When I played Thomas Was Alone (which is also about the characters of AI), it made me think of the nature of a character within games and how they are built up. In many ways, any character in the real world is actually imaginary as we all use our imaginations to fill in the gaps for people we know, don’t we? We imagine their thoughts and motivations and that means we all have differing opinions about the same person. So where we are interacting with this image of a person, does that need to be with an actual person or will an AI be sufficient? The “Turing Test”[1] is a clear indication of when we think a computer has become “human” enough to fool another human and although there should be uncanny valley[2] issues, it should be possible, shouldn't it?
In “Her” (directed by Spike Jonze) there is a man that is seeking a relationship of sorts whilst in the later stages of a divorce.
Theodore (played by Joaquin Phoenix) has a job as a letter writer for a company providing the handwritten notes and declarations of love that people want to give but cannot provide themselves[3]. As it happens, Theodore is also going through a divorce and so is suffering some emotional difficulties too but this appears not to affect the quality of his letters[4]. It does appear to affect the quality of his life an he mopes around feeling lonely - lonely enough to indulge in some phone sex with a stranger.
The launch of a new Operating System is heralded whereby an AI controls your computer (and phone) and Theodore decides to install it. The OS is set up to work for you, more as a PA than a simple OS and so Theodore sets it up as he pleases - with a female voice (provided by Scarlett Johansson) of course. The idea behind the OS is that it will adapt to the user and provide support as and when he needs it and work out whether he should be disturbed for the information. A little like a PA/secretary of yore and there is a long tradition of men falling for their PAs, isn't there? As OS1 is an adaptive artificial intelligence, it also grows over time and "evolves" towards a higher plane of consciousness. As Theodore comes closer to his OS, and moves towards describing her as his girlfriend, the question to be asked is: "Can you be intimate with the inanimate"[5]?
The theme of isolation in numbers is quite strong within the film and shows the strange paradox of dense, urban loneliness quite well. And those relationships being replaced with the almost transactional nature of socialising is shown before the OS1 system is even unveiled. The fact that the job of a letter writer is even required is a little sad in many ways but does show the trend of seeing social interaction as a commodity to be bought and sold as with any other commodity. It (social exchange) is not necessarily any different but I do think it can be a little harder to price. And indeed cost. The phone sex that Theodore indulges in (and available on demand suggesting an "efficient marketplace" in matching supply with demand) is used to show that any “new” medium can have these similarities and, historically we would all have found the notion of being able to get to know people without seeing them as fanciful and ridiculous. I quite liked this piece of foreshadowing as I really do not think many people realise their inconsistencies when it comes to technology. The urban lifestyle shown is a little idealised but it does show a lot of people walking along as individuals and this is something that almost any commuter will recognise. I still remember a few years ago being the only person with headphones on a tube and the only person looking at a screen when travelling - how times change. The pervasiveness of technology is almost unquestioned and when Theodore explains about his new girlfriend, very few people question it and there is this thread underneath about this being increasingly common. The first time anybody questions Theodore about it is his ex-wife when she asks him if he is seeing anyone else. She is a little shocked and taken aback at her replacement by an AI and I think this is understandable although the nature of their relationship breakdown is not explicitly discussed. Feeling that you can be replaced by a lesser being must be a bit strange and although logically, it should make her feel more confident (in that he could not fall for someone that was even the same species as her), it does kind of bite at you. I guess the idea that an adaptive AI was what he needed must make her feel like she has wasted her time a bit.
Jonze is a pretty accomplished director and so the technical aspects of the film are pretty sound - even if they are not necessarily to my liking. The visuals are very pleasant - and this is what is not always to my liking. It is a very smooth look and reminds me of tech (or consumer electronics) adverts - especially with the kind of soft focus that seems used throughout. The lighting throughout is very "sunsetty" with an almost contrived look throughout - you do not see much weather variation and outdoor scenes seem to be close to sunset or sunrise unless dark (and clear) outside. The indoor lighting is also similarly advertesque and is highly planned - it felt a little too presentable for me. On top of that there seemed to be a shallow depth of field[6] which made it really personalised which makes sense as often there was only one person on screen - interacting with a voice in his head. In conjunction with the soundtrack by Arcade Fire, it felt like watching a long advert for an Amazon Kindle with people walking along a beach reading/"interacting" with their device. Ironically, this really reminds me of children playing as before reaching a certain age, toddlers play by themselves but in the shared space of others rather than with each other. I have to say that I did not really like the look that much.
I find judging the film separately from the idea quite tricky in this case - it is clearly a massive part of it and Jonze has done pretty well for a film that is often, visually, a monologue. But, ultimately, I found the second character in this film very annoying and I could not get away from that. Scarlett Johansson, (even apart from her real life interests in money over justice) just has quite an annoying voice and her character is also pretty irritating. By the act of finding her attractive, I felt a little sorry for Theodore - it seemed pretty pathetic (as I assume it is partially meant to be) but the utilitarian nature of their relationship is so clear from the outset that I just found it quite hard to take. Unless he was in a position of weakness - which of course he was.
I did kind of enjoy the film but I felt it could have been much better and the questions posed in the film have been dealt with much better in my opinion. Charlie Brooker touched on it in a Black Mirror episode and I recently heard a radio play called Billions which was better and more thought-provoking. Her is, of course, a lot more mainstream than either of those and that may explain it.
I wonder if this is a vision of our "connected" futures - essentially, everyone is playing a one player game in a massively multi-player world. I do sort of hope not at the moment, but that may be the next stage of prejudice to fight.
2. In computer graphics, this is the difficulty of making 3-D models of humans as we are so used to seeing them, even very slight variances can completely break the façade.↩
3. It is not clear on what basis this service exists but I think there is an interesting idea in this as to whether it is due to the inability to write (at all, or well) or the lack of time.↩
4. The office Theodore works in is the classic American cubicle style variant but a little more open. Everyone still clearly has their own space but it is a slightly airier version than that usually depicted. I don’t think it compares favourably with the kind of open-plan offices I am used to though, from a social point of view.↩
5. There is a relatively well know Nintendo DS game called Love Plus which has gained some popularity in Japan and notoriety elsewhere with its virtual girlfriend status so the answer appears to be yes...↩
6. This is a fairly common technique in photos where the item to be isolated is sharply in focus and the background is blurry.↩
