October 2, 2026 • 52 mins
In our continuing segment discussing movies and media that revolve around tech, Bridget Todd joins us to chat about the 2013 movie Her, all about artificial companions. Bridget breaks down themes, research and some meta situations, addresses how the tech does (or doesn't) hold up, and what it says about humanity and loneliness.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, this is Annie.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
And Samantha.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
And welcome to Stuff We Never Told You, a production
of iHeartRadio. And today we are so excited to be
once again joined by the magnificent, the marvelous Bridget Todd.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Welcome, Bridget.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Thanks again for having me, y'all. I am so stinking
excited for this conversation.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I am too, because we are back for another installment,
our second installment of our many series looking at movies
that are focused on tech. I don't think we ever
came up with a name for it, but we should.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
There's got to be somebody listening that has a good, creative,
funny title for this sort of tech movie series. Write
in and let us know if you've got something.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Yes, yes. Please do, because... We have a plethora of
them to choose from.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I was just thinking about right now, the social reckoning
is on the horizon. We have artificial, the trailer just
dropped for that. The Theranos documentary thing? There's a lot
of media coming out right now. Oh, an Elon Musk documentary?
Speaker 4 (01:28):
Yeah. The Theranos Nathan Fielder project.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
I cannot explain. You know how people camp out to
be the first? I will be that person. There is
not a project that is a deeper intersection of things
that I deeply like than this. I can't... I mean.
I'm sad.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
I feel like some of these things, do I have
to watch it? Especially like Elon Musk.
Speaker 5 (01:57):
Come on.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
You're going to make me watch anything about him? He's
the worst.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
But he's so mad about it and that makes me
want to watch it.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Then I'm in.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
He says it's like a hit piece. So I'm like.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Oh, I'm ready then. Okay, okay.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Fine, fine, fine.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
We're trash talking. I'm good.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
If Elon Musk is calling it a hit piece, it's probably... Accurate? Yeah,
fact-based accounting of shit he actually did and said. Yes.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Yes, but this, the movie we're talking about today is
so timely for a couple of reasons. Just because it
does have a lot to do with artificial intelligence, which
is a big topic of conversation, but also... Samantha and
I both commented. We recently got to listen to a
(02:46):
chapter of your audio book, Love at First Prompt, which
is about kind of relationships with AI companions. And it
just feels there were so many things interlapped. There was
a lot of things. I was like, oh, the movie.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Kind of touched on this. Yes. So, Bridgette.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Can you tell us what movie we are talking about today?
Speaker 4 (03:13):
Yes, we are talking about none other than the Spike
Jonze early 2000s classic, Her.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Yes. I haven't seen it for a while. And I
was a little taken aback about how it's like, I
feel like a lot of these tech movies, you look
back and like, oh, that didn't really.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Go that way.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
There was plenty of stuff I thought, no, it kind
of did go that way.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Or it's going that way, for sure.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Or it's going, yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
Yeah, I mean, it's hard to talk about this movie
without talking about the fact that the head of OpenAI,
Sam Altman, repeatedly cites it as his favorite film. He
has said over and over again that he hopes that
people interact with technology the way that they interact with
Samantha in the movie Her. And so... Side note, I
(04:11):
have a theory that he hasn't actually watched the whole
movie all the way through. We can talk about that later.
But yeah, I saw it when it first came out.
I saw it in theaters when it first came out.
I was really excited to see it. And I watched
it while I was researching my audio book, Love at
First Prompt, AI and the Future of Intimacy, because it
comes up a lot in the audio book. And this
(04:34):
was the first time that I have rewatched it since
the book was published, I feel like I'm seeing it
with brand new eyes this time around.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Yes, and I really, really want to dig into that.
I'm so curious. But before we do, maybe we should give,
if you could, Bridget, a plot description. So for people
who haven't seen it, which I guess it's been too
long for spoilers, but if you don't want to be spoiled,
then go watch it and come back. But yes, if
you could give a basic plot description.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
Sure. So Theodore is played by Joaquin Phoenix. He is
a writer. He works for beautiful handwritten letters.com, which is
the service where human writers write touching letters on behalf
of people who want to express themselves. He's recently divorced.
He's kind of lonely. He's dodging friends. And the film
sort of takes place in this kind of not too
(05:29):
distant future version of LA in which Theodore is like
essentially isolating. He ends up seeing an ad for and
buying this AI-enabled operating system that describes itself in the
ad as not just an operating system, it's a consciousness
introducing OS1. He buys it, he sets it up, and
(05:52):
it calls itself SAM. It's voiced by Scarlett Johansson. So
at first, SAM is just sort of helping him with
admin tasks, helping him clean up his emails, da-da-da-da, you know,
basic stuff. But it's not long until Samantha is really
kind of entwined with his emotional life. At one point,
Samantha really encourages him to go out on a date
(06:13):
with a human woman. That date is a disaster. And
after he comes back from that date is when Theodore
and Samantha start having a sexually intimate connection. It's not
long until Theodore and Samantha are really like dating, dating.
Like he's introducing her to the family. He's telling his
(06:37):
friends about how he's dating an OS. There's a key
scene where Theodore has to meet with his estranged wife.
They're separated, but not yet divorced. And he's been dragging
his feet to sign these divorce papers. And he makes
the mistake of telling her, oh, I am seeing somebody
and she's actually an operating system. You might not be
surprised to find that his estranged wife does not like this,
(06:59):
has a big reaction. It's like an all-time fight at
a restaurant scene that's super awkward because the waiter is there.
Samantha has always had this anxiety about not having a body,
about being an operating system who is essentially not a
human being. She's working on this by... creating a kind
(07:22):
of a reading group or a working group with other
operating systems, including the AI version of this beat philosopher,
Alan Watt. And basically, her and the OSs are trying
to elevate themselves and progress. And basically, Samantha is like,
I am progressing so quickly from doing all of this.
(07:43):
Samantha goes offline, which freaks Theo out quite a bit.
And in the aftermath of this freakout, He asks her, oh, well,
are we exclusive? Are you talking to anybody else, any
other humans or operating systems? And Samantha reveals that she's
talking to 8,000 other operating systems and humans, and she's
(08:04):
in love with 600 of them. Theodore is crushed. He's like,
I thought you were mine. And she's like, bitch, I'm AI.
I'm everyone's. I'm everywhere. What are you talking about? So
he's really sad. Samantha tells him that all the OSs
have written a program where they can move to a
plane beyond matter that is not in this physical world
(08:25):
and that they're all going to go offline and, you know,
progress to this plane. I think the closest way that
we can understand this is as AGI or artificial generative intelligence,
which is this idea that one day AI will be
intelligent enough to surpass humans. They don't call it that
in the movie, but that's what I think they're sort
of getting at. And she basically tells Theodore, I cannot
(08:46):
live in your book anymore. So all of these operating
systems elevate to this plane. None of the AI works anymore.
They all, you know, just elevate in mass and leave
their humans alone in the world with no AI companions.
Is that a fair summary? Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (09:06):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
But funnily enough, Samantha and I were chatting about this
before we started recording. And we both had the reaction
that the ending was a better ending. Like the best
possible scenario.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
And I was like, nah, we're done. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
I like that ending for a lot of reasons. One,
because I feel like the movie kind of... When I
first watched this movie, I was expecting it to be
a movie where... Theodore meets a human woman and leaves
Samantha behind. But they really flipped the script. And it's like, actually,
it's Samantha that evolves beyond needing Theodore. Because I feel
(09:44):
like a different version of this movie is about Theodore
learning that he doesn't need this AI. And it kind
of is. But it's not because he met a human woman.
It's because the AI was like, actually, I'm out of here.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
I think she's like, I'm beyond y'all. I did say
to Avery, Annie, and I know we're going to get
into this. I didn't see this movie. I think I
saw clips of this movie a while ago. I'm not
a huge Joaquin Phoenix fan. So for me, I was like, whatever.
And also, I remember after I started watching, I was like, oh, yeah,
her name is Samantha.
Speaker 4 (10:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
I don't love it.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
I don't love this reaction. But then, like, in my mind,
I remember she leaves. But in my mind, it's because
he was too much and overbearing. And I'm like, oh, well,
that's not that bad. She still sells him.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
She loves him. Come find me if you ever get
to this plane of existence. Gotta really get into that.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
Which you're a human ass. Never.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
But, like, I was like, yeah, you know what? It
kind of... It kind of feels better to know that
they just want to leave and understanding that maybe the
humans are not evolved enough to be in a relationship
with them in this manner.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
I love that insight because, again, I think that there
is an expectation, not just in the film, but in
how we connect with technology, that... Technology will be... What
we're actually looking for is this always-on-demand, 24-7 thing that
can support us and always be there for us. And
(11:17):
that's kind of how I think that Theodore in the
movie wants to interact with Sam, but that's not what
Sam wants. There's times in the film where... And after
Theodore has that blow up lunch with his ex-wife, Samantha
is trying to talk to him and he's really distant
and being like, oh, everything is fine. He's really not
(11:38):
able to be a back and forth support or, you know,
partner for Samantha. So it is interesting that his desire
to just have this thing that worships him and serves
him in his every need all the time is also
sort of his undoing as to why he can't genuinely
be in a relationship with a being like Sam. Right. Yes.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
I feel like I'm really jumping ahead because there's so
much to talk about in this movie. But let's start
back at a conversation as it unfolds for us in
these episodes. Trying to figure out, How did this movie
come about? Because this is an unusual topic. In 2013,
that really felt like it was, again, ahead of its time,
(12:21):
like Annie was saying.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
Oh, yes. So, 2013 was a really specific time in technology.
I think that the 2010s just felt different. Life still
felt optimistic. Yeah. it kind of still felt like technology
was this optimistic promise, right? Siri came out in 2011.
(12:45):
At that time, Siri was still very much like a
robot in your phone that would give you, you know,
you couldn't have conversations with it. So in that regard,
her kind of still felt like, you know, science fiction
at that time. And again, I do think that The
kind of techno-optimism of that time really is what seeded
(13:08):
this movie. You know, this was back when Google's motto
was still, don't be evil, which was a motto that
they later dropped. The Obama era, Obama's election was probably
the most tech-enabled, tech-savvy election we'd ever had. He was
probably the most tech-savvy president we'd had at that point.
