The Terminator at 40: the sci-fi cult classic that still shapes how we view the threat of AI

Julio Franco

Posts: 9,174   +2,102
Staff member
In context: October 2024 marked the 40th anniversary of director James Cameron's science fiction classic, The Terminator – a film that popularised society's fear of machines that can't be reasoned with, and that "absolutely will not stop … until you are dead", as one character memorably puts it.

The plot concerns a super-intelligent AI system called Skynet which has taken over the world by initiating nuclear war. Amid the resulting devastation, human survivors stage a successful fightback under the leadership of the charismatic John Connor.

In response, Skynet sends a cyborg assassin (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) back in time to 1984 – before Connor's birth – to kill his future mother, Sarah. Such is John Connor's importance to the war that Skynet banks on erasing him from history to preserve its existence.

Editor's Note:
Guest author Tom F.A. Watts is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Politics, International Relations and Philosophy, Royal Holloway University of London. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Today, public interest in artificial intelligence has arguably never been greater. The companies developing AI typically promise their technologies will perform tasks faster and more accurately than people. They claim AI can spot patterns in data that are not obvious, enhancing human decision-making. There is a widespread perception that AI is poised to transform everything from warfare to the economy.

Immediate risks include introducing biases into algorithms for screening job applications and the threat of generative AI displacing humans from certain types of work, such as software programming.

But it is the existential danger that often dominates public discussion – and the six Terminator films have exerted an outsize influence on how these arguments are framed. Indeed, according to some, the films' portrayal of the threat posed by AI-controlled machines distracts from the substantial benefits offered by the technology.

The Terminator was not the first film to tackle AI's potential dangers. There are parallels between Skynet and the HAL 9000 supercomputer in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey.

It also draws from Mary Shelley's 1818 novel, Frankenstein, and Karel ÄÂapek's 1921 play, R.U.R.. Both stories concern inventors losing control over their creations.

On release, it was described in a review by the New York Times as a "B-movie with flair". In the intervening years, it has been recognised as one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time. At the box office, it made more than 12 times its modest budget of US$6.4 million (£4.9 million at today's exchange rate).

What was arguably most novel about The Terminator is how it re-imagined longstanding fears of a machine uprising through the cultural prism of 1980s America. Much like the 1983 film WarGames, where a teenager nearly triggers World War 3 by hacking into a military supercomputer, Skynet highlights cold war fears of nuclear annihilation coupled with anxiety about rapid technological change.

Forty years on, Elon Musk is among the technology leaders who have helped keep a focus on the supposed existential risk of AI to humanity. The owner of X (formerly Twitter) has repeatedly referenced the Terminator franchise while expressing concerns about the hypothetical development of superintelligent AI.

But such comparisons often irritate the technology's advocates. As the former UK technology minister Paul Scully said at a London conference in 2023: "If you're only talking about the end of humanity because of some rogue, Terminator-style scenario, you're going to miss out on all of the good that AI [can do]."

That's not to say there aren't genuine concerns about military uses of AI – ones that may even seem to parallel the film franchise.

AI-controlled weapons systems

To the relief of many, US officials have said that AI will never take a decision on deploying nuclear weapons. But combining AI with autonomous weapons systems is a possibility.

These weapons have existed for decades and don't necessarily require AI. Once activated, they can select and attack targets without being directly operated by a human. In 2016, US Air Force general Paul Selva coined the term "Terminator conundrum" to describe the ethical and legal challenges posed by these weapons.

Stuart Russell, a leading UK computer scientist, has argued for a ban on all lethal, fully autonomous weapons, including those with AI. The main risk, he argues, is not from a sentient Skynet-style system going rogue, but how well autonomous weapons might follow our instructions, killing with superhuman accuracy.

Russell envisages a scenario where tiny quadcopters equipped with AI and explosive charges could be mass-produced. These "slaughterbots" could then be deployed in swarms as "cheap, selective weapons of mass destruction".

Countries including the US specify the need for human operators to "exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force" when operating autonomous weapon systems. In some instances, operators can visually verify targets before authorising strikes, and can "wave off" attacks if situations change.

