Should HAL 9000 have been expanded upon?

[attackfighter]

In the original movie I mean. Obviously I don't care about the "expanded universe" lol of 2001 - if such a thing even exists.

I personally do. It's never really explained what made him commit his initial error of falsely reporting a systems malfunction. Did he have sinister intentions all along? Or was it really just a mistake? And if it was a mistake, was he correct to attribute it to human error?

One idea I have for making it clear, without making it obvious, is to have him cheat during his chess game. Perhaps he somehow made a mistake and is on the verge of losing. So not wanting to come to turns with the fact that he's fallible, he decides to cheat. The human is tired and not paying overly much attention, so Hal switches around a piece on the board in order to make him win. This would be cool I think, since it adds some foreboding early on in the story and raises the tension.

 

[Lillefix]

For people who wonder what the book says:

The film is generally far more enigmatic about the reason for HAL's failure, while the novel spells out that HAL is caught up in an internal conflict because he is ordered to lie about the purpose of the mission.

 

[attackfighter]

Eh, I don't care for that explanation. The whole "conflicting AI protocols" has been done and done better.

 

[Son of Erdrick]

I always thought his breaking point was when he made a mistake/let those cryo-stasis scientists die (when the room goes all red and he sees his first (at least from our point of view) failure). From there he broke down over coming to grips with his less-than-infallible nature.

However, I was also very, very, very much tripping when I saw the movie. Actually, I do not think I have never seen it sober.

 

[BvBPL]

Eh, I don't care for that explanation. The whole "conflicting AI protocols" has been done and done better.

If you don't care for the author's intent then you might as well make up a new explanation out of whole cloth. Here's two for you: HAL crashed because it realized it was a just one step away from being IBM, or HAL crashed because it was thinking too much about bunnies.

What, exactly, is the purpose of this exercise? To write interpretative fan fiction about HAL or something?

 

[vypernight]

But a lot of computers already cheat on games IRL.

 

[attackfighter]

I always thought his breaking point was when he made a mistake/let those cryo-stasis scientists die (when the room goes all red and he sees his first (at least from our point of view) failure). From there he broke down over coming to grips with his less-than-infallible nature.

However, I was also very, very, very much tripping when I saw the movie. Actually, I do not think I have never seen it sober.

HAL 9000 killed the scientists because he lip-read the two conscious ones plotting to kill him. But the system malfunction happens before any of that, so I think an explanation for what it's all about is needed.

If you don't care for the author's intent

I only accept author's intent when it's good. Otherwise I'd be accepting the Star Wars prequels, and that would be horrible.

 

[BvBPL]

I only accept author's intent when it's good. Otherwise I'd be accepting the Star Wars prequels, and that would be horrible.

Well, for what it's worth, Kubrick certainly had the ability to expand HAL to whatever point he wanted. He probably decided that other elements were more important. Obviously in the book, Clarke had the luxury of being able to expand that HAL more simply by dint of his medium.

 

[Leoreth]

What's wrong with the explanation in the book? And what would be a better explanation?

 

[Lillefix]

What's wrong with the explanation in the book? And what would be a better explanation?

The thing is that the explanation given in the book is too mundane, and it is an explanation given by a scientific mind. What the OP wants is a more spiritual explanation, like one given by an artist.

 

[BvBPL]

That makes sense. Clarke was a scientist so it makes sense for the original to be a scientific, but it is interesting that Kubrick (and Clarke) made the artistic choice not to include an explanation. The artist, Kubrick, choose not to provide an explanation.

 

[JohannaK]

That is far more interesting, I believe we can all agree upon that, and it works out just marvellously.

 

[Son of Erdrick]

Moreover, I love how the both decided to work on the project concurrently (I believe) and produced such different, yet similar sci-fi epics!

 

[homeyg]

Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?
HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave Bowman: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.
HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Dave Bowman: [feigning ignorance] Where the hell did you get that idea, HAL?
HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Dave Bowman: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.
HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave? You're going to find that rather difficult.
Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!
HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

 

[warpus]

But a lot of computers already cheat on games IRL.

They don't - they follow the rules and parameters given to them 100%

 

[Leoreth]

The thing is that the explanation given in the book is too mundane, and it is an explanation given by a scientific mind. What the OP wants is a more spiritual explanation, like one given by an artist.

Yeah, because fiction isn't already dominated by an anti-science mindset