Chappie

幾十年來，編劇和導(dǎo)演一直讓銀幕上的人類和機(jī)器人互為敵手，但這些情節(jié)究竟有多少是從科學(xué)角度上說得過去的？為此我們咨詢了一些人工智能專家，讓他們對這一類型的幾部電影進(jìn)行打分，分?jǐn)?shù)為1到10.根據(jù)他們的打分，我們對這幾部電影進(jìn)行了排名，從最不靠譜的到最靠譜的，如下：

6. Chappie (2015)
《超能查派》（2015）

Summary: A robot police warrior gains self-awareness after a programmer cracks the code for true AI.
總結(jié)：一個(gè)程序員破解了真正的人工智能的編碼后，一個(gè)機(jī)器人警察戰(zhàn)士獲得了自我意識。

What it gets right: Chappie is “born” with a very basic understanding of the world and his surroundings, but it learns through experience. Although the film might not be the most realistic portrayal of machine learning, it is accurate in the sense that many of our most advanced AI algorithms today require the robot to undergo a trial-and-error learning phase.
合理的地方：查派“一出生”就對這個(gè)世界和它周邊的人事有一些最基本的認(rèn)識，但查派是通過后天的經(jīng)驗(yàn)去學(xué)習(xí)的。或許這部影片在機(jī)器人學(xué)習(xí)這一塊上的描寫并不是最現(xiàn)實(shí)的，但從我們?nèi)缃褡顬橄冗M(jìn)的人工智能算法要求機(jī)器人經(jīng)歷試錯(cuò)法的學(xué)習(xí)過程來看，影片在這一點(diǎn)上是十分合理的。

What it gets wrong: There are a lot of problems with this movie, according to the experts. For one, there’s a single rogue programmer who writes a program for AI by himself in his apartment. The experts agree this sort of breakthrough is highly unrealistic, and that the first true AI will be developed slowly over time by a large team of scientists.
不合理的地方：專業(yè)人士表示，這部影片存在很多問題。其中之一，一個(gè)離群索居的程序員在自己的公寓里就編寫出了一個(gè)人工智能程序，這顯然不合理。專家稱，這一突破性的情節(jié)是極為不現(xiàn)實(shí)的，要研發(fā)出一個(gè)真正的人工智能需要很多科學(xué)人員經(jīng)過相當(dāng)長的一段時(shí)間才能做到。

Realism score: 1/10
現(xiàn)實(shí)指數(shù)：1分

A.I.

5. A.I. (2001)
《人工智能》（2001）

Summary: After their son must be put into a hibernationlike stasis to save his life, a family adopts a robotic boy, David, which is programmed to love.
總結(jié)：在兒子必須進(jìn)入類似冬眠狀態(tài)來保命后，這家人領(lǐng)養(yǎng)了一個(gè)機(jī)器人小男孩大衛(wèi)，大衛(wèi)的生存使命就是來愛這家人.

What it gets right: Throughout the film, David has one unchanging objective that is the direct result of his programming—to love and be loved. “This robot boy wants to be loved. If you design this robot child in such a way, it will have these desires and it will act in such a way,” says Marcus Hutter, a computer scientist at the Australian National University.
合理的地方:影片從頭至尾，大衛(wèi)的目標(biāo)一直不曾改變(直接原因出自他自身攜帶的程序)，那就是愛與被愛。“這個(gè)機(jī)器人小孩想要被愛。如果你以這種方式設(shè)計(jì)的這個(gè)機(jī)器人小孩，那他自然就該有這些訴求，就會有這樣的舉止?！卑拇罄麃唶⒋髮W(xué)計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)家馬科斯·哈特如是說。

What it gets wrong: Like in Chappie, we see a single team of scientists create AI over a very short period of time.
不合理的地方：跟《超能查派》一樣，在《人工智能》這部影片中，我們看到的是一小隊(duì)科學(xué)家在很短的時(shí)間內(nèi)就創(chuàng)造出了人工智能。

Realism score: 3/10
現(xiàn)實(shí)指數(shù)：3分

Ex Machina

4. Ex Machina (2015)
《機(jī)械姬》（2015）

Summary: A young programmer (Caleb) wins a trip to visit a computer genius’s (Nathan) compound where he will get to?administer?a Turing test (designed to test whether a machine is capable of humanlike intelligence) to a potentially sentient robot (Ava).
總結(jié)：一名年輕的程序員（加利）贏得了到計(jì)算機(jī)天才（納森）別墅拜訪的機(jī)會，在那里加利將協(xié)助對一個(gè)具有潛在意識的機(jī)器人（夏娃）進(jìn)行“圖靈測試”（旨在測試機(jī)器人夏娃是否具有跟人類相似的智能）。