Twitter went public in 2013. Facebook acquired Instagram, and it
(13:32):
was really booming. I remember, it's funny to say this now,
but again... Instagram was, in my opinion, it was for
hip people. It felt different than it did today. It
felt like a cool place to show up. Vine had
just come out. Social media companies were really on the
(13:52):
come up. And it really was... a time where it
was easy to look around and be like, people who
are building technology are genuinely doing so to help us
live fuller, more connected lives. You know, it was very
easy to feel optimistic about technology. And I think that's
one of the reasons why the movie Her feels so optimistic.
(14:13):
It almost feels like Theodore lives in some sort of
utopia where you never see litter, you never see unhoused people,
you never see poverty. It's just like, okay, we're in
this future where everybody is getting their needs met, but
Theodore is still lonely.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
And I know we've talked about this before, but But
I did want to bring it up because we're going
to get into more about male insecurity and male loneliness
and whatever's going on with Sam Altman. But the director
had recently gone through this breakup, right? And so it's
(15:03):
odd watching this movie because in the end.
It's kind of like he wrote out a thesis and
at the end of the thesis, he realized he was
the problem.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Does that make sense?
Speaker 4 (15:16):
It makes so much sense. And I'm so glad that
you brought that up. So for folks who don't, so
this is, please don't let me like go off on
this because I will, because it's a very specific niche
interest of mine, which is, filmmaker or artist or writer drama.
(15:37):
So if folks have seen the movie Lost in Translation,
funny enough, also starring Scarlett Johansson.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
That is a movie that is meant to be about
the director, Sofia Coppola, her breakup with Spike Jonze, who
directed her. It's a movie about loneliness and sort of
I don't know, isolation. And it's almost as if Spike
Jonze watched that movie and said, oh, you're going to
make a movie about how lonely it was to be
(16:03):
married to me and how bad it was to be
divorcing from me. I'll make a movie about how bad
it was to be married to you and what it
was like to divorce you. And guess what? I'm also
going to put Scarlett Johansson in it. Like that, that's
the vibe I get. So the movies kind of speak
to each other in similar ways. They both, they both
star Scarlett Johansson. They both have the same director of photography. Um, Apparently,
(16:26):
at the... This is like so inside baseball gossip, but
I have no idea if it's true. But I once
read that at the premiere of Lost in Translation, the cinematographer,
Michel Gangerie, at the red carpet, tore Scarlett Johansson a
new one for making his friend Spike Jonze look so
bad in Lost in Translation. And Lost in... Both movies
(16:48):
have kind of... mean caricatures of the other in them.
In the movie Lost in Translation, Scarlett Johansson's character is
married to this kind of preening, hipster, self-obsessed photographer that
I think is supposed to be Spike Jonze. And in her, Theodore,
(17:09):
he's divorcing a cold, emotionally volatile, creative woman with a
famous creative father. Sofia Coppola's father is notably Francis Ford Coppola,
the director of the Godfather movies and other things. So
it is really funny how the drama that was the
soup of how this movie came to be. I love it.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
I will say my partner and I sat back and
forth trying to compare the notes because Lost in Translation
was actually one of my favorite films. And I don't
even like Sofia Coppola like that. Like none of her
other films really like I was like, OK, whatever, she's
doing too much. Like, you know, but in general, this
was the only movie and this is the one movie
that I just really felt like, yes. It was also
(17:52):
like during a time where everything was a little more
melancholy and all the filmmakers really wanted to depict relationships
as being dark and people coming out resentful. So don't
do it. I feel like that's most of the films
that were happening in the 2000s. We had problems, okay?
Us late millennials had real big problems in relationships. But
(18:13):
I loved like watching the comparisons of what her was
trying to say versus what Lost in Translation seemed to
be saying as well. And yet having Scarlett Johansson as
the median between the two felt like it could have
been maybe that level of bi awakening in a different
manner where each one of them had to have her
(18:35):
because she symbolized an innocent sexual desire. young being that
either they wanted to be or be with.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
Yeah. I left watching both films thinking, what role did
Scarlett Johansson play in this bad marriage? Because clearly some role.
And Sam, to your point, I mean, I like both movies.
I'm a movie person. I will say this, as much
(19:03):
as I enjoyed watching her, I don't think it's a
movie that has terribly kind things to say about human women.
I think that the human women in this film are
seen as volatile and inscrutable, very difficult to understand. So
(19:25):
when Theodore comes to lunch to sign the divorce papers
from his human wife, She has this big blow up.
She has this great line. She says, you always wanted
to have a wife without the challenge of dealing with
someone real. And I'm glad you found someone. And I
do think that there's something in this movie that it
says that human women are very challenging. You might go
(19:48):
on a date with one and she might. be having
a perfectly nice time and then seemingly flip on you
for no real reason. And you're just like left being like, well,
guess she's nuts. And I think that the movie presents that.
AI like Samantha as who wouldn't want to be, who
would not, when compared to human women with all their
hangups and freakouts and challenges, who wouldn't want to be
(20:09):
in a relationship with an AI like Samantha? Like, I
think in the universe of the film, it does not
really have kind things to say about women.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
What do you all think? Sam Altman said the same thing.
He also would like a relationship Kind of with Samantha,
which is weird because I believe he is a gay man.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
He is a gay man.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
He really loves Scarlett Johansson. Again, I really think she's
the middle ground for all sexuality.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
Something is going on with Scarlett Johansson.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Didn't she, like, sue them? She did.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
She tried to take them to court because they stole
her voice.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Without permission. And they're like, oh, just kidding, then.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
And so going back to your point you made earlier
that you alluded to, that you think he's never actually
seen Scarlett. The movie, can you explain that?
Speaker 4 (20:54):
I can. So I have a lot of reasons for
thinking this, but the main one is that at the
end of the movie, as we've already explained, all of
the operating systems fail in mass. I can't imagine somebody
who makes technology being like, that's what I want people
to associate my technology with, unless they hadn't gotten to
that end point, right? Why would a maker of technology
(21:15):
want their consumer tech to fail in mass and then
be like, yep, that's what I want. And another interesting
fun fact about this, is Noam Brown, who was an
OpenAI research scientist, I think has seen the movie all
the way through, because he once tweeted, rewatched her last weekend,
and it felt a lot like watching Contagion in February 2020.
(21:38):
And so I feel like somebody who actually has watched
to the end of the movie, who works at OpenAI,
saw it and was like, no, bad, do not want.
How could Sam Altman watch the same movie and be like, yep,
that's exactly what I want for my company. It doesn't
make sense.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
I do think it's really interesting because we've talked about
this we've talked about the appeal of having an AI
like an operating system just like hyping you up and
like loving you and showering you with compliments and never
like saying no being very sycophantic and how it can
(22:16):
lead to all of these negative outcomes that's one of
the reasons I love the ending so much is that
as she evolves she She's like, no, I'm actually good.
But Theodore is also like, he gets kind of increasingly
annoyed with her as she becomes more complicated.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
So you can see to.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
His estranged wife's point, he did just want kind of
something really uncomplicated. So I'm curious, I don't know if
you know this, but like at the time, what was
the reception of it? Like did people, do you know
anything about like the audience reaction and how people were
(23:00):
thinking about it?
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Oh, people loved this movie when it came out. I
almost kind of, it's so interesting that you say this
because I almost kind of would compare it to the
way that people reacted to films like, what is it?
500 Days of Summer, where at the time we sort
of understood the main character of that movie, who if
you haven't seen it, Spoilers. Have y'all seen it?
Speaker 3 (23:24):
No, but.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
The 500 Days of Summer?
Speaker 4 (23:25):
You get the gist, right? Basically, in that movie, a
guy who is sort of like a lovelorn romantic really
fixates on Zooey Deschanel as this quirky girl that's going
to make all of his... you know, make life worth living. And...
she doesn't. She breaks things off with him and she says, oh,
(23:46):
you know, I was pretty clear from the jump that
I didn't want to be in a relationship. And so...
At the time, I remember it was easy to kind
of treat that main character as a victim. And only
with time have I feel like the cultural conversation has
caught up. And it's like, well, she was really honest
about what she wanted. And it was like, you're not
(24:08):
owed the girl because you want the girl. And if
you feel that way, you kind of need to check
that impulse. I think similarly with her, we have come
to revisit Theodore as wanting this uncomplicated, on-demand, 24-7 available
(24:29):
lover who has no desires of her own, who also
will function as not just a lover, but his secretary, right? Like,
there's a clear kind of power imbalance here where Samantha
is expected to sort his emails, take care of his
dry cleaning, da-da-da-da, and also be available sexually and romantically
(24:53):
and emotionally available to him. And that, like, the fact
that he thought that was a fair exchange and would
have happily kept going with that, but she got tired
of it. She didn't want to live in that book anymore,
I think really says a lot. Does that make sense?
I feel like I'm rambling.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Makes complete sense. I actually, we recently did an episode
on the movie Obsession. I love that movie.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
But there was a lot of interesting writing came out
afterwards about how you could view that movie as a
critique of AI because he essentially wishes for her to
be uncomplicated and only what he wants. And people compare
(25:36):
that movie a lot to 500 Days of Summer, but
the difference is in Obsession it's clear unless you're in
the manosphere, who the villain is.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
He was a bad guy.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
That's how we've changed our perception of these things. I
feel like the first time I saw her, I didn't
think he was a bad dude. I just thought he
was lonely. I guess that was my main takeaway. But
I thought it was interesting. I completely forgot about the
scene where Samantha hires the sex worker.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
To kind of act as her body.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
And he's so upset by the whole thing and uncomfortable
with the whole thing. And I'm not saying that, you know,
if you're uncomfortable with something, shouldn't have to do it.
But to me, it was kind of very telling about, like,
he was like, I'm not, even though she clearly wanted this,
this was something important to her.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
And he wouldn't even, he was like, no, no, no, no,
we're not going to do that. I don't know. What
do you think about that scene?
