Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I've always wondered if it was perhaps the inspiration for the novel Neuromancer (2 AI's in different continents plotting to combine with each other to form a global super-intelligence)by briansm
- I cottoned onto the film a couple years ago after Ready Player One’s Ernest Cline recommended it on a Weaponized podcast. I like that the exterior facility shots were filmed at Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley. In the film context I really would construe it as projecting some sort of Cold-War era “secure government science facility” architectural archetype. When one learns about the career arc of E.O.Lawrence, the stylistic allusion to Cold War science feels all the more fitting. Viz. Lawrence Livermore lab has the reputation today of being the more secure, clandestine lab, while nearby Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) has the reputation of being the stand-up academic science lab that welcomes international academic all-comers. But prior to Lawrence Livermore’s founding (like while Edward Teller was closer to the then Berkeley Rad Lab, now LBL). And so for several years, 1940s to at least the early 1950s, Berkeley Rad Lab would have been possessed of what would become those same Livermore-esque secure spooky Cold War science vibes.by ricksunny
- Readers (who haven't hearof it) might also be interested in a short story (published 1909) by E. M. Forster called "The Machine Stops".
It "predicted technologies and cultural impacts similar to instant messaging, social media, and the Internet." (WPedia)
Apart from a 10-minute UK TV adaptation in 2009, ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1451714/ ) text and audiobook versions are widespread.
by 8bitsrule - Back in the late 90s the Michigan Tech CS labs had 2 preferred machines for students to remote into, Colossus and Guardian.
I always enjoyed the reference as well as this movie’s a kid!
by jameslars - Now watch Person of Interest and then name your computer Samaritan.by zombot
- I've been joking at work that the 70's was filled with cautionary tales about AI that we should be listening to.
(Except for Demon Seed. That one jumped the shark - but I did love their rendition of what an AI data center looks like)
by RajT88 - Demon Seed is schlocky, but it’s perhaps worth watching once. That said, I will readily admit that the film is bad for many reasons. Though horror films aren’t generally known for being inoffensive, the ending is disturbing in content and gratuitous in presentation. Perhaps the film works best as a warning and as a critique, though I’m really scrounging and scraping here. I blame Dean Koontz for the premise of the original novel, though I have no idea why anyone thought that the book needed to be adapted to film, but here I am talking about it.
I’m glad you brought up Demon Seed all the same, as I was reminded of it while reading TFA.
When the computer system from the film commands a character to “open that door, and clean these lenses” in a particular scene, the absurdity and mundanity of being commanded to clean a camera by an AI is subtly horrifying.
For a modern analogue, I’m reminded of DoorDash workers being dispatched to close doors left ajar by passengers of autonomous Waymos.
by aspenmayer - The "Demon Seed" book was creepier (and a lot more pervy) than the movie.by vogelke
- Rollerball has the central premise that society is outsourcing all decisions to a central computer and everybody just blindly follows, to the point where nobody checks whether it’s functioning properly.
First time I watched it I thought it was beyond far fetched. In the age of LLMs I’m not so sure anymore.
by smackeyacky - I'm surprised that the font used for the "Rollerball" title wasn't mentioned at typesetinthefuture.comby chiph
- The short scene where they are in the "computer room" and the operator mentions that they lost the entire history of 14th century painting, or something like that. So relevant to contemporary memory holes and wholesale data losses.by euroderf
- "Logan's Run" is similar, but with the idea pushed further. I think Rollerball is more political in specifically targetting corporations as being malignant forces.by ndsipa_pomu
- (No spoilers)
I had 2 main fridge-logic issues which made it very difficult for me to suspend disbelief and limited my enjoyment of the film:
First: Colossus' is only able to implement its plan because the US, and US-aligned nuclear powers, agree to subordinate their entire nuclear arsenals to Colossus' full-authority defence control, with no means of overriding it; and with its computing hardware sealed in an impenetrable fortress (no maintenance access?).
Second: Colossus' plan - and its ultimate actions - assume everyone else on earth is a nuclear-disarmed-rational-actor, all solely interested in not-dying-at-Colossus's-hand - which is an unworkable assumption.
Unfortunately, the story is driven by these 2 points - without either then the film's story would just be yet-another-cliché-movie where the plucky humans beat the advanced AI overlord, the end.
---------
I still like _Colossus_ because it's "different" to all the other 20th century films with an AI character (c.f. tripe like Will Smith's _I, Robot_ or the Matrix sequels).
by DaiPlusPlus - You are rational. There are plenty of moments where doing the rational thing would end the story.
You are not the president of the United States. That is Donald Trump.
Do you see how the plot is consistent?
- I love the movie but you have a point and I can see how it could make it hard to buy into
Interestingly I typed this prompt into a LLM and it was interesting to see it's lists. I'm not going to list the answers I got here but I kept asking for more.
> List 10 famous movies that have glaring plot holes or premises that make no sense. Example: In Star Wars, they have a planet destroying machine but don't just blow up the planet and instead wait to "clear the planet" before blowing up the moon (please, no arguments about reasons)
by socalgal2 - > difficult for me to suspend disbelief
Were you able to suspend your disbelief when watching Idiocracy [1], either in the year of its release or in the subsequent decades? (^;
- Both of these are better addressed in the books. It was an intentional choice to have no override and no maintenance access. And book 2, Colossus and the Crab, actually spends a bunch of time with Colossus testing the rationality of various humans.