What it gets right: Nathan doesn’t suddenly “crack the AI problem.” He’s not sure if Ava is sentient or not; she needs to be tested. Ex Machina at least treats the subject as complicated—something that needs to be tested.
合理的地方：納森并沒突然一下子就“解決了人工智能的問題”。他并不確定機(jī)器人夏娃是否具有意識，這一點(diǎn)還需要進(jìn)行測試。《機(jī)械姬》起碼還知道事情是復(fù)雜的，需要進(jìn)一步測試。

What it gets wrong: Yet again we see the “isolated genius” trope. Though Nathan runs the massive internet company BlueBook, it appears most of his work on AI has been done solo—alone in a high-tech house in the woods.
不合理的地方：在這部片中我們又再一次看到“獨(dú)行天才”的把戲。雖然納森開有一家大型網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司BlueBook，但似乎他在人工智能項(xiàng)目上的大部分工作都是在深山中自己的高科技家中一個(gè)人完成的。

Realism score: 5/10
現(xiàn)實(shí)指數(shù)：5分

Transcendence

?

3. Transcendence (2014)
《超驗(yàn)駭客》（2014）

Summary: Computer scientist Will Caster becomes the first world’s first AI specimen when his consciousness is uploaded to a?quantum?computer after he dies.
總結(jié)：計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)家威爾·卡斯特死后，其意識被植入一臺量子計(jì)算機(jī)中，成為了世界上第一個(gè)人工智能的范例。

What it gets right: Until the very end, Will Caster’s AI self is confined entirely to the digital world; he exists solely as a computer program.
合理的地方：影片由始至終，威爾·卡斯特的人工智能自我都完全限定在數(shù)字世界中；他只以計(jì)算機(jī)程序的身份而存在。

What it gets wrong: The whole brain uploading/downloading thing.
不合理的地方：整個(gè)大腦植入/卸載的部分。

Realism score: 6/10
現(xiàn)實(shí)指數(shù)：6分

I, Robot

2. I, Robot (2004)
《我，機(jī)器人》（2004）

Summary: After an executive (Alfred Lanning) at USR robotics corporation is murdered, detective Del Spooner suspects one of the company’s own robots is the?perpetrator.
總結(jié)：機(jī)器人研發(fā)USR公司的高管阿爾弗萊德·朗寧被謀殺后，警探戴爾·斯普納懷疑兇手就是該公司自己研發(fā)的機(jī)器人之一。

What it gets right: Of any film on the list, I, Robot addresses Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics most directly: 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 orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
合理的地方：在這份名單上的幾部電影中，《我，機(jī)器人》最直接地處理了艾薩克·阿西莫夫的機(jī)器人三定律：1）機(jī)器人不能危害人, 或任人受傷而袖手旁觀。2）除非違背第一定律，機(jī)器人必須服從人的命令。3）除非違背第一及第二定律，機(jī)器人必須保護(hù)自己。

What it gets wrong: All the experts are quick to point out that robots do not change their programming, and the notion that they could spontaneously develop new agendas is pure fiction.
不合理的地方：所有的專家都很快就發(fā)現(xiàn)，該影片中的機(jī)器人無需改變他們的程序，以及機(jī)器人能自行開發(fā)新項(xiàng)目日程的這一點(diǎn)完全屬于編造。

Realism score: 6.5/10
現(xiàn)實(shí)指數(shù)：6.5分

2001: A Space Odyssey

1.2001: A Space Odyssey（1968）
《2001：太空漫游》（1968）

Summary: While investigating a strange signal emanating from a large black?monolith?on the moon, the crew of Discovery One discover that their onboard AI (HAL 9000) is malfunctioning.
總結(jié)：在調(diào)查月球上一塊黑石發(fā)出的奇怪信號時(shí)，“探索者一號”上的宇航員發(fā)現(xiàn)隨行的人工智能超級電腦（代號HAL 9000）出現(xiàn)功能失效。

What it gets right: The experts seem to agree that 2001’s treatment of AI is the most accurate of any of the movies on the list. HAL seems certainly sentient, but when asked whether the computer has feelings or emotions, one of the astronauts (Dave) responds that there’s really no way to know.
合理的地方: 專家們都同意《2001：太空漫游》在對人工智能上的處理是這份名單上所有電影中最為合理的。超級電腦HAL看起來是有意識的，但當(dāng)被問及該電腦是否有感覺或情緒時(shí)，其中一名宇航員戴夫回答道，誰也沒有辦法知道答案。

What it gets wrong: Not too much. You don’t get to the top of this list by messing up too royally. We took a point off because there’s no explanation of how HAL works.
不合理的地方：并沒有很多。能在這份名單上登頂，自然不會被挑出很多錯(cuò)。但我們還是發(fā)現(xiàn)了一處地方，也就是影片并沒有向我們解釋到底超級電腦HAL是如何工作的。

Realism score: 9/10
現(xiàn)實(shí)指數(shù)：9分