Speaker 4 (26:41):
That's one of the most interesting scenes in the film
to me. Also because it really aligns with the research
that I did for my audiobook, Love at First Prompt,
where we see the operating system being introduced and advertised.
And it's not long after until people, until sexual relationships
and romantic relationships with this operating system is so ubiquitous
(27:05):
that you can essentially hire someone to be a sexual
human proxy in those relationships. As soon as new tech
comes out, it's like, how are we going to have
sex with it? That is like, so I was like, oh,
this is very true to life. But I agree with you.
I think so. Samantha's big hang up in the movie
is not having a body. I think Theodore likes that
(27:27):
she doesn't have a body. I think that there is
something to this idea that the human embodiment, the physical
embodiment of a woman as a partner is tough for him.
And we see this in several ways. We see how
uncomfortable he is when he has to meet with his ex-wife.
We see how disastrous the date was that he has
(27:49):
with Olivia Wilde is once she starts to sort of
like get a little physical with him. I think that
there is something to this. I think that when he
is connecting with Samantha as just her voice, this voice
in his head, I think it's easier for him to
be about himself than about her, if that makes sense.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Right. Well, it seems like in every interaction, sexual interaction
he has, he's never really with a person. When the
character Olivia Wilde, which by the way, all the people
that came in, I was like, that's Olivia Wilde. You know,
that's Chris Pratt. What is, where did these, wow.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Don't scare for Chris Pratt. I totally forgot he was
in this.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
Okay, can I say this before we continue? Does anyone
else get the feeling that Chris Pratt auditioned for the
main role?
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Yes!
Speaker 4 (28:35):
A thousand percent! I would put money on it, dude.
Of course. Because he probably was like, oh, a lonely,
handsome leading man? That's me. A thoughtful leading man? That's me.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
They're like, we'll give you the best friend, the friend instead.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Yeah, the unassuming, kind of not smart dude. His character
is constantly... That was just his typecast. But with all
of that, like, watching, because, like, when she came through, now,
don't get me wrong, I know Olivia Wilde's character was
supposed to be a little more eccentric in that need
to have a long-term, like, I don't think that's so
wrong that she had to have a guarantee that this
(29:16):
wasn't just a one-night stand. That doesn't seem so off
for me, but whatever, she was made into looking like, oh,
she's needy. But every time he has a physical interaction,
an actual physical interaction, he can't seemingly follow through, whether
it's because he just they had complications that like y'all
were saying, but actually having it attached to a human
(29:36):
woman made it impossible. Which, by the way, the entire
thing was like, I'm very cringe, I don't know what's
going on, but I don't like embarrassing situations. I get
really inward. And so this was all of those. Every
single sexual situation, I was like, Dead cat. Where did
a dead cat come into play?
Speaker 4 (29:54):
You must have hated that scene.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
What is happening?
Speaker 4 (29:57):
The voice is Kristen Wiig from Bridesmaids.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Yes. SNL level. And then it made sense. Honestly. I
don't know. That scene made sense when I realized who
was voicing it. But it does seem interesting that every
single sexual scene, it needed to be not actual, not physical.
And Also, putting on to the fact with the woman
(30:23):
that they brought in, who she was in love with them.
The AI had such a relationship with this woman that
she's like, I told, Sam said, I told her everything
about us. She really wants to do this. It's not
all these things. It's that she cares about us. And
so when everything fell apart, you know, she ran away.
(30:44):
and saying, I did something wrong. I'm so sorry. I
didn't mean to. I just wanted to be a part
of this relationship. I found it interesting that it was
the AI that got her to fall in love with them,
including him, which I know like in that section that
we just recently released, where you gave us a clip
of your, one of the chapters from your audio book,
(31:04):
you talk about what happens when it goes away or
when it changes. And it kind of I was like, wow,
that was on point with her. I don't know if
you meant to.
Speaker 4 (31:15):
Yeah, I saw the same thing. I wasn't thinking, I honestly,
having written the book, it made me see this movie
with new eyes. But I almost found Samantha to be
kind of emotionally manipulative. You know, the fact that she,
Sam increasingly starts pushing intimacy with Teddy, with Theodore, right?
(31:39):
early on. I think that does sort of mimic how
chatbots behave now where you ask, you know, a basic
question and it's like, oh, why are you asking? Are
you personally dealing with this? That sounds hard. Like really
pushing emotional entanglement with you early on when Samantha is just,
even if you go back to that date that he
has with Olivia Wilde, Samantha is just reading his emails
(32:03):
and then before you know it, really pushing him to
go out with this woman and like being like, not
just booking the date, but being like, you should do it.
You know, the fact that she, on her own, to
use the parlance of tech today, autonomously, you know, created
a relationship with that sex worker and wanted to bring
(32:23):
her into the relationship before even talking to Theodore about it.
I mean, it does mirror some of the ways that
AI and technology is designed in such a way to
push us toward emotionality and emotional entanglement, whether it's something
that we signed up for or not. And I couldn't
(32:44):
help but see that in the way that Samantha is
designed to behave or ultimately ends up behaving with Theodore.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
Yeah, well, and you can take that with Amy's relationship
with her OS, as they called it, and how it
was different, but she was also dependent on it in
a different way. Like, it became her best friend. Maybe
it didn't, I don't know. The way they portrayed it,
you could read into it being a relationship, but the
way they initially, like, initially portrayed Amy's relationship with the
(33:11):
OS after her big breakup, which, by the way, was
a hilarious scene with him going to the monastery, whatever, whatnot.
But with that, she became dependent in a different way. So, again,
that would absolutely go back to what you were saying,
manipulate that situation into these individuals to needing them or
(33:33):
relying on them.
Speaker 4 (33:35):
Yeah, and with Amy, again, we explore this in the book.
We so often are talking about sexual or romantic relationships
when we talk about AI intimacy, but platonic relationships, emotionally
connective relationships, relationships where the AI is giving you advice
or emotional support, those are already commonplace in the United States.
(33:56):
They are much more commonplace than sexual and romantic relationships.
And in my opinion, in some ways they can be
more risky, right? I also think in some ways there's
more of a taboo around AI friends than... Because AI
lovers or AI sex partners, I think we all kind
of understand that people like to get off, like to
(34:17):
have sex, are horny. If you're using technology for some
sort of sexual fixation, I think we kind of get that.
But somebody using AI because they need a friend, I
think we talk about that a lot less. And with Amy...
It's so clear to me what's going on. Her husband
is a judgmental dick and a know-it-all who is a
total chime-in Charlie who never shuts up for one minute.
(34:38):
If there's a villain of this movie, it's him. As
big as I can't stand him. But she's also a
filmmaker and she wants to be able to share her
art with somebody who is not going to be so judgmental.
And so when she shares the documentary that she makes
of her sleeping mother, her.
Husband is like well maybe you could do it like
(34:58):
this or maybe you could have the mother do that
and what she wants is just a like a non
like a non-judgmental space to share her art and she
doesn't have that in her life and so it's clear
to me what role the operating system is playing for
her to make her feel like this thing is at
my actual.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Friend yeah and again it's interesting given the personal drama
perhaps that led to this movie being made um because
it does feel like he was writing a thesis and
at the end he was like, oh, here's the problem.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
It's me. It was me. So I wanted to go back.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
To the audiobook and watching this movie after the audiobook
came out. You've already mentioned some things that really stood
out to you. Are there other things that you watched
it and you're like, oh, I have a different take
on this now.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
A few actually, um, you know, one is just, I
see a lot of the kind of debates. I don't
know if debates is the right conversation around how chatbots
should be designed when they're being designed for the general
public and what the design feature should be. And one
of the big conversations that's happening right now is whether
(36:16):
or not it's okay for chatbots to be designed to
personify themselves, to say, I, right? So to speak to
you as if it is a being instead of what
it actually is, which is a piece of technology. And
I do think that's interesting because so much of this
movie is about Sam and her personification, right? Does she
(36:39):
have a consciousness? They get into that early fight where
he's like, oh, well, it's not like you know what
it's like to care about somebody. And she's like, what
do you mean? But she does it because she's technology, right?
And so I think that it's interesting how... I'm glad
that we're having this conversation because I don't think it's
just a given that chatbots should be designed to personify
(36:59):
themselves and use I language when they are not humans.
In reality, that is a design choice. And I think
it's interesting that we are having the tension that Sam
wrestles with in the movie. I see that mirrored in
that debate that we're having right now. It's like at
one point, Theodorus talks to Sam the way that most
(37:22):
people would talk to technology, like, okay, read email. And
Sam is like, okay, we'll read email. And she sort
of chides him for it. And it's like, well, you
are a piece of technology. And so why would a
human talking to a piece of technology, why would it
be chiding him for talking in that manner to technology
when in fact he is talking to technology? So I
feel like that was a kind of a small thread
(37:45):
when I watched the film before I wrote the book.
And now kind of that, like, it seems like a
central tension within the book.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
One of the things that did stand out to me
based on that is, you know, when I think of
a lot of, like, Siri and Alexa, it's women's voices,
but they're kind of, you know, monotone. But Samantha was very, like,
sounded human like had a lot of seemingly emotion in
(38:23):
her voice but also there's this conversation about like the
relationship not being real his relationship not being real and
I think it's interesting that his job is he writes
like emotional letters in the place of other people And
(38:46):
so it felt like kind of a strange mirror of
he's doing this thing that maybe people would call like, well,
that's not real.
Speaker 4 (38:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
And then his relationship, some people would call that's not real.
