"A young programmer is selected to participate in a breakthrough experiment in artificial intelligence by evaluating the human qualities of a breathtaking female A.I."
Okay, it sounds a bit like Rick Deckard being asked to test Rachael at the beginning of "Blade Runner," but I'm willing to risk the price of a ticket.
Remarkably, "Ex Machina" is the subject of Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Beware Our Mind Children." Given the Uranium One scandal that has erupted around the Clintons owing to "Clinton Cash" and subsequent Times investigative reporting, one might have expected Dowd, no friend of Hillary, to seize upon the opportunity this Sunday, but it was not meant to be. Although Hillary was mildly chastized in a Times editorial, the newspaper's op-ed columnists have been treating Uranium One as if it was radioactive.
Near the end of her opinion piece, Dowd writes of Alex Garland, the writer and director of "Ex Machina":
"Garland talks about all the things, including government programs, that would run more smoothly with an A.I. in charge. Can he can envision an A.I. president, even more sleek and less emotive than the one we have now?
'There could be an A.I. president; there could,' he replies."
Obama is not "emotive"? Get real, Maureen. Over the course of my lifetime, I cannot remember another instance of presidential petulance that rivaled Obama's hissy fit in response to Netanyahu's speech before Congress.
But more to the point, I would imagine that many Americans would today prefer "Hal" of "2001: A Space Odyssey" fame over Hillary.
