Friday, November 26, 2010
AI
AI in the Searle v Dennett Debate
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
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
Steven Spielberg's A.I.
My Views on AI
Henry Gabriel
AI Response
I thought AI was a very interesting movie because it is a great example of the Searle vs. Dennett argument and made it a lot easier for me to bolster my own argument on the topic of artificial intelligence. In particular I think AI supported my own (and Searle's) view that matter does in fact matter and there is a great gap between performing a task and understanding the true nature of that action.
In the opening scenes of the film, it was clear that the female robot had a strong grasp of syntax, but little or no understanding of the semantics behind so-called 'human' emotions. In other words, she embodied the 'chinese room' system; she was able to function at the same level as a human, but she couldn't comprehend the meaning of what she was saying.
One thing that I think somewhat skewed the Dennett/Searle debate on film was the 'emotions' 'felt' by David towards Martin as well as his motivation to seek the Blue Fairy. The way that Spielberg presented David's 'feelings' such as envy, desire and motive were deceptive, and I think that Spielberg tried to blur the line between syntax and semantics.
After thinking about the movie, I reminded myself that Spielberg set out to create an educational and entertaining film rather than a strict interpretation of modern philosophical debate.
In the end, I felt some compassion for David and his fellow Mechas but AI only made me more sure that a) doing something and understanding it are two very different things and b) the matter of artificial intelligence is crucial if we want to create a truly 'human' machine. All in all, I think this movie should be considered validation of Searle's stance on AI.
A.I. and the Question of Consciousness
On the surface, his behavior suggest that David is conscious, but he is missing the human factor. He is missing a truly human conscious factor. Each of his behaviors and responses are merely programmed responses. Even David's "love" for his mother can be traced back to an internal program of behavior to ensure he would be a good "son". Many people would take his seemingly undying "love" for his mother, and other examples as proof that he is conscious and living, but I believe they help prove the opposite. I agree with Searle and think that "matter matters". I think that in order for something to be conscious it must not only have the right structure and organization, but also be made out of the right stuff. David in my opinion is not made of that "right" stuff. There is more to consciousness than superficial behaviors. Behaviors can appear to show consciousness, but there is also a certain sense of understanding and conceptual relationships that must go along with those behaviors. Behaviors can be programmed, but consciousness is not so simple.
"Matter Matters!"
Watching the movie A.I. has totally changed my perspective on the argument between Searle and Dennett. I used to believe that if a super computer was arranged in the right sort of way, then it would have a mind and would respond just as a human would to any sort of stimuli (agreeing with Dennett rather that Searle). But after watching the way that David responds to things has made me realize that even if a super computer was created to act just like humans as in the movie, it would still would be missing something that humans have. Thus I am agreeing with Searle and the statement that “Matter Matters.” David is a Mecha, a robot with a super computer as a brain that is programmed to act and show emotions just as a human boy would, but his understanding of the world is missing something. Now I cannot describe this “something” very well, but it is very clear from some examples in the movie that David does not understand some things in the same way that Martin, a real boy and David’s brother, does. A few of these examples are like when Martin is provoking David to eat the spinach and when David holds on to Martin to protect him then falls into the pool and doesn’t let go. In the first example David eats the spinach even though the other Mecha (Teddy, the super toy teddy-bear) tells him that he will break. This shows that he doesn’t truly understand the concept that he cannot perform all of the same functions that a real human can, and by not realizing this he almost terminates himself. In the second example David gets poked with a knife by one of Martin’s friends at Martin’s birthday party, then he holds on to Martin saying, “keep me safe Martin.” While he is still holding on tightly they fall into the pool and Martin is unable to swim away and he needs to be recued while they leave David at the bottom of the pool to watch. He can’t drown because he doesn’t require oxygen, but he didn’t realize that he could have killed Martin by holding him at the bottom of the pool. These two examples I believe show that even if there were super computer that were advanced enough to make robots that could replicate human actions and emotions, that it still would not be close enough to a real human brain and perception to say that the robot’s computer brain is the same as a humans. For this reason I agree with Searle and the statement “Matter Matters.” (I liked the movie a lot too; I think it really helped my understanding of the arguments presented in class.)
