AI

After watching the movie Artificial Intelligence, I asked myself many questions about what it means to be human. I also asked myself if being human is necessary for being treated with respect. In other words, should the only things we treat like humans be actual human beings? Finally, I asked myself what Spielberg was trying to convey in this movie and whether or not I agree with him.

When it comes to the question of what it means to be human, I find myself leaning towards Dennet's side. I think that if a something is able think, act, respond and communicate like other human beings, we should treat is as such. It does not matter what said being is made of. As far as I am concerned, it could be made of string cheese and leather. As long as is behaves like a human, we should treat it as one. Searle would argue that in AI, David did not behave like any other human being, and this is because he was made from fiber and metal. I disagree. While David obviously did not have complete understanding of what was going on around him (i.e. when he pulls the real son into the water and refuses to let go), there are many humans who are not fully aware. Many people with severe mental disabilities are far less aware than David, and the vast majority of people would argue that these are still human beings. Therefore, I would argue that David's wish had already come true; he was a real, human boy

I think that Spielberg would agree with my view of what it means to be human. He makes it quite obvious that David should be treated like any other boy. However, I do not think that this is the message he is trying to send in this film. Instead, I think he is trying to warn us about what technology can do to us if we are not careful, and what kind of problems it can lead to. As we see at the end of the film, New York City is completely underwater, which is showing what might happen in the future due to global warming.

AI in the Searle v Dennett Debate

Artificial Intelligence takes on the Searle v. Dennett debate directly and, in my opinion, supports Dennet’s view as well as mine. People will point out the distinct differences between the way David acts compared to humans, but I do not see this as due to the fact that he is a Mecha. I see it because he was not raised in the same way that humans were raised, in fact he was not raised at all and rather created when we was already seven years old. I believe that if David was raised in the same way for the same period of time that Martin was, David would have been much more similar to a human child and less naïve to the world. It is clear that David cannot exactly replicate a human. The best example would be that David cannot eat, drink or age. Yet referring back to Dennett’s argument, if we wait for the technology to come then Mechas could replicate humans exactly. But now raises the question of understanding rather than programmed response, semantics rather than syntax. David is programmed to have the emotion of love, and from that rises the emotions of desire, hate, fear, and will to survive. When David sees an exact replica of himself he attacks it and this emotion would only be possible if David understands that this is unnatural to have an exact twin. He also attempts to commit suicide by falling off the building in Manhattan. If they had merely programmed the will to survive into David, then he would never of attempted to destroy himself, he must have consciousness and understanding to make this decision. I believe Spielberg makes a very good argument for Dennett’s side and truly displays understanding of Artificial Intelligence in his movie.

AI, with no answers

The movie AI was certainly eye opening. The first question that arose was brought up in the opening scene when the head architect of the mechas challenged his engineers to imagine and then design a mecha that can actually “feel” rather then just contain sensors and display programmed emotions. I feel like in the movie this challenge was met. David certainly displayed advanced thought in following emotions. David only displayed simple fear or attraction but failed to explain why he felt such emotions. For example he displayed very complex reasoning in why he wanted to see the blue fairy but could not explain why he wanted his “mom” to love him. While this might be the difference between ‘orgo’ and ‘mecha’ I would argue that humans do not truly understand why they love their parents. The case of lovers might be different but this was not what the movie was about.

Another question that I thought was overlooked and is very intriguing is brought up with the romantic mecha who understands all of humans ‘faults.’ Ironically these human faults are what make humans definitively human compared to mecha, besides their composition. The question this brings up is; will artificially intelligent computers discover human flaws and inconsistencies before they are able to understand them. This assumes the ai computers would be able to achieve both, or at least appear to achieve both.

This brings up the question this movie brings up that is most important to the discussion. The turing test really is just a test examining if a computer can appear “human” but the more fundamental question is can a computer actually achieve ‘human’ understanding. This question requires the examination of our ability to test this question. AI seems to believe the only way to examine this beyond simple appearance is only by looking at the composition.

Artificial Intelligence: Searle, Dennet, and Lycan

The film Artificial Intelligence by Steven Spielberg highlights the argument between Searle and Dennett: can programs give rise to the same understanding that humans have? The movie also touches upon the ideas of Lycan who argues that a creature’s origin or its subneuroanatomical chemical composition should not matter to its physical processes or any aspect of its mentality (Lycan 320). In the movie, new robots known as “Mechas”, advanced robots capable of emulating thoughts and emotions similar to those of humans, are being developed in order to fulfill humanity’s need of not only sustaining a human population but to also fulfill the need of parents who want children. The first prototype of a mecha was tested on the Swinton Family. The Swinton’s have a son, Martin, who is in a coma. The Swinton’s test out the first prototype of mechas, who are made to resemble a child and are programmed to feel love for its human owners. The mecha, David, who belongs to the Swinton’s was built with “pain receptors” but was not considered a real human by his owners. Mechas differ from humans, who are coined “orgos”, because people believe that orgos have some form of understanding that these robots do not.

Although David shows instances of what people may believe are examples of real understanding such as his “love” for his mother and his imitations of Martin in order to seem like a real boy, they are all just a façade and illustrate Searle’s thought experiment of the Chinese Room Argument. David appears to be conscious and exhibit traits of real understanding but these are just programmed inputs and outputs similar to those of the Chinese Room. David’s rulebook, in essence, is Martin. David tries to imitate his behavior similar to the way the person in the Chinese Room Experiment just looks at the rulebook when he receives “squiggles and squaggles”. David’s actions are merely programmed and manipulated.