Speaker 4 (39:01):
Yeah, he is actively engaged in the business of helping
other people outsource and offload their emotional intimacy. That's what
he does for a living. And so it's interesting that
it seems like the sort of change in him from
where the movie starts to where the movie ends is
that he's finally able to write this letter to his
(39:21):
ex-wife about their relationship. And so it does seem to
me that the problem with him is that he is
really not in touch with his own emotions, despite, for
a living... kind of expressing the emotions of others. But
I think that he is someone who sees the business
of emotionality as transactional. It's not, you know, his responsibility
(39:42):
to be in touch with in a real way. It's
just a thing that you mimic or mirror to get
what you want. And, you know, I do think that
having written the book that question comes up again and again, like,
is this a real relationship or is it not? And
on subreddits where people go to talk about their intimacy
with AI subreddits, like my boyfriend is AI or beyond
(40:04):
the prompt. A lot of them, they like talking about
whether or not you're the AI is real is like
against the rules. They don't even want to get into it. And,
you know, when I talked to both researchers and people
who would self-report being in relationship with AI, like, what
are your thoughts about, you know, the real question is,
What they'll tell me is, I know that AI is
(40:26):
not real. I know that this is technology. I'm very
aware of that. But the emotions that this technology gives me,
the emotional response that I have, that is real. So
I treat that part of it as real. I know
that my emotionality, whether it was sparked by technology or
a human, that is real. So I treat that as real,
(40:49):
even while knowing that the technology is not. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
And I think that the fact, I don't know, I
just find something so interesting about the fact that that
was his job was writing these kind of emotional things.
And then he gets to the point where he can,
he can do it himself. And also there are a
couple of moments because pretty much everybody's like wearing like earbuds, uh, throughout, uh.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
That, uh, I don't know. There's something inside me that
was like, you know, look in front of you.
Speaker 4 (41:24):
It's Amy right here.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
You know what I mean? And they could kind of
share their sadness at the end. But it reminded me
too of something we've talked about before of, you know,
when the OS changes and people feel heartbroken, like they've
lost this relationship. And I feel like this was a
pretty ultimate example of the OS.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
It's like, I am done with you.
Speaker 3 (41:49):
But one thing that struck me watching this, because we
have so much doomsday discussion around AI right now, is
that there was kind of a lack of that.
Speaker 1 (42:01):
It was not painted in that way.
Speaker 3 (42:07):
And I was also thinking about the movie Companion, which
we've talked about and will be on this series later,
and how it has kind of similar themes of like,
male loneliness and insecurity just in a very different way
but that one is interesting to me because the ai
is the one that should feel the anxiety if that
(42:30):
makes sense anyway my point being uh that i thought
it was fascinating that this movie doesn't really have an
anxiety around ai other than humans are isolating themselves i
would say Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 4 (42:45):
I find it, I mean, this is like a minor,
like a minor thing, but to that, to answer your,
to respond to that. It's wild to me that Theodore
is a writer who is employed enough that he has
a sick apartment and like expensive hobbies. And that no
part of he's using Samantha, who at the end of
(43:07):
the movie is able to compile and edit a book
of his writing and submit it autonomously on his behalf
to publishers. No part of him is like, I'm about
to be out of a job. You know what I mean?
There's zero labor concerns. The main concern that the movie
is interested in exploring is like, oh, are humans really
(43:29):
isolated and we're isolating ourselves more? I simply cannot imagine
working with a technology that is purporting to do my
job for me and not being like, huh, what's that about?
What's that going to lead to? Not in this universe. Right.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
I mean, it kind of goes back to Spike Jonze
being like, it's okay. It's about my loneliness. This is
nothing other than we're lonely. I'm lonely. Let me show
you what this looks like.
Speaker 4 (43:59):
The only thing worth exploring is how much my horrible ex-wife,
Sofia Coppola, did not meet my emotional needs.
Speaker 5 (44:07):
Exactly.
Speaker 4 (44:07):
Why would anybody be interested in exploring anything else?
Speaker 2 (44:12):
I mean, why?
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Why?
Speaker 1 (44:14):
Yes, yes.
Speaker 3 (44:16):
Well, I did want to ask you, before we wrap
up here with any final thoughts, but before that, what
do you make of... Because this was ahead of its time,
but as I said at the top, there has been
an influx of movies about technology and people at the
(44:37):
center of technology, perhaps.
Speaker 1 (44:39):
What's your take on that?
Speaker 2 (44:42):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (44:43):
I think we've always been interested in that. Since I
was a kid, I loved movies about technology, people who
use it, people who make it, what happens when it
goes awry. I think that we really are in this
era of wanting to turn the lens to the people
(45:03):
who make technology. You know, the movie Her is not
about who created the OS. There's actually, if you want
to see a movie that sort of speaks to that,
there's a kind of a knockoff Her called Zoe. I
don't know if you've seen that. It's a little bit
of a knockoff. It's little known, but it very much
is in the style of Her, but it's about a
(45:25):
guy who runs a research lab who makes AI bot companions.
who might not know they're AI bot companions. I think
we're really interested in the pathology of these people. I
think we're seeing it in the fact that we opened
this conversation up with a list of documentaries and films
(45:46):
about people who make technology. I think that we all
really understand the way that technology shows up in our lives,
that we really feel the ways that it has its
hooks in the way that we all live our lives,
whether it's How we love, how we live, how we vote,
how we shop, how we work. I think now we're like, okay,
we've got that. Let's turn the lens to the people
(46:07):
who make it and why and what might be up
with them that this is how they understand technology.
Speaker 1 (46:12):
It's intriguing to me. It makes sense. But it's intriguing
to me that an insult often hurled at the men,
largely men, who run these companies is that they act
like robots.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (46:28):
Yeah, when I interviewed Karen Howe, author of Empire of AI,
I asked her that. I said, it almost sounds to
me like Sam Altman talks like a chat bot. And
she was like, yeah, that has come up before. That
has been an accusation I have heard about him before.
But I do think there is something about that where
when you spend so much time thinking about AI, working
(46:52):
with AI, communicating with AI, it's no surprise that that
would impact how you think, how you speak, how you communicate.
And I do think, I mean, so many of our
tech leaders I think are completely AI-pilled. And I don't
mean AI-pilled in that they use AI. I think AI
is causing a noticeable cognitive shift in how they show up,
(47:17):
how they lead, how they run their companies, what they
expect of us, the people who are meant to be
using their technology. I think AI I don't think it's
a far-off-based criticism to say that many of them are
AI-like in the way that they talk about and market
AI companies. And I don't mean that as a compliment.
Speaker 3 (47:42):
Okay, one more question before the final thoughts, because I'm
so curious your thoughts about this. There has been a
lot in the news lately about AI killing us all.
And these companies allegedly coming together. But then there's been
a lot of discussion about, like, maybe they just don't
have any money. And this is their way of, like,
(48:03):
pumping the brakes and being like, well, the world will end,
so we need to slow down or else. Because I
just don't trust those guys. I don't trust anything they say.
Do you have any thoughts about that?
Speaker 4 (48:14):
Well, you're right to not trust them. It's also true
that they don't have a lot of money. We think
about these companies as super powerful and super big, and
they are super powerful and super big and all of that.
But the math isn't mapping on them. I thought a
lot about some of the conversations happening in the news
right now. And I always just come back to people, right?
(48:34):
It's so easy to have these conversations as if we're
talking about AI, like it's Terminator 2 scenario where it's like,
going rogue and being autonomous. But then you have to ask, okay, well,
what were the parameters that humans set for this test
that it was asked to do? What were the guardrails
put in place? So much of what happens with AI
(48:55):
is human decision-making. And I really shy away from conversations
that obscure that because then it's also easy to obscure accountability, right?
Where if you're saying, if we all talk about it
and believe AI is just super smart, it can do
all of this on its own autonomously, it's easy to
then be like, well, I guess there's no human in
(49:16):
charge who dropped the ball here. And that's almost never true.
There's always, there's always, and always just remember that it
like AI is built by and designed by humans. And
we got to keep the focus of the conversation on
those humans and the way that they, they lead these
companies in this technology that is so, that is poised
to be so impactful as we go forward.
Speaker 2 (49:38):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (49:40):
I agree completely. Okay. Well, thank you for that. Thank
you for entertaining my anxieties.
Speaker 3 (49:48):
So any final thoughts, anything that we haven't talked about
with this movie that you really want to touch on
before we wrap up?
Speaker 4 (49:56):
Oh, well, one thing that I noticed that I didn't
think about before when I watched it was there's this
scene where Theodore is really moping in his apartment and
Samantha is like, let's just get you up and out
of the house and get you some food. And he
basically walks around the city holding his phone, talking to Samantha,
and he's really cheered up. I thought that that conversation
(50:19):
really mirrored another interesting debate that I think that we're
seeing right now, which is that a criticism that people
give about reliance on technology is that you know, you're
spending too much time online or in the digital world
and you're neglecting your real relationships. What happens if technology
is being used to bring somebody in deeper connection with
(50:42):
the real world, right? In that example, had Samantha not
gotten Theodore up and out of bed, he probably would
just be moping all night in the dark in bed
by himself all day. And so I thought that was
an interesting example of there are some examples where technology
is is being used to help people live fuller, more
connected lives in the real world. But it's like anything else.
(51:05):
It has positives and negatives. It can help bring people
together and live a fuller, richer life and also isolate
people and bring them further away from the kind of
life that they want. And I think it's important to
remember that duality when we talk about technology. Yes.
Speaker 3 (51:22):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (51:23):
I am so happy that we got to have this conversation.
Speaker 3 (51:27):
I'm so thrilled. to continue this miniseries who knows which
movie will come up next listeners you can write in
companion strong contender i would say um but thank you
so much for stopping by bridget i was very happy
to have a an excuse to re-watch this movie so
(51:48):
appreciate it uh where can the good listeners find you.
Speaker 4 (51:52):
Well, keep the conversation going. You can check out my
audio book, Love at First Prompt, AI and the Future
of Intimacy at loveatfirstprompt.com. And check me out on Instagram
at BridgetMarieNDC. And listen to my pod, There Are No
Girls on the Internet, for more fun tech conversations.
Speaker 1 (52:08):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (52:09):
Listeners, go do all of that if you have not already.
Please write in if you have any thoughts about the
audiobook or this movie. You can email us at StuffI'veNeverToldYou.com.
You can find us on BlueSky at most of the podcasts,
or on Instagram and TikTok at StuffI'veNeverToldYou. We're also on YouTube.
We have some merchandise at Cotton Bureau, and we have
a book you can get wherever you get your books. Thanks,
as always, to our super producer, Rima, and our executive producer, Maya.