Is Love the Answer?
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
David is a one of a kind Mecha (mechanical robot) that is programmed to love just like a real boy would. A family adopts him with a terminally ill child and it soon becomes clear that he “loves” his mother. Because he is ageless and immortal, he becomes interested in death, and asks his mother when she thinks she will die, which is 50 years. Martin is eventually cured and taken out of his cryogenic state and he then lives with David as a “brother”. What the mother perceives is competition between the David and Martin is actually David imitating Martin’s actions because of his desire to become a real boy. Monica then abandons David, leaving him to believe that she did so because he was not a real boy. He then makes it his mission to find the Blue Fairy from the Pinocchio fairytale, which he believes can turn him into an Orgo (organic person). On his journey we see many ways that humans discriminate and show poor treatment to robots. The audience does not want to hurt David because he looks so real. This brings to point man and technology and how humans control robots now, but in thousands of years synthetic alien type structures have control of the world and humans are nonexistent.
I thought this was a very interesting movie and directly correlated what we have been talking about for the last few weeks. Throughout the movie, I noticed that I kept seeing David as a human, and I needed to remind myself multiple times that he was a robot with simulated emotions. It seemed like David was experiencing real emotions, but according to Searle robots cannot be jealous, like David was about Martin. The topic of “realness” was extremely relevant throughout the movie. After Monica left David, he spent his entire life trying to find the Blue Fairy, and once he did he looked at her for thousands of years. David felt he would never be Monica’s son unless he was a real boy.
David built with the correct material
David’s actions in this movie have made me come to agree with Searle’s argument that “the matter matters.” Although the technology that has been instilled in David is far beyond the technology that we can produce at the current time, there is a sense of understanding in his system. Although it is hard to understand where the understanding comes from in his creation, David makes it known when he pleads for his life that he is more than just input and output like a robotic brain would be. Just like humans would do, he shows fear for losing his robotic life, which is impossible for a robot made of beer cans and strings to do. Even most of the mechas do not demonstrate the type of compassion and understanding that David shows throughout the movie. I believe that he is more than a machine and his syntax, while we are unsure of how it is done, absolutely gives rise to semantics in his particular situation. An audience is meant to feel sorry for this mecha as he has become so real that one is saddened when he has to say goodbye for the last time to his parents. It is impossible for a human to feel this way about a robot unless they actually felt that it had the same type of material that we are made from and feels similar emotion. That is why I believe that most people who watch this movie must believe that David is created on the right type of matter and has understanding just as humans do.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
David as Nothing More Than a Supercomputer
The original creator of David made reference to David's journey and how it showed that David had more human characteristics than he had originally imagined. He said that David was seeking a goal that was unattainable and that is what human beings do as well. However, I do not think that David's journey had anything to do with him looking for a goal in his "mechanical life." I believe that the journey that David took to find the blue ferry that would enable him to be loved by his mother was not motivated by personal interests, because David has no personal interests. The sole reason for this journey was because David was programmed to seek love from the person that he was activated by-his mother. Therefore, the matter does matter and David and the rest of the Mechas did not have the correct matter.
A.I response
After watching the movie A.I, one can have a better understanding between robots and humans. David, who was a robot created to act, feel, and share as many emotions as humans do, is probably the most significant factor in understanding the debate between Searle and Dennett. Throughout the movie, if one did not know any better, they would think that David is a real boy. He is a mecha robot that is programmed to love and act the same as a normal boy would, however, he cannot fulfill all the same actions as a "real" boy could. He almost dies or is destroyed when he tries to eat the spinach, he does not age, and he cannot drink. Throughout the movie we can see how "realness" plays a major role. It seems to the audience that David is quite "real" experiencing emotions such as love and jealousy. This would be against Searle's argument because no non-biological things can have a conscious and pro Dennett's argument. I believe this movie shows a lot of evidence towards Dennett's argument, for example, when David attempts to commit suicide. I highly doubt that a "supercomputer" mecha robot was programmed to attempt a suicide and this alone shows that he had a conscious decision of choosing life vs death. David might not know why he feels a certain way but not all human beings do either. I know from personal experience that I do not know why I feel a certain way sometimes. One might relate this to a “gut” or so feeling. In either case there is no factual evidence, however, I feel as if there is more of a chance that technology is advanced and creates a conscious non-biological thing rather than us humans finding the “right” matter.
