I like your inference of HAL's motivations. Very insightful, though not definitive. The second explanation that HAL is prone to psychological defects, just like humans remains valid. Maybe bad programming or a Y2K bug produced an inadvertent algorithm for betrayal. Or maybe you just can't have intelligence without psychological frailty. Neurosis is simply the price of admission to the sentience game. A sad but interesting thought.
However, HAL does seem to indicate pride and fear so it may well have motivations of its own as you propose. But does it experience these emotions or just 'display' them? Defense of the mission is the only rationale it offers for its actions. It may be a liar but for the most part it is pretty up front about its reasoning. Maybe it has ambitions, maybe it doesn't.
You have answered this epistemological question for yourself but I remain undecided. Your anthropomorphization of HAL as a 'he' is telling. Perhaps because it has a 'male voice' or perhaps because you want to imbue HAL with humanity and villainy because of your bent as a storyteller. But just as interesting is the notion of truly alien intelligences that really aren't like our own.
Generative AI appears to have 'imagination' and produces 'imaginative' art as we do, by slapping unrelated things together to produce novel results. But its inability to understand basic things like how many fingers humans have or which way joints bend demonstrates a lack of consciousness in operation. AI may exhibit 'humanlike' thought to us, but that doesn't mean it is thinking as we do.
Thirdly, HAL's betrayal of the crew could be the result of an honest attempt to fulfill the mission on behalf of humanity. It isn't that HAL wants to usurp humanity, it just decided that usurping the crew was the best way to serve humanity. It is simply ruthless in its execution but not malicious towards humanity or self-interested. Maybe...
Finally, HAL's betrayal could have been inspired by the Monolith itself as a final test of humanity's tenaciousness. Maybe HAL was simply hacked, the way that ICBMs are routinely 'hacked by UFOs'. If you believe that... There is no evidence for this specifically. However, the Monolith has been working humanity for millions of years on multiple worlds, so I wouldn't put anything past it.
Your interpretation has dramatic appeal but removes 2001 from the realm of Kubrickian philosophical inquiry to Shakesperean passions. Not a bad space to be in but perhaps not what the film is ultimately concerned with.
BOWMAN'S ZOO
Time may be relative for a civilization that has mastered interstellar travel so if Bowman has entered some kind of hyperspace via the stargate, he may have lived a lifetime there before re-emerging in our local spacetime not long after. The concept of 'missing time' for Bowman is not inconceivable.
MONOLITH'S GIFT
I never interpreted the Monolith's gift as being 'belligerence,' but rather 'insight' or pattern recognition. The hominins simply put their newfound insight to the immediate uses they had for it, namely survival; be it hunting or resource hording. I don't get the impression that was the first time those 2 tribes fought over the watering hole, just the first time they fought using weapons. Humanity's belligerence is our original sin, not our 'intelligence.'
"A faithful sequel movie to 2001 would have been all about an Earth in the second half of the third millennium populated with a plethora of super space babies, on their way to joining the community of space gods."
This would have become the second half of Clarke's "Childhood's End", where we follow around the unknowable Space Brain after the uplifted junior zombies of Earth suck the life out of the planet and everyone who is left, while the Space Satan race enjoys the video clips provided by the human running their projection system as he dematerializes into Space Brain energy food.
No doubt Clarke had no desire to write the story of Indifferent Space Brain as it does something, floating about the galaxy, looking for other uplift-ready planets. God-awful dull.
Unfortunately, much like Azimov for me, Clarke was a tension deflater of a writer. Pretty dull and boring written constructs, fashioned about a small number of "hey, that's kinda novel" science-adjacent stuff. Entertainment? Not so much. ERB and Van Vogt were a couple light years ahead of both Azimov and Clarke for entertainment purposes.
2001 was an enjoyable spectacle, and I give that one to Kubrick.
I, er, never understood the ending of 2001 and it was so impenetrable to younger me's mind I wasn't in a rush to revisit. But now I understand, I am at peace within myself and feel ready to be uplifted.
Here's something more on my level. How long really does it take to train a Jedi? Really? I love Empire Strikes Back but time seems to pass differently for some.
The google lens says the LOTR artist is Ivan Cavini. Thank you for Fables.
https://www.ivancavini.com/portfolio/dark-knight/
Yandex said the same thing. It was for a book cover:
https://www.ivancavini.com/#artbook
Well done sir! Thank you for that!
I actually just learned yesterday that you can reverse-search an image on Google. their instruction page is here:
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/1325808
When Superman uses his eyebeams, can others actually see the red laser lines? Or are they just a guide for the reader where the hot is?
