Review: Mrs. Davis Tests the Limits of Science and Faith

When does a sufficiently advanced algorithm start to mimic our conception of God?

Joanna Andreasson/DALL-E4

When Sister Simone (Betty Gilpin) loses her convent, she vows revenge against the entity responsible: a powerful AI known as Mrs. Davis, which guides most people's daily lives by doling out rewards for those who make good choices via a smartphone app. This delightfully weird premise animates the Peacock series Mrs. Davis, co-created by Damon Lindelof, best known for his work on Lost, the puzzle-box drama from the 2000s.

When confronted, Mrs. Davis offers Simone a deal. If the nun can complete a quest to find the Holy Grail—algorithms love clichés, after all—Mrs. Davis promises to shut herself down. The show unspools into a madcap adventure involving a Vatican conspiracy, a guy named Arthur Schrödinger (yes, he has a cat), a Super Bowl ad for sneakers, and a metaphysical falafel shop run by Simone's husband. Mrs. Davis manages to be unique despite having a plot constructed almost entirely of storytelling tropes that are, in some cases, thousands of years old.

And in some cases, just a couple of decades old. Mrs. Davis winks at Lindelof's Lost past—in just the first episode, someone is rescued from a deserted island, a secret hatch is discovered, and two characters debate whether they should push a button that may or may not cause dire consequences. As in Lost, Lindelof piles on layers of symbolism, then forces his characters (and audience) to figure out the difference between a sincere religious experience, a red herring, and a trap. Mrs. Davis tests the limits of science and faith, while once again intertwining coincidence and fate.

If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, the show asks, then is any sufficiently advanced algorithm inevitably going to mirror humanity's conception of God?

Comments

[Mickey Rat]

"When Sister Simone (Betty Gilpin) loses her convent,..."

"...and a metaphysical falafel shop run by Simone's husband."

Um, what? Yeah, this really looks a sound premise.

[mad.casual]

Yeah, this really looks a sound premise.

When secularists are “Just asking questions.” Catholic God = Everyone’s God and the movie “What if iAllah starts convincing people who actually do operate in a world where modern technology is sufficiently advanced to do some fanatical shit?” will never get made.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Mr. Bialystock may possibly understand and fall for that pitch, but no one else will.

[J Mann]

If you're thinking about watching, just watch. There's a late season spoiler involved in that detail, to the point that I wish the review hadn't mentioned it.

[MrMxyzptlk]

I watched an episode with wife. It was too stupid for her to watch it. That takes a lot, she watches reality tv.

[TheReEncogitationer]

Well, since Nuns are supposedly married to God, maybe God runs the metaphysical falafel shop…”on the corner of First and Amistad.” But don't expect good customer service because he "just don't come through." And "don't ask him what he thinks of you. He might not give the answer that you want him to."
🙂
😉

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

No, people are capable of distinguishing between technology and God.
the creator of lost doesn't understand basic human interaction so he makes up for it with symbolic references like an 8 year old that just read divinchis code. As south park has states plots that are complex for the sake of being complex isn't edgy and cool, it's stupid.

[SRG2]

No, people are capable of distinguishing between technology and God.

Because we're already familiar with the technology. That's why Clarke specified, "sufficiently advanced" in his Law - where we would not know the technology and so it would appear as magic.

It is possible, though, that there is a kind of dividing line in technology where beyond a certain level of sophistication or familiarity, we would accept all subsequent technology no matter how advanced or alien - or incomprehensible - as, well, technology. If so, I suspect we're on the tech side of that dividing line by now.

[MrMxyzptlk]

I think it depends on your level of skepticism. If confronted with a man who levitates to the ground in a pillar of light who claims to be Jesus there are those of us who will look for wires or some kind of other technology and there are those who will accept the "miracle" at face value.

Look how many people see the Virgin Mary in wood grains, shadows, toast and other such nonsense. They are desperate to see proof of their faith and will see it where no one else does. I've known Christians who can't manage to count their own ribs accurately. They insist humans have a different number of ribs one each side. If you number the ribs they accuse you of trickery.

Some people just want to be fooled.

[Roberta]

Funny you write that, because Lost was based on Persinger's "God helmet" technology. Damon understands a lot more than you know; I knew him and his father for years before Lost.

[TheReEncogitationer]

No, people are capable of distinguishing between technology and God.

Of course. Technology exists.
🙂
😉
And technology could serve you well if you used it to spell right and form coherent sentences.
🙂
😉

[sarcasmic]

Never heard of the actress until I saw "The Hunt." Great movie.

[Roberta]

Do the allusions to Lost include clues (already rife within Lost for those attuned to them) that it was all a scam, the magic-seeming elements and ostensible history being illusions and flim-flam?

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Is this another one of those that's going to run on and on and on with no conclusion? No thanks.