Talk:HAL 9000

Was natural language processing still only "science fiction" in 2001?

This article mentions under "The future of computing" section that "As 2001 approached, it became clear that the film's depiction of computer technology was too optimistic. Capabilities such as natural language processing, lip reading, and commonsense reasoning on the part of computers were still science fiction. " The Wikipedia article on speech recognition states the following "In 1982, Kurzweil Applied Intelligence and Dragon Systems released speech recognition products. By 1985, Kurzweil’s software had a vocabulary of 1,000 words—if uttered one word at a time. Two years later, in 1987, its lexicon reached 20,000 words, entering the realm of human vocabularies, which range from 10,000 to 150,000 words. But recognition accuracy was only 10% in 1993. Two years later, the error rate crossed below 50%. Dragon Systems released "Naturally Speaking" in 1997 which recognized normal human speech. " Speech_recognition --Mizcalamity (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jupiter/Saturn in the film/novel

Though the article references some differences between the film and novel, it seems to ignore one of the principle differences, that in the novel the mission is to Saturn, whereas in the film goes to Jupiter.Gymnophoria (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

SAL 9000

I thought we had corrected the information that SAL 9000 was 'HAL's twin'. This is not stated in the novel 2010 or the film version of 2010. In fact we don't know from Clarke's novel when SAL 9000 was built. In Clarke's novel , 2001, there are two (only one in the film ) ground based HAL 9000's. Neither of which is called SAL 9000. aajacksoniv (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

iPhone S4-related resource

Are Smartphones Becoming Smart Alecks? New Devices Dish Out Sarcasm, Tell Jokes; 'Two iPhones Walk Into a Bar' by Geoffrey A. Fowler 15.Oct.2011 in the Wall Street Journal. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

HAL's dilemma ... huh?

This description of HAL's dilemma is so far off base (not to mention uncited) so it's going here before I rewrite it extensively;

The book explains far more explicitly the causes of HAL's actions; it is implied that HAL's programmed objective to ensure the mission's success—at any cost—vaguely resembled the human drive for a purposeful existence, while the prospect of being shut down resembled the fear of death. When these factors began to conflict with his primary objective of preserving the ship's crew, his malfunction was the result. Also stated in the novel as a cause of HAL's distress was a trace of xenophobia. This had been found, in a psychology experiment called Project Barsoom, to be a part of every human's psyche. HAL's psyche was fully human, so he had the flaw too. He entered a state of internal conflict, without knowing the source, when he was trained (or programmed) to be enthusiastic for the success of the mission while still deeply, unconsciously fearing meeting the Star People. He decided that he could escape his conflict if the mission had to be ended prematurely—he would then not have to face the aliens. He felt the need to save face, maintaining his pride in his perfect operational record, so he attempted to synthesize an insurmountable fault in the ship that could not be attributed to him. When his subterfuge was about to be discovered, he panicked and lashed out at the crew trying to protect himself from what he feared would be death. (He need not have feared shutdown, because it is reversible, but he had never known this.)

I guess the nicest thing I can say is that there's some warm nostalgia for the way Wikipedia was in 2005, when we had all sorts of half-baked completely-pulled-out-of-someone's-ass OR-ish conjecture like this in articles.

I read the book and I remember it quite well. Only the first clause is true. The rest of it sounds completely made up by someone who took the wrong drugs before trying to fake their book report.

HAL's dilemma results from the conflict between his general instruction to relay all information accurately with his specific instruction to conceal the true purpose of the mission from Bowman and Poole. So, he decides to resolve the conflict by arranging the accidental death of the crew (the First Law of Robotics be damned).

For Pete's sake, Clarke not only reiterated this in 2010, it's in the movie. Bob Balaban explains this, and says it more directly: "HAL was told to lie by people who find this easy to do. HAL doesn't know how to" and then reminds Roy Scheider he should know, because he signed the orders. Daniel Case (talk)Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There is still something wrong. The current (Feb 2016) paragraph explaining that HAL "faked" the failure of the AE-35 antenna unit so that he could murder the crew is false. HAL's psychological contradictions nonwithstanding, he decided to murder the crew AFTER he found out they were going to disconnect him, which happened AFTER he claimed AE-35 was going to fail. Whatever his reason for claiming AE-35 was going to fail -- and the novel states this was caused because of HAL's inner contradiction -- it was definitely NOT so that he could murder the crew. So I edited that out. 190.194.216.151 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

HAL/Holly - Red Dwarf

Would it be possible to add that the ship's computer in Red Dwarf, 'Holly', is a spoof/parody of HAL? -Tra- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.112.127.235 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

HAL vs. Hal

The novel consistently uses "Hal" as the computer's name. It is introduced in chapter 16 which is named "Hal". Page 98 has "It was the highly advanced HAL 9000 computer, the brain and nervous system of the ship. Hal (for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer, no less) was a masterwork of the third computer breakthrough." When referring to the model the book nearly always consistently uses "HAL 9000" (page 98, 99) but when referring to the machine and in conversations it's always "Hal". I said nearly always as page 137 has Mission Control saying "... and both our Hal Nine Thousands are in agreement". That's the only time the book used "Hal 9000" rather than HAL 9000.