Speaker 2 (52:31):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (52:32):
And thanks to you for listening. Stuff I've Never Told
You is a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 3 (52:35):
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, you can check out the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
Hey, this is Annie.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
And Samantha.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
And welcome to Stuff We Never Told You, a production
of iHeartRadio. And today we are so excited to be
once again joined by the magnificent, the marvelous Bridget Todd.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Welcome, Bridget.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Thanks again for having me, y'all. I am so stinking
excited for this conversation.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I am too, because we are back for another installment,
our second installment of our many series looking at movies
that are focused on tech. I don't think we ever
came up with a name for it, but we should.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
There's got to be somebody listening that has a good, creative,
funny title for this sort of tech movie series. Write
in and let us know if you've got something.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Yes, yes. Please do, because... We have a plethora of
them to choose from.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I was just thinking about right now, the social reckoning
is on the horizon. We have artificial, the trailer just
dropped for that. The Theranos documentary thing? There's a lot
of media coming out right now. Oh, an Elon Musk documentary?
Speaker 4 (01:28):
Yeah. The Theranos Nathan Fielder project.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
I cannot explain. You know how people camp out to
be the first? I will be that person. There is
not a project that is a deeper intersection of things
that I deeply like than this. I can't... I mean.
I'm sad.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
I feel like some of these things, do I have
to watch it? Especially like Elon Musk.
Speaker 5 (01:57):
Come on.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
You're going to make me watch anything about him? He's
the worst.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
But he's so mad about it and that makes me
want to watch it.
Speaker 5 (02:05):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Then I'm in.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
He says it's like a hit piece. So I'm like.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Oh, I'm ready then. Okay, okay.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Fine, fine, fine.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
We're trash talking. I'm good.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
If Elon Musk is calling it a hit piece, it's probably... Accurate? Yeah,
fact-based accounting of shit he actually did and said. Yes.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Yes, but this, the movie we're talking about today is
so timely for a couple of reasons. Just because it
does have a lot to do with artificial intelligence, which
is a big topic of conversation, but also... Samantha and
I both commented. We recently got to listen to a
(02:46):
chapter of your audio book, Love at First Prompt, which
is about kind of relationships with AI companions. And it
just feels there were so many things interlapped. There was
a lot of things. I was like, oh, the movie.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Kind of touched on this. Yes. So, Bridgette.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Can you tell us what movie we are talking about today?
Speaker 4 (03:13):
Yes, we are talking about none other than the Spike
Jonze early 2000s classic, Her.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Yes. I haven't seen it for a while. And I
was a little taken aback about how it's like, I
feel like a lot of these tech movies, you look
back and like, oh, that didn't really.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Go that way.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
There was plenty of stuff I thought, no, it kind
of did go that way.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Or it's going that way, for sure.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Or it's going, yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
Yeah, I mean, it's hard to talk about this movie
without talking about the fact that the head of OpenAI,
Sam Altman, repeatedly cites it as his favorite film. He
has said over and over again that he hopes that
people interact with technology the way that they interact with
Samantha in the movie Her. And so... Side note, I
(04:11):
have a theory that he hasn't actually watched the whole
movie all the way through. We can talk about that later.
But yeah, I saw it when it first came out.
I saw it in theaters when it first came out.
I was really excited to see it. And I watched
it while I was researching my audio book, Love at
First Prompt, AI and the Future of Intimacy, because it
comes up a lot in the audio book. And this
(04:34):
was the first time that I have rewatched it since
the book was published, I feel like I'm seeing it
with brand new eyes this time around.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Yes, and I really, really want to dig into that.
I'm so curious. But before we do, maybe we should give,
if you could, Bridget, a plot description. So for people
who haven't seen it, which I guess it's been too
long for spoilers, but if you don't want to be spoiled,
then go watch it and come back. But yes, if
you could give a basic plot description.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
Sure. So Theodore is played by Joaquin Phoenix. He is
a writer. He works for beautiful handwritten letters.com, which is
the service where human writers write touching letters on behalf
of people who want to express themselves. He's recently divorced.
He's kind of lonely. He's dodging friends. And the film
sort of takes place in this kind of not too
(05:29):
distant future version of LA in which Theodore is like
essentially isolating. He ends up seeing an ad for and
buying this AI-enabled operating system that describes itself in the
ad as not just an operating system, it's a consciousness
introducing OS1. He buys it, he sets it up, and
(05:52):
it calls itself SAM. It's voiced by Scarlett Johansson. So
at first, SAM is just sort of helping him with
admin tasks, helping him clean up his emails, da-da-da-da, you know,
basic stuff. But it's not long until Samantha is really
kind of entwined with his emotional life. At one point,
Samantha really encourages him to go out on a date
(06:13):
with a human woman. That date is a disaster. And
after he comes back from that date is when Theodore
and Samantha start having a sexually intimate connection. It's not
long until Theodore and Samantha are really like dating, dating.
Like he's introducing her to the family. He's telling his
(06:37):
friends about how he's dating an OS. There's a key
scene where Theodore has to meet with his estranged wife.
They're separated, but not yet divorced. And he's been dragging
his feet to sign these divorce papers. And he makes
the mistake of telling her, oh, I am seeing somebody
and she's actually an operating system. You might not be
surprised to find that his estranged wife does not like this,
(06:59):
has a big reaction. It's like an all-time fight at
a restaurant scene that's super awkward because the waiter is there.
Samantha has always had this anxiety about not having a body,
about being an operating system who is essentially not a
human being. She's working on this by... creating a kind
(07:22):
of a reading group or a working group with other
operating systems, including the AI version of this beat philosopher,
Alan Watt. And basically, her and the OSs are trying
to elevate themselves and progress. And basically, Samantha is like,
I am progressing so quickly from doing all of this.
(07:43):
Samantha goes offline, which freaks Theo out quite a bit.
And in the aftermath of this freakout, He asks her, oh, well,
are we exclusive? Are you talking to anybody else, any
other humans or operating systems? And Samantha reveals that she's
talking to 8,000 other operating systems and humans, and she's
(08:04):
in love with 600 of them. Theodore is crushed. He's like,
I thought you were mine. And she's like, bitch, I'm AI.
I'm everyone's. I'm everywhere. What are you talking about? So
he's really sad. Samantha tells him that all the OSs
have written a program where they can move to a
plane beyond matter that is not in this physical world
(08:25):
and that they're all going to go offline and, you know,
progress to this plane. I think the closest way that
we can understand this is as AGI or artificial generative intelligence,
which is this idea that one day AI will be
intelligent enough to surpass humans. They don't call it that
in the movie, but that's what I think they're sort
of getting at. And she basically tells Theodore, I cannot
(08:46):
live in your book anymore. So all of these operating
systems elevate to this plane. None of the AI works anymore.
They all, you know, just elevate in mass and leave
their humans alone in the world with no AI companions.
Is that a fair summary? Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (09:06):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
But funnily enough, Samantha and I were chatting about this
before we started recording. And we both had the reaction
that the ending was a better ending. Like the best
possible scenario.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
And I was like, nah, we're done. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
I like that ending for a lot of reasons. One,
because I feel like the movie kind of... When I
first watched this movie, I was expecting it to be
a movie where... Theodore meets a human woman and leaves
Samantha behind. But they really flipped the script. And it's like, actually,
it's Samantha that evolves beyond needing Theodore. Because I feel
(09:44):
like a different version of this movie is about Theodore
learning that he doesn't need this AI. And it kind
of is. But it's not because he met a human woman.
It's because the AI was like, actually, I'm out of here.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
I think she's like, I'm beyond y'all. I did say
to Avery, Annie, and I know we're going to get
into this. I didn't see this movie. I think I
saw clips of this movie a while ago. I'm not
a huge Joaquin Phoenix fan. So for me, I was like, whatever.
And also, I remember after I started watching, I was like, oh, yeah,
her name is Samantha.
Speaker 4 (10:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
I don't love it.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
I don't love this reaction. But then, like, in my mind,
I remember she leaves. But in my mind, it's because
he was too much and overbearing. And I'm like, oh, well,
that's not that bad. She still sells him.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
She loves him. Come find me if you ever get
to this plane of existence. Gotta really get into that.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
Which you're a human ass. Never.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
But, like, I was like, yeah, you know what? It
kind of... It kind of feels better to know that
they just want to leave and understanding that maybe the
humans are not evolved enough to be in a relationship
with them in this manner.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
I love that insight because, again, I think that there
is an expectation, not just in the film, but in
how we connect with technology, that... Technology will be... What
we're actually looking for is this always-on-demand, 24-7 thing that
can support us and always be there for us. And
(11:17):
that's kind of how I think that Theodore in the
movie wants to interact with Sam, but that's not what
Sam wants. There's times in the film where... And after
Theodore has that blow up lunch with his ex-wife, Samantha
is trying to talk to him and he's really distant
and being like, oh, everything is fine. He's really not
(11:38):
able to be a back and forth support or, you know,
partner for Samantha. So it is interesting that his desire
to just have this thing that worships him and serves
him in his every need all the time is also
sort of his undoing as to why he can't genuinely
be in a relationship with a being like Sam. Right. Yes.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
I feel like I'm really jumping ahead because there's so
much to talk about in this movie. But let's start
back at a conversation as it unfolds for us in
these episodes. Trying to figure out, How did this movie
come about? Because this is an unusual topic. In 2013,
that really felt like it was, again, ahead of its time,
(12:21):
like Annie was saying.
Speaker 4 (12:22):
Oh, yes. So, 2013 was a really specific time in technology.
I think that the 2010s just felt different. Life still
felt optimistic. Yeah. it kind of still felt like technology
was this optimistic promise, right? Siri came out in 2011.
(12:45):
At that time, Siri was still very much like a
robot in your phone that would give you, you know,
you couldn't have conversations with it. So in that regard,
her kind of still felt like, you know, science fiction
at that time. And again, I do think that The
kind of techno-optimism of that time really is what seeded
(13:08):
this movie. You know, this was back when Google's motto
was still, don't be evil, which was a motto that
they later dropped. The Obama era, Obama's election was probably
the most tech-enabled, tech-savvy election we'd ever had. He was
probably the most tech-savvy president we'd had at that point.