AI is already being used to support military targeting. According to some, it's even a responsible use of the technology, since it could reduce collateral damage. This idea evokes Schwarzenegger's role reversal as the benevolent "machine guardian" in the original film's sequel, Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

However, AI could also undermine the role human drone operators play in challenging recommendations by machines. Some researchers think that humans have a tendency to trust whatever computers say.

'Loitering munitions'

Militaries engaged in conflicts are increasingly making use of small, cheap aerial drones that can detect and crash into targets. These "loitering munitions" (so named because they are designed to hover over a battlefield) feature varying degrees of autonomy.

As I've argued in research co-authored with security researcher Ingvild Bode, the dynamics of the Ukraine war and other recent conflicts in which these munitions have been widely used raises concerns about the quality of control exerted by human operators.

Ground-based military robots armed with weapons and designed for use on the battlefield might call to mind the relentless Terminators, and weaponised aerial drones may, in time, come to resemble the franchise's airborne "hunter-killers". But these technologies don't hate us as Skynet does, and neither are they "super-intelligent".

However, it's crucially important that human operators continue to exercise agency and meaningful control over machine systems.

Arguably, The Terminator's greatest legacy has been to distort how we collectively think and speak about AI. This matters now more than ever, because of how central these technologies have become to the strategic competition for global power and influence between the US, China and Russia.

The entire international community, from superpowers such as China and the US to smaller countries, needs to find the political will to cooperate – and to manage the ethical and legal challenges posed by the military applications of AI during this time of geopolitical upheaval. How nations navigate these challenges will determine whether we can avoid the dystopian future so vividly imagined in The Terminator – even if we don't see time travelling cyborgs any time soon.

Permalink to story:

 
People only started considering The Terminator movie seriously after Terminator 2 came out, which was a masterpiece. The first movie wasn't any near as good, IMO.
 
It’s wild to think that one of the biggest issues with AI might actually be how much we trust it, especially when it comes to stuff like military or law enforcement. This ‘automation bias’ could end up making us a bit like Skynet—allowing AI to make decisions based on cold, data-driven logic without truly understanding human nuance.
 
This was soooo good.

It's almost unimaginable that folks living in the 80's could have ever come up with something as good as Terminator I.

And then there is Alien I, Alien II.

Damn some ppl in the 80's were sooo good at what they did. We don't have this sort of talent around in Hollywood anymore IMO.

Honorable Mention: You Could Be Mine, Guns N' Roses. Compare with current trap music: it's just Tyrone jumpin' around screaming.
 
Hollywood was in a funk in the 70s. The success of Star Wars forced them to compete and take chances. This led to all of the classic movies of the 80s. We've been in another Hollywood funk since Marvel junk permeated everything. Hollywood has been quite a joke the last 10 or so years. Covid certainly didn't help.
 

I may sound like an ancient historian here but bear w/ me:

The band NIRVANA was formed in Aberdeen, WA, USA in 1987.

It just seemed unfair to me to mention Guns N' Roses and not mention NIRVANA. It is awesome to think of the cultural, musical, cinematographic and artistic achievements of the 80's compared to those (or lack thereof) of our present time of existence.
 
The first one did incredibly well at the box office at the time. Many enjoyed it.

The first one is good in its own right. While there are those who loved part 2, there are also those who loved the first movie. It had a great combination of dark, gritty, and horror elements and does a great job of portraying the Terminator as a relentless, unstoppable killing machine.

 
I may sound like an ancient historian here but bear w/ me:
"Ancient historian", eh? Sorry, but you're giving yourself far too much credit.
As for AI nihilism , let me take you back to 1973.

Let me preface this by saying, "Taylor Swift fans not only won't like this, but won't even come close to understanding it" And BTW, "Tyrone" is nowhere to be found.

For any of you interested in music as more than just casual listeners, Kieth Emerson constantly travels from tension to tension. You're not going to get that big major chord resolution you're likely expecting. He also employs "onomatopoeia", as in making his keyboards sound like keypunch machine , tapes rewinding, and such. Here we are five decades ago, and AI is in control of the space warships. Man thinks he is, but is sadly mistaken


"Rejoice glory is ours, our young men have not died in vain"
"Their graves need no flowers, the tapes have recorded their names"
Priceless.
 