Searle V Dennet
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Neither Mecha nor Orgo
A.I. dealt with the subject of non-biological individuals flawlessly. The Mecha boy, David, was created as one of a kind. He was made to feel as a human feels; not just physically, but emotionally. In the beginning, the scientist who created David asked a different Mecha what love is. She responded with a definition of love, or how she is supposed to behave or react to love. The Mecha was unable to explain the actual feeling that coincides with love. This is the same as Joe, a lover Mecha. He, like every other Mecha, could not feel, he only knew what to do and how to respond. David, on the other hand, was the exact opposite, or so it seemed. He actually felt, craved the emotion behind love rather than understanding how he was supposed to react. At the flesh fair, the nanny Mecha accepted her fate while David was able to beg for mercy. The flesh fair crowd noticed this difference, and convinced he was a real boy, saved him from being destroyed. He was also able to set his mind on something, becoming a real boy, and following his dream. All other Mechas were unable to dream or focus on something they wanted for themselves. They were only able to do as programmed. David was able to come up with the idea of becoming a real boy on his own.
The problem arises with how one can tell if David was actually a conscious Mecha. Searle states that it is impossible for non-biological beings to have consciousness. David was not made of organic materials, and therefore could not honestly feel like a human. When watching the movie, it was impractical to even bother noticing differences between David and humans physically or emotionally. The question is, is it possible to create a machine that can actually feel the emotions, or was David only programmed to react the way he did. The machines at the end stated that the way of living, the definition behind living, began with humans. This proves that humans, or rather biological creatures, are the only ones capable of feeling emotions.
Resources for Thinking about A.I.
Additionally, here's a great review of the film by Jonathan Rosenbaum. He begins with some discussion of the production of the film and of various other critical responses to it. I didn't mention this in class, but this was initially a Stanley Kubrick project, but he died before he was able to complete it and asked Spielberg to do it for him.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Is David real?
David is one of a kind or the 1st one of his kind. He does not have a birthday or a death time. He is an immortal being in comparison to Monica who tells him she expects to live for 50 years. When Monica abandons him, David believes that it is because she doesn’t love him because he is not a real boy in part of the fact that he cannot “die”. He goes on a journey to find the Blue Fairy like in Pinocchio to make him into a real boy.
The movie touches upon the nature of existence in the way “realness” is perceived. Also it touches upon the line between man and technology. We see that in the relationship between David and Monica as a kind of mother and son relationship. Then we also see it in the end of the movie where many decades later all there is are synthetic beings. Mankind seemed to be overruled by technology. It allowed us to ask similar questions we ask in class such as, “If we replaced every part of our bodies with synthetic materials, would we still be conscious?” “Does syntax allow for semantics?” “Are robots just machines or do they have some special quality that makes them.” There were no answers to any of these questions but the movie brought many topics for people to ponder over.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Welcome to Our Virtual Classroom
How long should your post be? I'd say at least a couple of hundred words. In any case, it should demonstrate thoughtful reflection about the movie as it bears on the issues that we've been discussing. I also strongly recommend that you read other posts! That's why we're doing this as a blog. You'll find that reading other peoples' posts is a great way to deepen your understanding of the movie, and it might help you to come up with ideas for your final paper, which, of course, can refer to and make us of the films and other media that we're studying.
Finally, here's how the grading works. If you make an acceptable post by midnight next Friday 11/26, then you'll receive credit for attending class on Tuesday 11/23 and for making an in-class contribution (+1 participation point). If you don't make a post, then that will count as an unexcused absence from Tuesday's class (-5 participation points, unless this is your first absence).
If you have any questions about this, please submit them as comments on this post and I'll reply asap.