
The Case for HAL's Sanity - pmcpinto
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0095.html
======
Analemma_
I thought the canon explanation was that HAL wasn't "insane", per se, but that
he had been given conflicting orders (keep the Jupiter monolith secret, but
also assist the crew in every way) and was resolving them as best he could.

~~~
twoodfin
There is no "canon" explanation for the film, since Kubrick did not provide
one, and _2001_ was, at heart, his movie, independent in significant respects
from Clarke's novelization and later sequels.

That being said, I think the onscreen evidence for Clarke's version is
compelling. Most notably, it solves the mystery highlighted by the article as
to why HAL didn't kill Bowman on the first EVA: If the computer could have
engineered a plausibly innocent loss of contact with Mission Control, he could
have acted freely to preserve both the astronauts' ignorance and the success
of the mission without worry of being contradicted by the ground-based twin
computer (which he surely knew would eventually diverge from his decision-
making, having not been informed about the Monolith).

Once the astronauts were told of the divergence and took it seriously enough
for their discussion in the pod, HAL had no remaining options.

~~~
SilasX
>There is no "canon" explanation for the film, since Kubrick did not provide
one, and 2001 was, at heart, his movie, independent in significant respects
from Clarke's novelization and later sequels.

If you reject the canonicity of Clarke's novel, then everything after the
"Jupiter and beyond..." card is nonsensical. What is the viewer supposed to
think about the space baby that's actually grounded in something within the
movie?

(Edit: Ditto for the aging sequence. I know that you can fit the events into
the "alien zoo" framing, but since the film doesn't direct us to that
explanation, and if the novel doesn't count, it can't be any more than a fan
theory.)

Incidentally, that's why I think the film went sharply downhill after that
card.

~~~
Udik
> What is the viewer supposed to think about the space baby that's actually
> grounded in something within the movie?

Let's see. At the beginning of the movie we witness the dawn of Man. That is,
we see tribes of apes shaken by beastly emotions, fear, rage, aggression;
eaten by predators, sleeping under rocks, fighting with each other for food
and water. Not a pretty sight. The tribe that wins and will give birth to
mankind is the most violent one, the one that discovered how to use tools to
kill. But jump forward a few million years of evolution, and a seemingly
refined humanity is travelling in space and having civilised (if somewhat
cautious) conversations about science and current events.

On the spaceship (curiously spermatozoa-shaped) that is sent to investigate
the mystery of the monolith, there's a crew of hyper-rational astronauts
together with science's latest, most refined tool, an evolution of man itself:
a super-human intelligence that embodies an ideal of rationality and civility.
And how does this end up? In a violent bloodbath, with men fighting to death,
tooth and nails, with their own super-human creation. Clearly, anything men
can produce is tainted by the original sin of violence.

So David Bowman is transported to a place that seems to be outside space or
time, a room decorated in a style that's the essence of civility but also of
sterile coldness; in this space he sees himself living by a futile ideal of
sophistication, only to proceed towards his inevitable decay and death. And as
he's approaching his last moments, the monolith (the otherness) intervenes
again, extracting from his consumed shell, at last, a really new kind of
humanity.

Does it make sense? :)

~~~
garyrob
Nice. This may be the best short synopsis/theory I've ever run across. (I've
seen the movie probably close to 15 times, starting during its initial run
when I was 12. And read the book several times.)

~~~
Udik
Thanks :)

------
nraynaud
I think those 2 videos are on the topic:

\- AI "Stop Button" Problem
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TYT1QfdfsM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TYT1QfdfsM)
(the AI won't let you push the stop button, because that would impair its
function)

\- General AI Won't Want You To Fix its Code
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l7Is6vOAOA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l7Is6vOAOA)
(the AI won't let you patch, because changing its goal means it can't reach
it)

~~~
grondilu
This second video is of particular interest to me, as it tackles a problem
I've been thinking quite a lot lately : is self-modification compatible with
volition? What's the point of wanting something if you can chose what to want?
The pill that makes you love the idea of killing your kids is an extreme
example, and probably no-one would accept to take this pill, but it's really
not so obvious why. Or at least, the reasons are pretty deep.

BTW IMHO a simpler example would be a meta-suicide pill : instead of being a
poison that would just kill you, it's a pill that would make you want to kill
yourself. I suppose you can make people want to kill themselves by inflicting
them an awful chronic pain such that death would look like the only solution,
but the pill I'm thinking about would not do that : it would change your mind
so that you would want to die just because you like the idea of dying, for no
particular reason.

~~~
algorithmsRcool
If this is an interesting topic, give "Permutation City" by "Greg Egan" a
read. It involves a digitized character that intentionally modifies itself in
order to avoid unhappiness.

~~~
chaosmachine
Permutation City is actually by Greg Egan.

~~~
algorithmsRcool
Ah, thank you. I read Permutation City in January right after I read
Neuromancer and apparently got my wires crossed.

~~~
jacobush
Wires permutated

------
vinceguidry
Sanity is a legal definition, not a psychological one. People often forget
that even the mentally-damaged act with reason and logic. This rationality may
not be accessible to a bystander, but is present regardless.