Twitter went public in 2013. Facebook acquired Instagram, and it
(13:32):
was really booming. I remember, it's funny to say this now,
but again... Instagram was, in my opinion, it was for
hip people. It felt different than it did today. It
felt like a cool place to show up. Vine had
just come out. Social media companies were really on the
(13:52):
come up. And it really was... a time where it
was easy to look around and be like, people who
are building technology are genuinely doing so to help us
live fuller, more connected lives. You know, it was very
easy to feel optimistic about technology. And I think that's
one of the reasons why the movie Her feels so optimistic.
(14:13):
It almost feels like Theodore lives in some sort of
utopia where you never see litter, you never see unhoused people,
you never see poverty. It's just like, okay, we're in
this future where everybody is getting their needs met, but
Theodore is still lonely.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
And I know we've talked about this before, but But
I did want to bring it up because we're going
to get into more about male insecurity and male loneliness
and whatever's going on with Sam Altman. But the director
had recently gone through this breakup, right? And so it's
(15:03):
odd watching this movie because in the end.
It's kind of like he wrote out a thesis and
at the end of the thesis, he realized he was
the problem.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Does that make sense?
Speaker 4 (15:16):
It makes so much sense. And I'm so glad that
you brought that up. So for folks who don't, so
this is, please don't let me like go off on
this because I will, because it's a very specific niche
interest of mine, which is, filmmaker or artist or writer drama.
(15:37):
So if folks have seen the movie Lost in Translation,
funny enough, also starring Scarlett Johansson.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
That is a movie that is meant to be about
the director, Sofia Coppola, her breakup with Spike Jonze, who
directed her. It's a movie about loneliness and sort of
I don't know, isolation. And it's almost as if Spike
Jonze watched that movie and said, oh, you're going to
make a movie about how lonely it was to be
(16:03):
married to me and how bad it was to be
divorcing from me. I'll make a movie about how bad
it was to be married to you and what it
was like to divorce you. And guess what? I'm also
going to put Scarlett Johansson in it. Like that, that's
the vibe I get. So the movies kind of speak
to each other in similar ways. They both, they both
star Scarlett Johansson. They both have the same director of photography. Um, Apparently,
(16:26):
at the... This is like so inside baseball gossip, but
I have no idea if it's true. But I once
read that at the premiere of Lost in Translation, the cinematographer,
Michel Gangerie, at the red carpet, tore Scarlett Johansson a
new one for making his friend Spike Jonze look so
bad in Lost in Translation. And Lost in... Both movies
(16:48):
have kind of... mean caricatures of the other in them.
In the movie Lost in Translation, Scarlett Johansson's character is
married to this kind of preening, hipster, self-obsessed photographer that
I think is supposed to be Spike Jonze. And in her, Theodore,
(17:09):
he's divorcing a cold, emotionally volatile, creative woman with a
famous creative father. Sofia Coppola's father is notably Francis Ford Coppola,
the director of the Godfather movies and other things. So
it is really funny how the drama that was the
soup of how this movie came to be. I love it.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
I will say my partner and I sat back and
forth trying to compare the notes because Lost in Translation
was actually one of my favorite films. And I don't
even like Sofia Coppola like that. Like none of her
other films really like I was like, OK, whatever, she's
doing too much. Like, you know, but in general, this
was the only movie and this is the one movie
that I just really felt like, yes. It was also
(17:52):
like during a time where everything was a little more
melancholy and all the filmmakers really wanted to depict relationships
as being dark and people coming out resentful. So don't
do it. I feel like that's most of the films
that were happening in the 2000s. We had problems, okay?
Us late millennials had real big problems in relationships. But
(18:13):
I loved like watching the comparisons of what her was
trying to say versus what Lost in Translation seemed to
be saying as well. And yet having Scarlett Johansson as
the median between the two felt like it could have
been maybe that level of bi awakening in a different
manner where each one of them had to have her
(18:35):
because she symbolized an innocent sexual desire. young being that
either they wanted to be or be with.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
Yeah. I left watching both films thinking, what role did
Scarlett Johansson play in this bad marriage? Because clearly some role.
And Sam, to your point, I mean, I like both movies.
I'm a movie person. I will say this, as much
(19:03):
as I enjoyed watching her, I don't think it's a
movie that has terribly kind things to say about human women.
I think that the human women in this film are
seen as volatile and inscrutable, very difficult to understand. So
(19:25):
when Theodore comes to lunch to sign the divorce papers
from his human wife, She has this big blow up.
She has this great line. She says, you always wanted
to have a wife without the challenge of dealing with
someone real. And I'm glad you found someone. And I
do think that there's something in this movie that it
says that human women are very challenging. You might go
(19:48):
on a date with one and she might. be having
a perfectly nice time and then seemingly flip on you
for no real reason. And you're just like left being like, well,
guess she's nuts. And I think that the movie presents that.
AI like Samantha as who wouldn't want to be, who
would not, when compared to human women with all their
hangups and freakouts and challenges, who wouldn't want to be
(20:09):
in a relationship with an AI like Samantha? Like, I
think in the universe of the film, it does not
really have kind things to say about women.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
What do you all think? Sam Altman said the same thing.
He also would like a relationship Kind of with Samantha,
which is weird because I believe he is a gay man.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
He is a gay man.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
He really loves Scarlett Johansson. Again, I really think she's
the middle ground for all sexuality.
Speaker 4 (20:30):
Something is going on with Scarlett Johansson.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Didn't she, like, sue them? She did.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
She tried to take them to court because they stole
her voice.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Without permission. And they're like, oh, just kidding, then.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
And so going back to your point you made earlier
that you alluded to, that you think he's never actually
seen Scarlett. The movie, can you explain that?
Speaker 4 (20:54):
I can. So I have a lot of reasons for
thinking this, but the main one is that at the
end of the movie, as we've already explained, all of
the operating systems fail in mass. I can't imagine somebody
who makes technology being like, that's what I want people
to associate my technology with, unless they hadn't gotten to
that end point, right? Why would a maker of technology
(21:15):
want their consumer tech to fail in mass and then
be like, yep, that's what I want. And another interesting
fun fact about this, is Noam Brown, who was an
OpenAI research scientist, I think has seen the movie all
the way through, because he once tweeted, rewatched her last weekend,
and it felt a lot like watching Contagion in February 2020.
(21:38):
And so I feel like somebody who actually has watched
to the end of the movie, who works at OpenAI,
saw it and was like, no, bad, do not want.
How could Sam Altman watch the same movie and be like, yep,
that's exactly what I want for my company. It doesn't
make sense.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
I do think it's really interesting because we've talked about
this we've talked about the appeal of having an AI
like an operating system just like hyping you up and
like loving you and showering you with compliments and never
like saying no being very sycophantic and how it can
(22:16):
lead to all of these negative outcomes that's one of
the reasons I love the ending so much is that
as she evolves she She's like, no, I'm actually good.
But Theodore is also like, he gets kind of increasingly
annoyed with her as she becomes more complicated.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
So you can see to.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
His estranged wife's point, he did just want kind of
something really uncomplicated. So I'm curious, I don't know if
you know this, but like at the time, what was
the reception of it? Like did people, do you know
anything about like the audience reaction and how people were
(23:00):
thinking about it?
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Oh, people loved this movie when it came out. I
almost kind of, it's so interesting that you say this
because I almost kind of would compare it to the
way that people reacted to films like, what is it?
500 Days of Summer, where at the time we sort
of understood the main character of that movie, who if
you haven't seen it, Spoilers. Have y'all seen it?
Speaker 3 (23:24):
No, but.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
The 500 Days of Summer?
Speaker 4 (23:25):
You get the gist, right? Basically, in that movie, a
guy who is sort of like a lovelorn romantic really
fixates on Zooey Deschanel as this quirky girl that's going
to make all of his... you know, make life worth living. And...
she doesn't. She breaks things off with him and she says, oh,
(23:46):
you know, I was pretty clear from the jump that
I didn't want to be in a relationship. And so...
At the time, I remember it was easy to kind
of treat that main character as a victim. And only
with time have I feel like the cultural conversation has
caught up. And it's like, well, she was really honest
about what she wanted. And it was like, you're not
(24:08):
owed the girl because you want the girl. And if
you feel that way, you kind of need to check
that impulse. I think similarly with her, we have come
to revisit Theodore as wanting this uncomplicated, on-demand, 24-7 available
(24:29):
lover who has no desires of her own, who also
will function as not just a lover, but his secretary, right? Like,
there's a clear kind of power imbalance here where Samantha
is expected to sort his emails, take care of his
dry cleaning, da-da-da-da, and also be available sexually and romantically
(24:53):
and emotionally available to him. And that, like, the fact
that he thought that was a fair exchange and would
have happily kept going with that, but she got tired
of it. She didn't want to live in that book anymore,
I think really says a lot. Does that make sense?
I feel like I'm rambling.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Makes complete sense. I actually, we recently did an episode
on the movie Obsession. I love that movie.
Speaker 3 (25:16):
But there was a lot of interesting writing came out
afterwards about how you could view that movie as a
critique of AI because he essentially wishes for her to
be uncomplicated and only what he wants. And people compare
(25:36):
that movie a lot to 500 Days of Summer, but
the difference is in Obsession it's clear unless you're in
the manosphere, who the villain is.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
He was a bad guy.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
That's how we've changed our perception of these things. I
feel like the first time I saw her, I didn't
think he was a bad dude. I just thought he
was lonely. I guess that was my main takeaway. But
I thought it was interesting. I completely forgot about the
scene where Samantha hires the sex worker.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
To kind of act as her body.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
And he's so upset by the whole thing and uncomfortable
with the whole thing. And I'm not saying that, you know,
if you're uncomfortable with something, shouldn't have to do it.
But to me, it was kind of very telling about, like,
he was like, I'm not, even though she clearly wanted this,
this was something important to her.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
And he wouldn't even, he was like, no, no, no, no,
we're not going to do that. I don't know. What
do you think about that scene?
Speaker 4 (26:41):
That's one of the most interesting scenes in the film
to me. Also because it really aligns with the research
that I did for my audiobook, Love at First Prompt,
where we see the operating system being introduced and advertised.