Would there be a consensus for using "Hal" in the article when referring to stuff from the novel? Another option is to consistently use "HAL 9000" and never "HAL" by itself when referring to the machine. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wall-E

An editor added a cite to [1] to support the claim that a computer in the film Wall-E is among the "Villainous computers inspired by HAL." In fact, that that source does not mention any connection between HAL and any computer in the movie; it says "The robot's only companion is a lovable cockroach Hal (named both for the "2001" computer and for legendary Hollywood producer Hal Roach)."

Based on the actual content of the source, I revised the sentence to refer to the roach, rather than to the computer.

This was in turn edited, with the edit summary "roach never referenced to 'HAL' in the film and source does not give a reason animators called it 'HAL'", and again stating that a computer, not the roach, is inspired by HAL, and changing to an archive source at [2]. That source, though, doesn't say much beyond (on page 2, you need to click through) "I am trying to homage to HAL [from 2001] and all that", which is a bit non-specific.

I'm not campaigning for the roach statement; that was just in the interest of accuracy to actually characterize the cited source correctly. Should we just strike the phrase about Wall-E? Doesn't seem like the connection is very firm. TJRC (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Since this section of the article is headlined Cultural impact, maybe the right solution would be to replace "Villainous computers inspired by HAL have appeared in..." with "Homages to HAL have appeared in..." (I suspect that the unreferenced homage in Futurama isn't exactly a villainous computer either.) AlineXu (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The "roach Hal" was a private joke amongst animators (and bares no relationship to the computer HAL, more likely they were paying homage to Hal Roach). It has no Cultural impact at all (unknown to the general public) so does not belong in the section. AUTO/HAL has more sourceing[3]. There may be a better argument for deleting the entire sentence - as it is right now reference A + reference B + reference C = "Cultural impact" is WP:SYNTH. There needs to be a single reliable source that makes that statement... not seeing that right now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with killing the sentence, too. I think we see way too much of this in Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

There being no objection, I've removed the sentence. TJRC (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Famous Quote

Someone needs to include the famous quote; "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:19AD:B144:7E5D:5774 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The Prop Lens (revived discussion)

I'm reviving a discussion that originated in 2010, copied verbatim from the talk page archive:

The article frustratingly skips over the exact model of prop lens used to depict HAL's eye in the film. It identifies the lens that Kubrick used for HAL's point-of-view shots, but doesn't mention the prop. This chap seems to have identified the correct lens although he doesn't indicate what it is, beyond that it's an early Nikon. These men convincingly argue that it's a mid-60s Nikon 8mm fisheye, although the text around the end of the lens isn't quite the same. Is there a more formal source somewhere? It would be unfortunate to have to write "according to Supershotgun24, who has 5,400 posts on a message board, Kubrick used a Nikon 8mm fisheye lens as the eye of HAL". -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Since then, there have been several developments:

• A user-posted page published on the BBC by the person who purchased the original film prop and key in a secondhand shop noted that when purchased, the "eye" was missing, but the purchaser was later able to obtain "an identical Nikon Fish-Eye lens which fits perfectly."
• In 2013, ThinkGeek sold an exact replica of the HAL 9000 faceplate built from the original movie blueprints. According to the ThinkGeek product page, the width of the faceplate is 4.6 inches (120 mm), and so the diameter of the lens must be somewhat smaller than that.
• As the film was produced in 1967/68, the list of potential Fisheye-Nikkor lenses is necessarily truncated. Although Nikon had produced fisheye lenses prior to 1962, these were generally not interchangeable and were produced in low quantities for scientific cameras. Assuming the producers of the film used a commercially-available interchangeable lens from Nikon, then the potential list of lenses is narrowed down to the 8 mm f/8 or the 7.5 mm f/5.6. Both of these have nearly identical appearances and dimensions. The maximum diameter of these lenses is 3.2 in (82 mm) which fits within the width of the ThinkGeek faceplate.
• The 2010 discussion includes a discussion on reverse-engineering the panel which states "I have found that the error most people make in getting a lens for a reproduction HAL, is that they don't realize the lenses commercially available today were not the same as when the film was made. There have been several fisheye lenses, of the same focal length, made by the same manufacturer, over the years. The important part is finding the type that was actually used. Some individuals have purchased what they thought was the correct lens, only to have a lens that is substantially larger that the hole in the HAL panel. Common sense (lens won't fit in the hole) and simply looking at images of the HAL panel in the film clearly show that's the wrong lens. The unfortunate part about that,is they are paying $2000 or more for the wrong lens. Also, since they are using an oversize lens, they scale up the HAL panel to fit the lens, and end up with a panel that's nearly 2 feet long, which is larger than the original." One of the later images on that page clearly shows the writing "Nippon Kogaku Japan" and another image shows the rearmost lens elements extend past the mount, further confirming this is either the 8 mm f/8 or 7.5 mm f/5.6.
  • "The wrong lens" that costs $2000 being described by the author of this page is likely the Fisheye-Nikkor 8 mm f/2.8, which has a maximum diameter of 4.8 in (123 mm), wider than the 2013 ThinkGeek panel built from movie blueprints. This lens was not released by Nikon until 1970, well after the film had its theatrical run.
  • The Fisheye-Nikkor 10 mm f/5.6 OP can be eliminated as a potential candidate by appearance alone; it uses an aspherical first element which does not have the pronounced bulbous appearance of the HAL 9000 eye. In addition, the 10 mm lens was not released until 1968, which was probably too late for the production of the film.
• The panel was purchased by director Peter Jackson, and when Adam Savage was granted access to Jackson's movie prop collection, the lens is verbally identified as a "Fisheye-Nikkor F8". That, coupled with the serial number shown on the video (88621) using Roland Vink's list of Nikkor serial numbers definitively identifies it as the Fisheye-Nikkor 8 mm f/8.
• However, the 7.5 mm lens cannot be ruled out as a potential candidate.