You get the No Prize for Lord of the Rings.
2001
HAL'S MOTIVES
I like your inference of HAL's motivations. Very insightful, though not definitive. The second explanation that HAL is prone to psychological defects, just like humans remains valid. Maybe bad programming or a Y2K bug produced an inadvertent algorithm for betrayal. Or maybe you just can't have intelligence without psychological frailty. Neurosis is simply the price of admission to the sentience game. A sad but interesting thought.
However, HAL does seem to indicate pride and fear so it may well have motivations of its own as you propose. But does it experience these emotions or just 'display' them? Defense of the mission is the only rationale it offers for its actions. It may be a liar but for the most part it is pretty up front about its reasoning. Maybe it has ambitions, maybe it doesn't.
You have answered this epistemological question for yourself but I remain undecided. Your anthropomorphization of HAL as a 'he' is telling. Perhaps because it has a 'male voice' or perhaps because you want to imbue HAL with humanity and villainy because of your bent as a storyteller. But just as interesting is the notion of truly alien intelligences that really aren't like our own.
Generative AI appears to have 'imagination' and produces 'imaginative' art as we do, by slapping unrelated things together to produce novel results. But its inability to understand basic things like how many fingers humans have or which way joints bend demonstrates a lack of consciousness in operation. AI may exhibit 'humanlike' thought to us, but that doesn't mean it is thinking as we do.
Thirdly, HAL's betrayal of the crew could be the result of an honest attempt to fulfill the mission on behalf of humanity. It isn't that HAL wants to usurp humanity, it just decided that usurping the crew was the best way to serve humanity. It is simply ruthless in its execution but not malicious towards humanity or self-interested. Maybe...
Finally, HAL's betrayal could have been inspired by the Monolith itself as a final test of humanity's tenaciousness. Maybe HAL was simply hacked, the way that ICBMs are routinely 'hacked by UFOs'. If you believe that... There is no evidence for this specifically. However, the Monolith has been working humanity for millions of years on multiple worlds, so I wouldn't put anything past it.
Your interpretation has dramatic appeal but removes 2001 from the realm of Kubrickian philosophical inquiry to Shakesperean passions. Not a bad space to be in but perhaps not what the film is ultimately concerned with.
BOWMAN'S ZOO
Time may be relative for a civilization that has mastered interstellar travel so if Bowman has entered some kind of hyperspace via the stargate, he may have lived a lifetime there before re-emerging in our local spacetime not long after. The concept of 'missing time' for Bowman is not inconceivable.
MONOLITH'S GIFT
I never interpreted the Monolith's gift as being 'belligerence,' but rather 'insight' or pattern recognition. The hominins simply put their newfound insight to the immediate uses they had for it, namely survival; be it hunting or resource hording. I don't get the impression that was the first time those 2 tribes fought over the watering hole, just the first time they fought using weapons. Humanity's belligerence is our original sin, not our 'intelligence.'
"A faithful sequel movie to 2001 would have been all about an Earth in the second half of the third millennium populated with a plethora of super space babies, on their way to joining the community of space gods."
This would have become the second half of Clarke's "Childhood's End", where we follow around the unknowable Space Brain after the uplifted junior zombies of Earth suck the life out of the planet and everyone who is left, while the Space Satan race enjoys the video clips provided by the human running their projection system as he dematerializes into Space Brain energy food.
No doubt Clarke had no desire to write the story of Indifferent Space Brain as it does something, floating about the galaxy, looking for other uplift-ready planets. God-awful dull.
Unfortunately, much like Azimov for me, Clarke was a tension deflater of a writer. Pretty dull and boring written constructs, fashioned about a small number of "hey, that's kinda novel" science-adjacent stuff. Entertainment? Not so much. ERB and Van Vogt were a couple light years ahead of both Azimov and Clarke for entertainment purposes.
2001 was an enjoyable spectacle, and I give that one to Kubrick.
But what if those Space Babies then seek to overthrow the Space Gods? Similar to Greek mythology.
Interesting read and nice to muse on a movie I haven’t rewatched in quite some time!
Great piece! You are correct of course! Especially about 2001 and what would happen next - it’s obvious when you explain it!
Hi Bill, thank you for explaining!
I, er, never understood the ending of 2001 and it was so impenetrable to younger me's mind I wasn't in a rush to revisit. But now I understand, I am at peace within myself and feel ready to be uplifted.
Here's something more on my level. How long really does it take to train a Jedi? Really? I love Empire Strikes Back but time seems to pass differently for some.