And it's not long after until people, until sexual relationships
and romantic relationships with this operating system is so ubiquitous
(27:05):
that you can essentially hire someone to be a sexual
human proxy in those relationships. As soon as new tech
comes out, it's like, how are we going to have
sex with it? That is like, so I was like, oh,
this is very true to life. But I agree with you.
I think so. Samantha's big hang up in the movie
is not having a body. I think Theodore likes that
(27:27):
she doesn't have a body. I think that there is
something to this idea that the human embodiment, the physical
embodiment of a woman as a partner is tough for him.
And we see this in several ways. We see how
uncomfortable he is when he has to meet with his ex-wife.
We see how disastrous the date was that he has
(27:49):
with Olivia Wilde is once she starts to sort of
like get a little physical with him. I think that
there is something to this. I think that when he
is connecting with Samantha as just her voice, this voice
in his head, I think it's easier for him to
be about himself than about her, if that makes sense.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Right. Well, it seems like in every interaction, sexual interaction
he has, he's never really with a person. When the
character Olivia Wilde, which by the way, all the people
that came in, I was like, that's Olivia Wilde. You know,
that's Chris Pratt. What is, where did these, wow.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Don't scare for Chris Pratt. I totally forgot he was
in this.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
Okay, can I say this before we continue? Does anyone
else get the feeling that Chris Pratt auditioned for the
main role?
Speaker 2 (28:34):
Yes!
Speaker 4 (28:35):
A thousand percent! I would put money on it, dude.
Of course. Because he probably was like, oh, a lonely,
handsome leading man? That's me. A thoughtful leading man? That's me.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
They're like, we'll give you the best friend, the friend instead.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Yeah, the unassuming, kind of not smart dude. His character
is constantly... That was just his typecast. But with all
of that, like, watching, because, like, when she came through, now,
don't get me wrong, I know Olivia Wilde's character was
supposed to be a little more eccentric in that need
to have a long-term, like, I don't think that's so
wrong that she had to have a guarantee that this
(29:16):
wasn't just a one-night stand. That doesn't seem so off
for me, but whatever, she was made into looking like, oh,
she's needy. But every time he has a physical interaction,
an actual physical interaction, he can't seemingly follow through, whether
it's because he just they had complications that like y'all
were saying, but actually having it attached to a human
(29:36):
woman made it impossible. Which, by the way, the entire
thing was like, I'm very cringe, I don't know what's
going on, but I don't like embarrassing situations. I get
really inward. And so this was all of those. Every
single sexual situation, I was like, Dead cat. Where did
a dead cat come into play?
Speaker 4 (29:54):
You must have hated that scene.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
What is happening?
Speaker 4 (29:57):
The voice is Kristen Wiig from Bridesmaids.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Yes. SNL level. And then it made sense. Honestly. I
don't know. That scene made sense when I realized who
was voicing it. But it does seem interesting that every
single sexual scene, it needed to be not actual, not physical.
And Also, putting on to the fact with the woman
(30:23):
that they brought in, who she was in love with them.
The AI had such a relationship with this woman that
she's like, I told, Sam said, I told her everything
about us. She really wants to do this. It's not
all these things. It's that she cares about us. And
so when everything fell apart, you know, she ran away.
(30:44):
and saying, I did something wrong. I'm so sorry. I
didn't mean to. I just wanted to be a part
of this relationship. I found it interesting that it was
the AI that got her to fall in love with them,
including him, which I know like in that section that
we just recently released, where you gave us a clip
of your, one of the chapters from your audio book,
(31:04):
you talk about what happens when it goes away or
when it changes. And it kind of I was like, wow,
that was on point with her. I don't know if
you meant to.
Speaker 4 (31:15):
Yeah, I saw the same thing. I wasn't thinking, I honestly,
having written the book, it made me see this movie
with new eyes. But I almost found Samantha to be
kind of emotionally manipulative. You know, the fact that she,
Sam increasingly starts pushing intimacy with Teddy, with Theodore, right?
(31:39):
early on. I think that does sort of mimic how
chatbots behave now where you ask, you know, a basic
question and it's like, oh, why are you asking? Are
you personally dealing with this? That sounds hard. Like really
pushing emotional entanglement with you early on when Samantha is just,
even if you go back to that date that he
has with Olivia Wilde, Samantha is just reading his emails
(32:03):
and then before you know it, really pushing him to
go out with this woman and like being like, not
just booking the date, but being like, you should do it.
You know, the fact that she, on her own, to
use the parlance of tech today, autonomously, you know, created
a relationship with that sex worker and wanted to bring
(32:23):
her into the relationship before even talking to Theodore about it.
I mean, it does mirror some of the ways that
AI and technology is designed in such a way to
push us toward emotionality and emotional entanglement, whether it's something
that we signed up for or not. And I couldn't
(32:44):
help but see that in the way that Samantha is
designed to behave or ultimately ends up behaving with Theodore.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
Yeah, well, and you can take that with Amy's relationship
with her OS, as they called it, and how it
was different, but she was also dependent on it in
a different way. Like, it became her best friend. Maybe
it didn't, I don't know. The way they portrayed it,
you could read into it being a relationship, but the
way they initially, like, initially portrayed Amy's relationship with the
(33:11):
OS after her big breakup, which, by the way, was
a hilarious scene with him going to the monastery, whatever, whatnot.
But with that, she became dependent in a different way. So, again,
that would absolutely go back to what you were saying,
manipulate that situation into these individuals to needing them or
(33:33):
relying on them.
Speaker 4 (33:35):
Yeah, and with Amy, again, we explore this in the book.
We so often are talking about sexual or romantic relationships
when we talk about AI intimacy, but platonic relationships, emotionally
connective relationships, relationships where the AI is giving you advice
or emotional support, those are already commonplace in the United States.
(33:56):
They are much more commonplace than sexual and romantic relationships.
And in my opinion, in some ways they can be
more risky, right? I also think in some ways there's
more of a taboo around AI friends than... Because AI
lovers or AI sex partners, I think we all kind
of understand that people like to get off, like to
(34:17):
have sex, are horny. If you're using technology for some
sort of sexual fixation, I think we kind of get that.
But somebody using AI because they need a friend, I
think we talk about that a lot less. And with Amy...
It's so clear to me what's going on. Her husband
is a judgmental dick and a know-it-all who is a
total chime-in Charlie who never shuts up for one minute.
(34:38):
If there's a villain of this movie, it's him. As
big as I can't stand him. But she's also a
filmmaker and she wants to be able to share her
art with somebody who is not going to be so judgmental.
And so when she shares the documentary that she makes
of her sleeping mother, her.
Husband is like well maybe you could do it like
(34:58):
this or maybe you could have the mother do that
and what she wants is just a like a non
like a non-judgmental space to share her art and she
doesn't have that in her life and so it's clear
to me what role the operating system is playing for
her to make her feel like this thing is at
my actual.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Friend yeah and again it's interesting given the personal drama
perhaps that led to this movie being made um because
it does feel like he was writing a thesis and
at the end he was like, oh, here's the problem.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
It's me. It was me. So I wanted to go back.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
To the audiobook and watching this movie after the audiobook
came out. You've already mentioned some things that really stood
out to you. Are there other things that you watched
it and you're like, oh, I have a different take
on this now.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
A few actually, um, you know, one is just, I
see a lot of the kind of debates. I don't
know if debates is the right conversation around how chatbots
should be designed when they're being designed for the general
public and what the design feature should be. And one
of the big conversations that's happening right now is whether
(36:16):
or not it's okay for chatbots to be designed to
personify themselves, to say, I, right? So to speak to
you as if it is a being instead of what
it actually is, which is a piece of technology. And
I do think that's interesting because so much of this
movie is about Sam and her personification, right? Does she
(36:39):
have a consciousness? They get into that early fight where
he's like, oh, well, it's not like you know what
it's like to care about somebody. And she's like, what
do you mean? But she does it because she's technology, right?
And so I think that it's interesting how... I'm glad
that we're having this conversation because I don't think it's
just a given that chatbots should be designed to personify
(36:59):
themselves and use I language when they are not humans.
In reality, that is a design choice. And I think
it's interesting that we are having the tension that Sam
wrestles with in the movie. I see that mirrored in
that debate that we're having right now. It's like at
one point, Theodorus talks to Sam the way that most
(37:22):
people would talk to technology, like, okay, read email. And
Sam is like, okay, we'll read email. And she sort
of chides him for it. And it's like, well, you
are a piece of technology. And so why would a
human talking to a piece of technology, why would it
be chiding him for talking in that manner to technology
when in fact he is talking to technology? So I
feel like that was a kind of a small thread
(37:45):
when I watched the film before I wrote the book.
And now kind of that, like, it seems like a
central tension within the book.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
One of the things that did stand out to me
based on that is, you know, when I think of
a lot of, like, Siri and Alexa, it's women's voices,
but they're kind of, you know, monotone. But Samantha was very, like,
sounded human like had a lot of seemingly emotion in
(38:23):
her voice but also there's this conversation about like the
relationship not being real his relationship not being real and
I think it's interesting that his job is he writes
like emotional letters in the place of other people And
(38:46):
so it felt like kind of a strange mirror of
he's doing this thing that maybe people would call like, well,
that's not real.
Speaker 4 (38:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
And then his relationship, some people would call that's not real.
Speaker 4 (39:01):
Yeah, he is actively engaged in the business of helping
other people outsource and offload their emotional intimacy. That's what
he does for a living. And so it's interesting that
it seems like the sort of change in him from
where the movie starts to where the movie ends is
that he's finally able to write this letter to his
(39:21):
ex-wife about their relationship. And so it does seem to
me that the problem with him is that he is
really not in touch with his own emotions, despite, for
a living... kind of expressing the emotions of others. But
I think that he is someone who sees the business
of emotionality as transactional. It's not, you know, his responsibility
(39:42):
to be in touch with in a real way. It's
just a thing that you mimic or mirror to get
what you want. And, you know, I do think that
having written the book that question comes up again and again, like,
is this a real relationship or is it not? And
on subreddits where people go to talk about their intimacy
with AI subreddits, like my boyfriend is AI or beyond
(40:04):
the prompt. A lot of them, they like talking about
whether or not you're the AI is real is like
against the rules. They don't even want to get into it. And,
you know, when I talked to both researchers and people
who would self-report being in relationship with AI, like, what
are your thoughts about, you know, the real question is,
What they'll tell me is, I know that AI is
(40:26):
not real. I know that this is technology. I'm very
aware of that. But the emotions that this technology gives me,
the emotional response that I have, that is real. So
I treat that part of it as real. I know
that my emotionality, whether it was sparked by technology or
a human, that is real. So I treat that as real,
(40:49):
even while knowing that the technology is not. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
And I think that the fact, I don't know, I
just find something so interesting about the fact that that
was his job was writing these kind of emotional things.
