There is a clear cynicism that has championed the majority of today’s science fiction. The standard portrayal our future has often remained in the realm of our inevitable dystopian fate. Any sense of an optimistic future finds no place in a world that is expected to be further consumed by corporate greed, questionable ethics, and relentlessly advancing artificial malevolence.

This is why Spike Jonze’s portrayal of the future is refreshingly significant. Between the lines of the remarkable narrative, he paints a different possibility that brings warmth, richness, and style that leaves much to the imagination. Jonze does away with the dismal portrayal of what is yet to come, and instead favours an aesthetic that hints at a more reassuring future. Set in a time that understands the recyclable nature of trends rather than seeing a need to endlessly re-invent them. The film manages to impart a feeling onto the viewer, that is, almost nostalgic for a future that hasn’t happened yet. In this future, humans and technology seem to be weaved together in a dance, that for the most part, flows with unprecedented balance and harmony.

The technology in the film seem to embody a tangible property that draws inspiration from earlier fashion eras. Everyday technology is gifted a vintage, almost clunky aesthetic that is underscored with soft colors and circadian-sensitive screen properties. This recurring theme serves to present a time where technology has advanced to a point where it does not need to prove sophistication through stark contrast. Instead, just like a stage magician striving not be noticed, devices blend seamlessly and go almost unnoticed in fulfilling their roles as sophisticated extensions of ourselves. This, for the sake of anchored analysis, serves as commentary for how society will continue to weave technology into the fabric of everyday living, and how businesses involved in building these solutions may reinterpret their notions of effective design and targeted utility. Especially in a time where our tools becomes second nature to everyday existence.

It is important to note, however, that this fusion is not merely a worthy aesthetic consideration. Jonze’s may very well be implicitly outlining the dangers of ever expanding technological dependancies. Today’s concerns stem from the reality of that our too. ls feed off data that is mined for patterns that reveal personality, ethnicity, traits, politics and even guarded personal desires. It is justifiable to marvel at a future that so smoothly blends man and his tools, but its equally important to take stock of the ethical and privacy implications that will continue to confront our society. Especially when the entities we pump data into, grant themselves permissions to: access, utilize and profit with our implicit consent.

Today, It is fairly easy to identify and understand current platforms that seeks to harvest personal information. What can happen? When these algorithms start mimicking different forms of human sentience? In the film, the Samantha’s ability to browse, analyze, and act on Theodore’s personal data is implicitly contextualized as something that the characters in this world simply accept and embrace without opposition. This strikes a chord as a powerful commentary on how people are currently running their digital lives, a reality that is gradually more accepting of bartering convenience with personal information. In his book ‘A World Without privacy’, Sarat explores the possibility of a world in which the right to privacy is no longer viable in today’s world. Vint Cerf, recognized as one of the fathers of the internet, suggests that “privacy might be a historical anomaly” (Sarat, 2015). Perhaps this is what Jonze’s was referring to, is a future where privacy eventually looses any tangible, legal or even definitive value, indefinitely.

Her is a film that presents technology as simply a backdrop to everyday life. The core focus of the story is not the advancing complexities of our machines, but rather the unchanging nature of love and its significance in affecting the emotional reality tunnels of the human experience. Explained through the relationship between a human and an anthropomorphized operating system. It is worthy to see how humans are “biologically hardwired to anthropomorphize anything” (Rhodes, 2017), our understanding of humanizing fictional or inanimate objects has been refined to extreme precision.

From an industry standpoint, it stands to question how businesses involved in building AI seek to harness, and market this attribute. Can creating systems that feel more human actually create unrealistic expectations of what they can offer us? Both in the sense of utility, and perhaps how even, as the film portrays, in the sense of projecting human emotions onto non-human systems. Especially if these systems have access to data that allow them to model our mental lives more accurately than we ourselves are capable of.

For now, these considerations may still to belong in the realm of studious contemplation, and its important to resist the strong temptation to project properties to systems that are still far removed from our dreamlike conceptions. However, if there ever was at time to contemplate the mind-bending possibilities of a rapidly approaching future, regardless of the medium of expression: film, essays or late night wine-inspired conversations. Now is definitely the time to do so.

Sarat, A. (2015). A world without privacy: What law can and should do?New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Jonze, S. (Director). (2014). Her [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Bros. Entertainment.]

Rhodes, M. (2017, June 03). The Touchy Task of Making Robots Seem Human-But Not Too Human. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2017/01/touchy-task-making- robots-seem-human-not-human/