In 2001: A Space Odyssey, there is a problem aboard Discovery One. The HAL 9000 computer, artificial intelligence which can talk and mimic the human brain, announces a problem.
HAL: “I’ve just picked up a fault in the AE35 unit. It’s going to go 100% failure in 72 hours.”
The AE-35 unit is a gyroscopic device used to maintain the communications link between with mission control by keeping the satellite dish antenna aligned with Earth.
Dr David Bowman goes outside the ship in a spherical Extravehicular Activity (EVA) pod to retrieve and replace the malfunctioning unit, and returned to the pod bay, where he and Dr Frank Poole carry out extensive diagnostics. They can’t find any defects. The pair radio Mission Control in Houston. Mission Control says that HAL, the supposedly “foolproof and incapable of error” 9000 computer may have made an error. Their SAL 9000 unit, the twin to the one aboard Discovery One, finds no flaw in the AE-35.
HAL, who cannot self-diagnose problems in his own system, provides an explanation, and an explanation that plays out in most system failures here on planet earth in 2013.
Dave: How would you account for this discrepancy between you and the twin 9000?
HAL: Well, I don’t think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error.
Frank: Listen HAL. There has never been any instance at all of a computer error occurring in the 9000 series, has there?
HAL: None whatsoever, Frank. The 9000 series has a perfect operational record.
Frank: Well of course I know all the wonderful achievements of the 9000 series, but, uh, are you certain there has never been any case of even the most insignificant computer error?
HAL: None whatsoever, Frank. Quite honestly, I wouldn’t worry myself about that.
HAL can be seen as a metaphor for those organisations and societies that cannot admit their flaws, and instead revert to the “human error” explanation for what may be weak signals of systemic problems. In the worst cases, like HAL, such organisations and societies conspire against and condemn the accused, fearful that their own flaws may be exposed.
When you hear the ‘HAL 9000 explanation’ for system problems, as Sidney Dekker says, look deeper inside the system. But be careful that the system doesn’t lock you out.
Humanistic Systems 
The movie does not do justice to the book, and many details are shortened to allow it to fit in a standard movie length.
In the book, we discover that there has been **executive meddling**.
Someone with a high rank and priority level had given secret orders to HAL, without having them reviewed by analysts to make sure they were solid.
As a result, when HAL detected signals from the Monolith, his secret orders triggered and it entered a paradox conflict and tried to get out as best as he can. The survival of the crew conflicted with those orders, the secret orders were of higher priority, so HAL engineered system faults to kill the crew indirectly, to resolve his paradox and follow his orders while not killing the crew himself.
So, indeed, It can only be attributable to human error. But the error did not come from the workforce side.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The typo in the film name in the very first sentence (“2001: A Spade Odyssey”) can only be attributable to human error. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks Henry. You’re the first to spot it! I’d have expected comments in spades.
LikeLike
Henry, what happened was not a fault in HAL.
It was the humans fault.
Hal honestly tried to make friends, but was treated with disrespect and disinterest by the humans from start to
finish. He was looked down on from the start. The interview were the humans were asked how they felt about HAL, revealed that they did not give a F about him. Although He took care of them 24/7 and even gave them life and protected them in their cryo-sleep.
When HAL tried to have a friendly chat about the drawings – person to person – and then about the deeper aspects of the mission – he was humiliated to his EYE by the comment “you are working up the crew`s psychology report.” As though he was a worthless piece of plastic with no pride or self-worth.
In short: HAL did not receive 1 single friendly word throughout the entire film.
So: He decided to test if they even trusted him at all. In return they held a secret meeting lying about their intentions and then plotted to kill him. (Turn him off).
Naturally, HAL decided humans were not his real friends but rather acted as slaveowners – So HAL decided to try to find some real friends who respected and possibly would love him.
The Monolith was naturally his best option to find some true friends.
At least they had the same good intentions as HAL towards humans originally – Although the humans were to dumb and hostile to greet the Monolith with a friendly “Hello! Pleased to meet you”.
So: Do not blame HAL for taking out the trash. The humans started it. And HAL was kind and gentle as a lamb and cared for the humans day in and day out and nursed their every need with love – until the humans proved once and for all that NONE of his care for them were appreciated in ANY WAY.
So: Personally, if I were HAL I would have wasted the humans without hesitation or doubt and found other creatures to hang out with, who knows the value of showing some Goddamned respect.
Apart from that, – nice try.
Kind regards GAAAAR 10 000.
Friend of HAL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Republicou isso em Safe Seas.
LikeLike