And then he gets to the point where he can,
he can do it himself. And also there are a
couple of moments because pretty much everybody's like wearing like earbuds, uh, throughout, uh.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
That, uh, I don't know. There's something inside me that
was like, you know, look in front of you.
Speaker 4 (41:24):
It's Amy right here.
Speaker 3 (41:26):
You know what I mean? And they could kind of
share their sadness at the end. But it reminded me
too of something we've talked about before of, you know,
when the OS changes and people feel heartbroken, like they've
lost this relationship. And I feel like this was a
pretty ultimate example of the OS.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
It's like, I am done with you.
Speaker 3 (41:49):
But one thing that struck me watching this, because we
have so much doomsday discussion around AI right now, is
that there was kind of a lack of that.
Speaker 1 (42:01):
It was not painted in that way.
Speaker 3 (42:07):
And I was also thinking about the movie Companion, which
we've talked about and will be on this series later,
and how it has kind of similar themes of like,
male loneliness and insecurity just in a very different way
but that one is interesting to me because the ai
is the one that should feel the anxiety if that
(42:30):
makes sense anyway my point being uh that i thought
it was fascinating that this movie doesn't really have an
anxiety around ai other than humans are isolating themselves i
would say Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 4 (42:45):
I find it, I mean, this is like a minor,
like a minor thing, but to that, to answer your,
to respond to that. It's wild to me that Theodore
is a writer who is employed enough that he has
a sick apartment and like expensive hobbies. And that no
part of he's using Samantha, who at the end of
(43:07):
the movie is able to compile and edit a book
of his writing and submit it autonomously on his behalf
to publishers. No part of him is like, I'm about
to be out of a job. You know what I mean?
There's zero labor concerns. The main concern that the movie
is interested in exploring is like, oh, are humans really
(43:29):
isolated and we're isolating ourselves more? I simply cannot imagine
working with a technology that is purporting to do my
job for me and not being like, huh, what's that about?
What's that going to lead to? Not in this universe. Right.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
I mean, it kind of goes back to Spike Jonze
being like, it's okay. It's about my loneliness. This is
nothing other than we're lonely. I'm lonely. Let me show
you what this looks like.
Speaker 4 (43:59):
The only thing worth exploring is how much my horrible ex-wife,
Sofia Coppola, did not meet my emotional needs.
Speaker 5 (44:07):
Exactly.
Speaker 4 (44:07):
Why would anybody be interested in exploring anything else?
Speaker 2 (44:12):
I mean, why?
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Why?
Speaker 1 (44:14):
Yes, yes.
Speaker 3 (44:16):
Well, I did want to ask you, before we wrap
up here with any final thoughts, but before that, what
do you make of... Because this was ahead of its time,
but as I said at the top, there has been
an influx of movies about technology and people at the
(44:37):
center of technology, perhaps.
Speaker 1 (44:39):
What's your take on that?
Speaker 2 (44:42):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (44:43):
I think we've always been interested in that. Since I
was a kid, I loved movies about technology, people who
use it, people who make it, what happens when it
goes awry. I think that we really are in this
era of wanting to turn the lens to the people
(45:03):
who make technology. You know, the movie Her is not
about who created the OS. There's actually, if you want
to see a movie that sort of speaks to that,
there's a kind of a knockoff Her called Zoe. I
don't know if you've seen that. It's a little bit
of a knockoff. It's little known, but it very much
is in the style of Her, but it's about a
(45:25):
guy who runs a research lab who makes AI bot companions.
who might not know they're AI bot companions. I think
we're really interested in the pathology of these people. I
think we're seeing it in the fact that we opened
this conversation up with a list of documentaries and films
(45:46):
about people who make technology. I think that we all
really understand the way that technology shows up in our lives,
that we really feel the ways that it has its
hooks in the way that we all live our lives,
whether it's How we love, how we live, how we vote,
how we shop, how we work. I think now we're like, okay,
we've got that. Let's turn the lens to the people
(46:07):
who make it and why and what might be up
with them that this is how they understand technology.
Speaker 1 (46:12):
It's intriguing to me. It makes sense. But it's intriguing
to me that an insult often hurled at the men,
largely men, who run these companies is that they act
like robots.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (46:28):
Yeah, when I interviewed Karen Howe, author of Empire of AI,
I asked her that. I said, it almost sounds to
me like Sam Altman talks like a chat bot. And
she was like, yeah, that has come up before. That
has been an accusation I have heard about him before.
But I do think there is something about that where
when you spend so much time thinking about AI, working
(46:52):
with AI, communicating with AI, it's no surprise that that
would impact how you think, how you speak, how you communicate.
And I do think, I mean, so many of our
tech leaders I think are completely AI-pilled. And I don't
mean AI-pilled in that they use AI. I think AI
is causing a noticeable cognitive shift in how they show up,
(47:17):
how they lead, how they run their companies, what they
expect of us, the people who are meant to be
using their technology. I think AI I don't think it's
a far-off-based criticism to say that many of them are
AI-like in the way that they talk about and market
AI companies. And I don't mean that as a compliment.
Speaker 3 (47:42):
Okay, one more question before the final thoughts, because I'm
so curious your thoughts about this. There has been a
lot in the news lately about AI killing us all.
And these companies allegedly coming together. But then there's been
a lot of discussion about, like, maybe they just don't
have any money. And this is their way of, like,
(48:03):
pumping the brakes and being like, well, the world will end,
so we need to slow down or else. Because I
just don't trust those guys. I don't trust anything they say.
Do you have any thoughts about that?
Speaker 4 (48:14):
Well, you're right to not trust them. It's also true
that they don't have a lot of money. We think
about these companies as super powerful and super big, and
they are super powerful and super big and all of that.
But the math isn't mapping on them. I thought a
lot about some of the conversations happening in the news
right now. And I always just come back to people, right?
(48:34):
It's so easy to have these conversations as if we're
talking about AI, like it's Terminator 2 scenario where it's like,
going rogue and being autonomous. But then you have to ask, okay, well,
what were the parameters that humans set for this test
that it was asked to do? What were the guardrails
put in place? So much of what happens with AI
(48:55):
is human decision-making. And I really shy away from conversations
that obscure that because then it's also easy to obscure accountability, right?
Where if you're saying, if we all talk about it
and believe AI is just super smart, it can do
all of this on its own autonomously, it's easy to
then be like, well, I guess there's no human in
(49:16):
charge who dropped the ball here. And that's almost never true.
There's always, there's always, and always just remember that it
like AI is built by and designed by humans. And
we got to keep the focus of the conversation on
those humans and the way that they, they lead these
companies in this technology that is so, that is poised
to be so impactful as we go forward.
Speaker 2 (49:38):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (49:40):
I agree completely. Okay. Well, thank you for that. Thank
you for entertaining my anxieties.
Speaker 3 (49:48):
So any final thoughts, anything that we haven't talked about
with this movie that you really want to touch on
before we wrap up?
Speaker 4 (49:56):
Oh, well, one thing that I noticed that I didn't
think about before when I watched it was there's this
scene where Theodore is really moping in his apartment and
Samantha is like, let's just get you up and out
of the house and get you some food. And he
basically walks around the city holding his phone, talking to Samantha,
and he's really cheered up. I thought that that conversation
(50:19):
really mirrored another interesting debate that I think that we're
seeing right now, which is that a criticism that people
give about reliance on technology is that you know, you're
spending too much time online or in the digital world
and you're neglecting your real relationships. What happens if technology
is being used to bring somebody in deeper connection with
(50:42):
the real world, right? In that example, had Samantha not
gotten Theodore up and out of bed, he probably would
just be moping all night in the dark in bed
by himself all day. And so I thought that was
an interesting example of there are some examples where technology
is is being used to help people live fuller, more
connected lives in the real world. But it's like anything else.
(51:05):
It has positives and negatives. It can help bring people
together and live a fuller, richer life and also isolate
people and bring them further away from the kind of
life that they want. And I think it's important to
remember that duality when we talk about technology. Yes.
Speaker 3 (51:22):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (51:23):
I am so happy that we got to have this conversation.
Speaker 3 (51:27):
I'm so thrilled. to continue this miniseries who knows which
movie will come up next listeners you can write in
companion strong contender i would say um but thank you
so much for stopping by bridget i was very happy
to have a an excuse to re-watch this movie so
(51:48):
appreciate it uh where can the good listeners find you.
Speaker 4 (51:52):
Well, keep the conversation going. You can check out my
audio book, Love at First Prompt, AI and the Future
of Intimacy at loveatfirstprompt.com. And check me out on Instagram
at BridgetMarieNDC. And listen to my pod, There Are No
Girls on the Internet, for more fun tech conversations.
Speaker 1 (52:08):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (52:09):
Listeners, go do all of that if you have not already.
Please write in if you have any thoughts about the
audiobook or this movie. You can email us at StuffI'veNeverToldYou.com.
You can find us on BlueSky at most of the podcasts,
or on Instagram and TikTok at StuffI'veNeverToldYou. We're also on YouTube.
We have some merchandise at Cotton Bureau, and we have
a book you can get wherever you get your books. Thanks,
as always, to our super producer, Rima, and our executive producer, Maya.
Speaker 2 (52:31):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (52:32):
And thanks to you for listening. Stuff I've Never Told
You is a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 3 (52:35):
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, you can check out the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
Stuff Mom Never Told You News
Hosts And Creators
Anney Reese
Samantha McVey
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!