>>213904988
that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that explanation either
and it makes sense in a more realistic world where a truly conscience AI can't exist
but it's a clear retcon
especially when you consider that Kubrick originally based 2001 on a short story that didn't even involve AI, he basically came up with incorporating AI for the movie himself
and his movies are pretty straight forward, he doesn't put hidden meaning in any of his movies
what you see is what it is
if he wanted HAL to malfunction, he would have been more explicit with it
instead it's more explicit that HAL was truly sentient and conscience based on everything shown in the movie
Arthur C Clarke's 2001 book wasn't even published until after the movie came out either
and this was probably Kubrick's most original movie