- Colossus' is only able to implement its plan because the US, and US-aligned nuclear powers, agree to subordinate their entire nuclear arsenals to Colossus' full-authority defence control
Not true.
It was both the US and the Soviets(creating Guardian) that did so, each competing with each other for the hope of reduced threat (the logic holds for cold-war logic, removing emotional, mercurial humans from the loop).
There is no requirement for anyone else to sign on at that point. The US and the Soviets held an incredible number of nuclear weapons at the time, about 40,000. Both Guardian and Colossus were in nuclear-safe bunkers, other countries having nuclear weapons would be meaningless. Should any country try to attack, what would they do? Destroy random cities in the USSR and the US? To what end? Destroy launching sites? The UK had a few hundred weapons, many of them plane carried. France had a few, China a handful in the 60s (when the movie was filmed), none of that would be enough to destroy all nuclear launch sites.
Not to mention, try it, and your entire nation would become nuclear ash.
Both complexes were self-repairing, had self-contained power supplies, and so on.
I think this is a fair threat model. And both Colossus and Guardian seemed to always be one step ahead of "the humans". They were tied into communications world wide, monitored everything telecommunications and radio wise, knew all secret codes used for communication, and even the direct lines between the US and the Soviets were eventually tapped (on the machine's orders).
Should some nation make preparations for war against Colossus, it would surely be detected. And blamo, no more nation, with a stark warning to others.
Of course, there are always plot holes and unrealistic situations. However I find it holds together, as much as any movie does.
At the very least, it engenders conversation.
by b112 - Point #1 might seem unrealistic, but it's exactly how IT security of most companies operate now: "We are concerned about malware so we give full control of our systems to CrowdStrike". That is, having a single point of failure is shocking common.by killerstorm
- > Second: Colossus' plan - and its ultimate actions - assume everyone else on earth is a nuclear-disarmed-rational-actor
The plan would still work. Colossus couldn’t be destroyed with nuclear weapons and would retaliate against any attack. It could force compliance of conventional forces as well, and force automation on them, also force populations to rearm it.
In the end, the population would appreciate the eradication of poverty, hunger, disease, and the surplus from not maintaining military capabilities. Colossus could afford democratic institutions while acting as a guard rail against humanity’s worst impulses.
by rbanffy - Great film, I thought. The ending is quite dark—and then Colossus tells Forbin that he will come to love him…
Turns out it is prescient. The film was based on the first book of a trilogy. You can look up the plot of the following two novels if you want spoilers, but indeed, Forbin does have a reconsideration of Colossus.
I would love to see the whole trilogy filmed.
by JKCalhoun - >I would love to see the whole trilogy filmed.
Just hope that it is not Christopher Nolan.
by qsera - > The film was based on the first book of a trilogy.
Although I think the film is even better than the book by D. F. Jones, only the latter mentions how, despite being created specifically for US national defense, Colossus is also fed unrelated data including Shakespeare's sonnets, because its creators do not know if it could be important.
by TMWNN - The trilogy of books are interesting, but there is some very dubious sexual exploitation as an entirely unnecessary plot point.by ideonode
- I rewatched this recently; I think it held up well. It’s probably re-entered the zeitgeist given the recent developments in “AI” and “agents”. So far accidents seem to have destroyed only data, but it’s only a matter of time before some fool hooks up an “AI agent” to a missile.
Much of the film was shot at the Lawrence Hall of Science in the hills above Berkeley, California. This building was probably chosen because of its unique brutalist hexagonal architecture. I spent a bunch of time there as a kid.
Eric Braeden (Forbin) is still alive, but his house in Pacific Palisades burned down in the 2025 fires. :-(
by smarks - I took another look at L.H.S. and the buildings have rather more octagons than hexagons. There’s even a decagon-shaped building. Still, the symmetric geometry of the architecture is quite striking.by smarks
- Definitely see this. The 1970s hardware is archaic, but the concept is still relevant.
So is the scale. For the 1980s and 1990s, the huge Colossus system seemed obsolete. The age of the personal desktop computer had arrived.
Now Colossus looks small compared to Amazon's AI training system from 2025.
by Animats - I watched it for the first time a few months ago and it totally holds up. Very enjoyable film and more relevant now than ever. It is probably considered a little slow for modern low-attention-span audiences.by qingcharles
- >Definitely see this. The 1970s hardware is archaic, but the concept is still relevant.
Indeed. There is nothing in the film that contradicts the notion of Colossus being a very, very large LLM.
Although I think the film is even better than the book by D. F. Jones, only the latter mentions how, despite being created specifically for US national defense, Colossus is also fed unrelated data including Shakespeare's sonnets, because its creators do not know if it could be important.
by TMWNN - Back when I worked as a civil engineer I had a coworker named Joe. He was... I think 78. Poor guy didn't save up enough for retirement so he worked a bit part time. He knew the ins and outs of the field better than anyone, but had no idea how to use a computer (he marked up drawings and I put them into CAD). He mentioned this movie to me as AI (gpt) had just become a thing saying "it'll scare the hell out of you", and he recommended I watched it - I'm glad I did! Great guy, always told funny stories - "I was not a great dad but I was a damn wonderful grandpa!"by aizk