What strikes me, looking back with a little more distance, is just how many scenarios the Machine sorted through - all those factors, all those chess moves, all those butterfly effects. And just like it couldn't predict all of Harold's moves in chess, it didn't know exactly what would happen as a result of each tiny event - not just the big one of Shaw crawling through the vents, but little things like stopping to admire the Degas, Fusco's kiss, pieces of conversation - and yet it's deciding to insert them into scenarios. It seems very arbitrary, but perhaps it's not. Or perhaps I'm being far too Watsonian about it all, and it's better to think about the writers having a good time, which they clearly did.
I'm not sure how simultaneous John's and Root's deaths were in the second scenario, but it was a double failure because John couldn't hold off the goons long enough to complete the hacking (his hero complex failing him). Harold's death in the first scenario was a similar double failure, but I can see the "sentiment" or whatever you want to call it in Machine terms creeping in there. It struck me even on first viewing that Root shouldn't have had time to cradle Harold's dying body and look pitiful; she should have been shot immediately, and perhaps the Machine altered the scenario to prevent that, or imagined that the world would stop to mourn Harold with her.
It might have been better writing if Harold had succeeded in the hack before being shot, and John and Fusco had managed to escape, and then the Machine had to decide if that was an acceptable outcome. Or the reverse, in the second scenario, although losing John and Fusco is not as painful from a Machine standpoint. But obviously there were real-world actor-related concerns, and Shaw had to be the piece sacrificed. I'm not sure there was a chess piece analogy working there, aside from Harold being the king - I've seen the suggestion that Root was the queen and Shaw the knight, but does the chess player really identify with the most powerful piece? In any case, if the Machine is following Harold's precept that life isn't a chess game, then there shouldn't be an analogy anyway. And Shaw's death or capture isn't a Machine-predicted sacrifice, but a totally unexpected outcome of a scenario where none of the assets had much of a chance.
And heh, I'm going to stick with the sense of humor - the abstract dialogue may have been sensible in the context of speeding up thinking, but there was no reason to make it so pointedly on target except for amusement's sake. But again, that's being overly Watsonian. I am still waiting for the writers to make the Machine's reactions completely consistent with its programming and education, and I doubt that's going to happen.
no subject
I'm not sure how simultaneous John's and Root's deaths were in the second scenario, but it was a double failure because John couldn't hold off the goons long enough to complete the hacking (his hero complex failing him). Harold's death in the first scenario was a similar double failure, but I can see the "sentiment" or whatever you want to call it in Machine terms creeping in there. It struck me even on first viewing that Root shouldn't have had time to cradle Harold's dying body and look pitiful; she should have been shot immediately, and perhaps the Machine altered the scenario to prevent that, or imagined that the world would stop to mourn Harold with her.
It might have been better writing if Harold had succeeded in the hack before being shot, and John and Fusco had managed to escape, and then the Machine had to decide if that was an acceptable outcome. Or the reverse, in the second scenario, although losing John and Fusco is not as painful from a Machine standpoint. But obviously there were real-world actor-related concerns, and Shaw had to be the piece sacrificed. I'm not sure there was a chess piece analogy working there, aside from Harold being the king - I've seen the suggestion that Root was the queen and Shaw the knight, but does the chess player really identify with the most powerful piece? In any case, if the Machine is following Harold's precept that life isn't a chess game, then there shouldn't be an analogy anyway. And Shaw's death or capture isn't a Machine-predicted sacrifice, but a totally unexpected outcome of a scenario where none of the assets had much of a chance.
And heh, I'm going to stick with the sense of humor - the abstract dialogue may have been sensible in the context of speeding up thinking, but there was no reason to make it so pointedly on target except for amusement's sake. But again, that's being overly Watsonian. I am still waiting for the writers to make the Machine's reactions completely consistent with its programming and education, and I doubt that's going to happen.
Thanks for playing!