I believe Dennett would argue that David does actually show an example of how programs can give rise to understanding through David’s journey of trying to find the Blue Fairy so that he can become a real boy. David’s motivations for seeking this fairy were built on emotions of envy and desire. Dennett would argue that these emotions exhibit an understanding similar to those of humans. Similar to his reply of the Chinese Room thought experiment, Dennett would counter that while David does not initially understand human emotions and actions through his own rule book, Martin, he is able to better understand what it is like to have human emotions and understanding.

Lycan’s argument is also extremely relevant to the movie as it discusses how humans should treat robots that appear to be human in every sense but seem to be missing something extra that humans have.  Similar to David in the film, Lycan supposes that a robot named Harry is a form of a machine that has lifelike plastic skin and can converse intelligently and can execute actions such as play golf and make love. If a person were to see him, they would think that he was just an ordinary person. Lycan then argues that we do not discriminate against a person who has a wooden leg or a mechanical kidney so then why should we discriminate against Harry?

When arguing whether or not David is just a “computer” like that of the Chinese Room Argument or whether he does give rise to human understanding, I believe it is important to not take sides that are inflexible. Although there are instances in which David does show understanding, I believe that he does so because his human rulebook tells him to do so and that humans have something extra that no robot will be able to duplicate because unlike robots who are “fed” information; humans have experiences that allow us to give rise to real understanding. 

Spielberg's A.I.

Spielberg’s Artificial Intelligence confronted the controversy that we are now discussing regarding the difference between man and machine. In the movie, for the most part, the machines were created unequal to humans because they could not feel or have emotions. It could be argued that they had some form of a mind, but their differences from humans were far to great. David, the most advanced machine made thus far, had sensors input in him so that he could feel pain and he also had emotions attached to that pain. One great example is when the Mechas were asked about love. All of the more primitive robots defined love and how people act when in love. David recognized the question and responded the way a human would, with emotion. He didn’t just define love, but desired the feeling behind it rather then understanding exactly what it is. This showed how close David really was to being a human. Because he was so close to being “real”, David went beyond his programming and decided that he was a real boy and had dreams of actually being a real boy. Because he was not programmed to do such a thing, this shows that David truly has a conscious mind of his own to formulate these ideas.

This idea directly contradicts a commonly followed belief that there needs to be human brain matter in order to create a conscious mind. In Searle’s opinion, only brain matter can run the “programs” that lead to a conscious mind. Dennett would say that the movie is correct in portraying David as having a conscious mind because it does not matter what the super-system is made of, as long as it can run the right programs. In my opinion, Dennett has a good point because as long as something can function identical to a human, there is nothing to deny the fact that that creation can think like a human. David is able to run the programs that create the emotions of humans, therefore it is hard to deny the fact that he has a mind like any human would.

David's Part in Searle vs. Dennet

After watching AI, I felt that my original views and opinions had been challenged. Before watching AI I believed that Searle was right, that the matter matters. Although a super computer can be arranged in a certain way to act like humans that it is not necessarily a human being. When I relate this to David, he did act like this in the beginning. He was a robot designed to love but acted removed from society. There were specific things that made him different from Monica's and Henry's real son, Martin. But when Martin put him up to different challenges like eating the spinach or cutting off Monica's hair, David reacted like any other normal boy. David felt that he had to compete with Martin, which is normal for any foreign boy being put in another household.

This is where I started to lean towards Dennet's view. David is different from all the other Mechas that he meets. He believes he is unique which separates him from the rest. When he is at the Flesh Fairs and is displayed in front of the whole audience, he shows emotions that he could be a real boy. This causes an upheaval amongst the audience because no other Mecha has showed emotion and fear like David had. Dennet believes that with the right configuration anything can act like a human even beer cans and string. When David is looking for the Blue Fairy and showing that he dreams of pleasing his mother, I started to believe he was more and more like a real boy. I started to feel sympathetic for him because all he wanted was to be loved. He had unconditional love for his mother who had rejected him because of his awkwardness in the family. All David needed in the end was to be accepted and loved by his mother to make him happy. David shows that there is potential for a robot to have true emotions towards a mother or father. Although he was a little out of place in the beginning, he learned through his adventure and in the end was able to reunite with his mother for a day and be loved.

Steven Spielberg's A.I.

After watching Steven Spielberg's A.I. film I think it is apparent that David isn't a real boy. Although David is able to control his emotions and react to other people and events, he doesn't truly understand the reasons behind his actions because he lacks consciousness. His behavior tricks the audience to think he is conscious, yet there are certain examples that prove David lacks understanding of his actions. For example, at the dinner table David copies his family's habits by pretending to eat and drink although he has no drink or no food on his plate. His program is simply using inputs to create outputs, in other words he is merely imitating others' actions, but not understanding the purpose of his actions. This argument supports Searle's rejection of strong A.I.- that syntax doesn't create semantics. In order to create semantics the program has to be created on the right matter that will produce consciousness.

This movie really made me question what the difference is between Teddy and David. Both are artificially created machines that act like humans, but neither are conscious. By the end of the movie I believed that the only true difference between these two robots is the difference in species and appearance. David was the first of his kind, a son specifically designed and programmed to show his love. Since David looked so similar to a real boy he was treated differently because everyone has affection towards children. For example at the "Flesh Fair" the audience completely disagreed with the staff when they tried to hurt the mecha, David, who resembled a real boy. This reminded me of Singer's argument regarding how all species' desires and interests should be considered equally as long as each species has the capacity to suffer. Yet we have a profound emotional connection with children, since they are one of our own species, we believe medically testing disabled children is more morally wrong than testing animals of different species. This is the same reasoning behind the idea that the audience of "Flesh Fair" protected David because they believed it was more morally wrong to taunt David then taunt the other mechas since he appeared to be a real boy.