Last edited:
I find it ironic to be reading a AI assisted article about AI. Well done?

I was very lucky to grow up in the 80s and like many of you loved both films. I think Terminator was so ahead of its time and the horror plus action aspect was so fantastic which of course made a great director for Aliens. I was working in the theaters when Terminator 2 came out and the team watched the night before and I knew then and there that this would be a massive hit but also cement Cameron as the go to Director for science fiction and action films. The next day opening night we had a line that wrapped around the building which was rare since the ending of the original Star Wars trilogy. One of the busiest nights I worked at that theater in 2 years during high school. Anyways great.movies. I love them both and I think they each had great aspect to them, no need to hate or even prefer one over the other. 40 years congratulations to JC and his team for making some amazing thought provoking films.
 
I find it ironic to be reading a AI assisted article about AI. Well done?

I was very lucky to grow up in the 80s and like many of you loved both films. I think Terminator was so ahead of its time and the horror plus action aspect was so fantastic which of course made a great director for Aliens. I was working in the theaters when Terminator 2 came out and the team watched the night before and I knew then and there that this would be a massive hit but also cement Cameron as the go to Director for science fiction and action films. The next day opening night we had a line that wrapped around the building which was rare since the ending of the original Star Wars trilogy. One of the busiest nights I worked at that theater in 2 years during high school. Anyways great.movies. I love them both and I think they each had great aspect to them, no need to hate or even prefer one over the other. 40 years congratulations to JC and his team for making some amazing thought provoking films.
The eighties and the nineties were simply the very, very best time to be alive in this country. I started at 22 yrs old in 1980, and ended up at 41yrs old, in 1999. The days when every other film was pretty darn good!! Not to mention the incredible music of those two decades!! I'd, go back in a NY minute!
 
"Ancient historian", eh? Sorry, but you're giving yourself far too much credit.
As for AI nihilism , let me take you back to 1973.

Let me preface this by saying, "Taylor Swift fans not only won't like this, but won't even come close to understanding it" And BTW, "Tyrone" is nowhere to be found.

For any of you interested in music as more than just casual listeners, Kieth Emerson constantly travels from tension to tension. You're not going to get that big major chord resolution you're likely expecting. He also employs "onomatopoeia", as in making his keyboards sound like keypunch machine , tapes rewinding, and such. Here we are five decades ago, and AI is in control of the space warships. Man thinks he is, but is sadly mistaken


"Rejoice glory is ours, our young men have not died in vain"
"Their graves need no flowers, the tapes have recorded their names"
Priceless.

Taylor Swift never fails to invoke immediate bütthürt in some people, and we all know why.

Earth to Swift-haters: It's TOTALLY different genres of music you're comparing!! What's next: comparing Mozart to the Bee Gees??

Taylor Swift became a trillionaire and one of the most successful musicians of all time because she is good at what she does and her influence lasts way longer than a year or two, unlike those examples being thrown around.

And no, I am not a T Swift fan.
 
Taylor Swift never fails to invoke immediate bütthürt in some people, and we all know why.

Earth to Swift-haters: It's TOTALLY different genres of music you're comparing!! What's next: comparing Mozart to the Bee Gees??

Taylor Swift became a trillionaire and one of the most successful musicians of all time because she is good at what she does and her influence lasts way longer than a year or two, unlike those examples being thrown around.

And no, I am not a T Swift fan.
I was like you, until I watched the 1989 World Tour. My granddaughter, told me I should watch it. It was pretty darn good. And, I'm a rocker, Styx, 38 special, Rush, Boston, Led Zeppelin, etc... For the most part, though, I haven't otherwise listened to much of Taylor Swifts music. Too much of a generation gap there...
 
Taylor Swift never fails to invoke immediate bütthürt in some people, and we all know why.

Earth to Swift-haters: It's TOTALLY different genres of music you're comparing!! What's next: comparing Mozart to the Bee Gees??

Taylor Swift became a trillionaire and one of the most successful musicians of all time because she is good at what she does and her influence lasts way longer than a year or two, unlike those examples being thrown around.

And no, I am not a T Swift fan.
Another mind reader wannabe present and accounted for.

