meddling. Does anyone know what he means by that and what the creators originally intended?

I have always thought that the humans were connected to the Matrix for the processing power of their brains.

How would that work though? You need all of your brain do work as a human being. Living a life in the matrix, even drug-induced or something, takes up all of your brain power. How could a machine utilize a human brain if that brain is already preoccupied by doing human things? Even if you say that they use the brains they have when the person is sleeping, that is still a waste in terms of processing power. Why not just cut the whole idea of simulating human life and instead, just use the brain power raw.

that sounds better. it makes more sense to a computer that having a huge number of brains (even if they are mushy and fragile) doing calculations would have some value to AI... and those humans only use 10% of it for their own processing.

Are you saying that it could work because humans only use 10% of their brain? Because that's not true. As evidenced by the fact that if you cut 90% of a person's brain, they'll be extremely mentally damaged if not just die.

[Batman]

Um-by that reasoning me cutting out 90 percent of a CPU and it stopping to work means I'm using it at 100% capacity all the time. Remove 90% of an internal combustion engine-curious, it'll stop functioning at all. Shouldn't it still be able to run at 10% power? If you break the machine...it's broken.It's no longer working regardless of what load it ran under before you broke it.
You need all of your brain present to function as a human being (and even that isn't necessarily true), that doesn't mean you're actually using a lot of it. While 10% is lower than the numbers I remember (which were in the 30% range) yes, most of the human brain isn't doing much of anything most of the time and could thus be tapped for processing power.