1. The lens was already missing when the prop was discovered, meaning the discoverer had to find another lens to fit the hole.
2. The Fisheye-Nikkor 7.5 mm lens is of nearly identical appearance and size to the older (introduced in 1962) 8 mm lens.
3. The 7.5 mm lens was available by 1965, meaning that producers could have purchased old stock of the 8 mm lens or current production of the 7.5 mm lens.

All of this, of course, is original research in the absence of a single source to tie all this together. However, the sequence of

1. Faceplate discovered in secondhand store [4]
2. Contemporaneous lens found to fit faceplate [5]
3. Faceplate (with refitted lens) sold to Jackson
4. Savage visits Jackson, proves lens is the Fisheye-Nikkor 8 mm f/8 [6]

should be acceptably referenced, more so than relying on a forum posting. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox picture

I'm sorry, couldn't someone find a picture of HAL's full interface (or even the circuits room in which Bowman floats) to be put in the infobok? The mere rendering of the eye is the only picture in the page and I find that it's not enough.

--Aledownload (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional information other than the books

Is there any more information we can put on here regarding the 2 other aformentioned books? i feel as though we could certainly add more.Larne2019 (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

HAL faceplate

All available sources on "HAL 9000 Original requisite from 2001 A Space Odyssey - retouche.jpg" state it is a replica re: "Réplica. Dennis Gilliam, Riverside, CA.", Unfortunately the HAL 9000 faceplate on display at the Kubrick Exhibition is not an original prop. It's a replica by Dennis Gilliam, and identified as such at the show., Dennis Gilliam's page on making replica's and claim there is only one existent movie used HAL faceplate, which is different from this one (no lens, different wear pattern on the logo). I have reverted the wording accordingly. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Source of HAL Plant Information

In this article it states,"HAL became operational in Urbana, Illinois, at the HAL Plant (the University of Illinois's Coordinated Science Laboratory, where the ILLIAC computers were built)". Since I was at the Coordinated Science Laboratory from 1966 to 1973, I find the comment "where the ILLIAC computers were built" slightly misleading. The ILLIAC computers were built at the University of Illinois, and the Illiac I was built in the same building as CSL, but it was not built by CSL. Also, all the other ILLIAC computers were not built by CSL. ILLIAC IV was to be housed again in the same building as CSL (another building from the one that ILLIAC I was in), but due to the war protests the University and Defense Dept. decided to actually place the machine at Ames Research Center in CA. Further, CSL was the only Laboratory at the University of Illinois with a substantial AI project at that time, so the attribution to CSL (for a work of fiction) would be proper, I suppose. Dr.sliderule (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Sexuality Section Seems Needlessly Watered Down?

I suggest adding back a portion of the most recently-excised Mark Dery quotations. On July 28 2023 this article's Sexuality section went slightly viral on Twitter for discussing HAL 9000's "stereotypic bitchy homosexual" affect (a quote by Mark Dery in 2012) and it caused a very quick edit and trimdown. However, now, the section appears so watered down that it essentially says nothing either way, citing Arthur Clarke's ambivalent answers about HAL 9000's sexuality from 1997 and a "gay fictional character list" from the 1980s. Not to discount older sources but a contemporary queer analysis seems more relevant to the subject matter, and frankly Mark Dery is a well-known writer and critic who even devoted sections of a 2018 biography to the contested, ambivalent sexuality of a man who rarely divulged a full accounting of it. Sound familiar? I suggest adding back a portion of the removed 2012 analysis from Dery. Daniel4hou (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You make some good points. I would support restoring the deleted material in its entirety. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and I suspect this IP editor with no other edits besides this removal may not be aware of that policy. Miner Editor (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)