A couple of points to consider. Taylor Swift is not, "a trillionaire". If she were, she would be the world's richest human, regardless of sex assigned at birth. (Do you like that "woke" syntax?) Ostensibly, she's a "SWF", which is her patently obvious preoccupation in the content of her lyrics

I'm in my mid 70's, and have been listening to music since prior to my 10th birthday. Hence, I have absolutely no need whatsoever of you explaining "musical genre" to me.

Her musical content being what it is, one can reasonably guess that , "the Swifties", share its message in large measure. Thus, I can reasonably speculate that those said "Swifties", who are largely interested in pop folk stylings, would have no particular interest whosoever in accessing Emerson, Lake, & Palmer's progressive rock / neoclassical offerings. Nor would it resonate with them emotionally. It follows that if you can't tolerate a certain "genre" of music, you likely wouldn't understand it.

So, I'm not a "Swift hater", and I do not envy her wealth and success. I simply view her as sex object, since she has nothing to offer intellectually that interests me. In other words, Swift's music could broadly be categorized as, "'six chords and a bunch of gossip" While that may seem tragically shallow and misogynistic, keep in mind that she has performed in "The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show", and for all intents and purposes, you couldn't tell where the supermodels ended, and Ms. Swift began. As someone with a rather pedestrian degree in photography, (AAS), I would be very much interested in photographing her, as long as she was able to take direction, quietly.

As someone who has followed her career somewhere between less than casually to not at all, I would also be very much interested in when her manager and marketing staff decided that she should shed her bluejeans, and borrow Beyonce's wardrobe. And I freely admit that she can mime a song and dance number with the best of them

In other matters, I even have Ms. Swift's "Time magazine's 'Woman of the Year' cover", in the slide show rotation of my PC. However, I think calling her pet, "a rescue cat", is somewhat disingenuous. Note the cat's blue eyes. They lead me to believe that, while it may be a "rescue", it is also likely that it is a purebred "rag doll" These cats are notorious for going limp when you pick them up, (hence the name), and that would explain how she (apparently) easily, wrapped kitty around her neck.

In fact, I actually own a copy of her album, "Red". Amazon sold the MP3 version for $1.00 at release, which I dutifully burned to CD. I played it once and never again. (Hey,you can't say I didn't try).But I didn't throw it away either. (I'm somewhat of a hoarder).

It is interesting to note that both "Red", and "Karn Evil 9", both occupy fairly high spots on Rolling Stone's most recent, "Top 500 Albums of all Time" listing..

All of that being said, I think what you've misinterpreted and mistakenly defined as my, "hate" for her, is actually my, "almost complete ambivalence and disinterest".

One observation that makes the rounds in musical circles is, "compared to Bach, we all suck". Neither Swift or Mozart are mentioned in that context.

As the forum is behind a firewall due to DDoS attacks, it won't let me post a direct link. For a good laugh use this search term:

taylor swift monologue song SNL (YouTube video is 4:33 for ID)

This is Ms. Swift at her very best. I think she sings the "la, la, las" off key, on purpose.
 
Last edited:
I was like you, until I watched the 1989 World Tour. My granddaughter, told me I should watch it. It was pretty darn good. And, I'm a rocker, Styx, 38 special, Rush, Boston, Led Zeppelin, etc... For the most part, though, I haven't otherwise listened to much of Taylor Swifts music. Too much of a generation gap there...
I have a copy of Britney Spears, "Live in Las Vegas" DVD. I keep meaning to run it muted, while I play different music on the stereo system. Her white leather, "Elvis Jumpsuit" on the cover, was stolen during the filming.

Which sadly deprives some fool the, "privilege", of paying likely close to a million dollars to have it for their very own.
 
Last edited:
For those of that don't know, the Terminator franchise made it to the small screen as, "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" As with most Fox Sci-fi offerings it only lasted two seasons. One of those who I call "Weadon's wenches" (Joss Weadon' starlets), Summer Glau, starred as the Terminator.

A couple of other Fox "two season experiments" include:
"Dark Angel" w/ Jessica Alba
"Doll House" w/ Eliza Dusku ("Faith" From "Buffy" another Weadon discovery).

And then there was "Tru Calling" again w/ Eliza Dushku. Which really did stink to high heaven. RIP.
 
Back