I see the article as making a distinction without a difference. Kubrick was
perfectly clear in his presentation of HAL's motives. There were a few points
of interest, like the chess game, which I missed when I watched the film, but
the 'theory' is how I viewed HAL's actions the whole time.

------
PeterisP
It's just as we are eager to label others as insane simply because their goals
violently conflict with ours and they would do hurtful things to us.

We're eager to label the behavior of various criminals or politicians as crazy
or stupid because we disapprove of it - however, often (though not always) if
you take a step back, it's quite consistent with their interest, the evil
behavior is reasonable, rational and understandable in context of their
situation and goals.

It's not the execution we should worry about, but rather about alignment of
goals - as for other people, as for AI.

------
grabcocque
Wait, is it commonly accepted that HAL was mad?

I had always felt the film made perfectly clear HAL was acting totally
rationally within several conflicting sets of mission parameters and moral
codes.

~~~
taneq
Not even conflicting orders. I thought it was explicitly stated (towards the
end of the book, maybe? It's been years since I read it) that HAL had been
ordered by mission command to ensure the success of the mission at the expense
of the crew if necessary. As crew members started acting suboptimally, HAL
realised they were already jeopardizing the mission just by being fallible
humans, and started to fix the problem. An example of the law of unintended
consequences, maybe, but not a malfunction.

~~~
the_af
In the book, sure. In the movie this isn't at all clear. Or rather: it's
evident HAL considers himself essential to the mission; it's also evident when
they threaten to disconnect him, he can be considered to act in defense of the
mission itself. This is entirely rational.

However, the movie implies HAL has a real problem. I don't know if actually
"insane", but he incorrectly predicts the malfunction of the antenna, and when
confronted about it, he cannot say much more than "oops!". I don't buy this
article's explanation of why he could have faked his analysis of the antenna
-- going by the movie itself, it's clear to me HAL makes a mistake (maybe
because he is conflicted about the contradictory orders). HAL makes a mistake
for which there is no easy way to backpedal without looking faulty.

Also, in the movie (and this is explored more in "2010: The Year We Made
Contact"), it's clear HAL-class computers are capable of irrational, human-
like thought. HAL feels threatened by disconnection. He sounds very scared
when Dave Bowman finally disables him ("Stop, Dave. I'm afraid"). A similar
computer on Earth, SAL, is similary worried about temporary disconnection and
asks "will I dream?". And in the final scene of 2010, Doctor Chandra must be
both gentle to HAL and appeal to his sense of duty for him to follow orders.

I think there's a very good case that HAL did, indeed, go insane. Even if it
was because of contradictory orders.

~~~
stagbeetle
I wouldn't look too deeply into the movie's separations from the text.

One is a very neat science fiction story that allows you to hold your own
interpretations and the other is a vision quest that tells you where you're
going.

Kubrick has always been liberally symbolic in his works, many times
sacrificing "story elements" to show the picture he wants you to see.

~~~
the_af
Oh. I'm fully aware of the differences between the novel and the movie (and
also the fact that they were complementary and simultaneous works). I'm just
arguing that in the movie HAL may actually be insane.

As an aside, I liked the movie better. It is a timeless work of art and (to
me) the measure of every non-space-opera space movie, whereas the book was ok
but not memorable.

------
grondilu
The part I preferred is this one:

> HAL has to be extremely careful before committing the first murder. It is
> possible that he wasn't entirely familiar with the EVA procedure, it being
> one of the few tasks on board the Discovery that does not require his
> participation. Perhaps he needed to observe a dry run to study the
> astronaut's actions and calculate when he would be most vulnerable.

------
xefer
I had always assumed that Kubrick gave an explicit clue that HAL had "snapped"
when he strangely repeats himself when he claims to have detected a problem.
HAL suddenly says "just a moment... just a moment..."

It comes across as just the sort of error he was supposedly incapable of.

~~~
mjevans
I agree with the hint at a timing cue but still don't think HAL 'went insane',
I more agree that he found an 'insane' "solution" to a problem humans would
find intractable.

The "just a moment..." can be thought of more as an auditory interface
representation of "processing", where HAL is exploring the solution space of
ever more unlikely solutions until it has at last resolved a statistically
superior solution.

------
dwringer
I didn't think there was any question; HAL was simply following the orders of
Dr. Langley.

------
sidcool
I am amazed at the level of detail that Kubrick went into. Even after decades
of movie's release there are hidden nuggets I keep finding. Absolutely
brilliant.

------
pps43
The section on the chess game is not particularly persuasive. According to
Stockfish, black already has winning position. So Frank (playing white) can no
longer make mistakes. All moves at his disposal lead to the same outcome.

"Queen to Bishop three" is not a legal move, so Frank could have autocorrected
it.

------
equalunique
At "Replacing the AE-35 Unit" there seems to be a typo in this sentence: "Such
people tend to be curious and want to get the bottom of mysteries, is HAL is
trying to pique their curiosity so that they will take the required action to
fulfil his murder plan."

