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.

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

Although many might watch this movie and come believe that A.I. could be conscious living beings just like humans, I believe they would be wrong. In fact, I think that the movie shows that machines cannot be conscious living beings, even when they appear to be. In the movie, David appears on the surface to be a machine that is unique. He is able to express love and deep emotion- a trait that only humans are thought to possess. However I think that this is only due to a programmed set of responses from programmed internal mechanisms. David appears to be conscious, but he is only programmed to appear conscious. David has no internal knowledge of himself and how others around him think and act. He almost drowns his brother in the pool because he does not understand the concepts involved in the complex interactions between people. He does not understand that he is drowning his brother. Another example is his misunderstanding of the eating process. He almost shuts himself down, because he does not understand that he cannot eat food like humans.

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?

Steven Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence dives right into the debate that has been made famous by Searle and Dennett. Straight from the beginning of the movie, Spielberg tries to give the whole debate a solution by saying that there is a key ingredient to officially creating a robot with "Strong AI" as Searle would put it. Spielberg says that that ingredient is love, and that is all that is necessary to create Strong AI. It is evident that the women Mecha robot at the beginning of the movie seems to lack any kind of Strong AI due to the fact that she is merely able to describe what kinds of physical feelings come with love, but isn't able to fully understand what this love is and wouldn't be able to experience it. She seems to be acting different than a normal person, and it is just evident that she is a robot and not a regular human being. However, David is then created to experience love, a love only a child and a mother could experience. David clearly shows that he is able to portray this love, and definitely seems to be closer to having Strong AI as compared to the woman Mecha at the beginning. I do not feel although that David experiences a Strong AI just how Searle might have seen it. There are various points throughout the movie where David engages in some kind of action or speech that anyone can clearly decipher from what another human being would do or say. Just for example, David's whole journey to find the Blue Fairy from the Fairy Tale of Pinocchio is one thing that a normal kid just would not do. David was not able to tell the difference between a real life story and a fairy tale. Granted he might have been able to explain the difference, he clearly did not understand what this difference is because he had went on this long journey to find the Blue Fairy and turn him into a "real boy." It could also be said that a normal Orga boy or girl would not be able to tell the difference either, but there is a certainty that no young boy or girl would be able to create a journey like that in order to find a character from a fairy tale. These real children grasp the idea that Pinocchio is not real and neither is the Blue Fairy. I think that it is clear from this movie that there are certain limitations to Artificial Intelligence and there is no way to completely duplicate the experiences and the mind of a human being. These robots are all just inputs and outputs designed to act just like humans, but there is no middle step in the understanding of what these inputs and outputs mean. They are created to perform tasks, and there is no difference between David being programmed to love, and Joe being programmed to tend to the needs of women. They are both just programs that are made with an output in mind, and no output is different from another.

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.

David as Nothing More Than a Supercomputer

As I watched the movie Artificial Intelligence I found myself believing more and more that David was nothing more than a very complex computer. He had been wired to make himself appear to have emotions and feelings, but they were nothing more than programs that operated on the hardware. This concurs with Searle's view that the matter matters. David was not composed of the correct matter and neither were any of the other Mechas and thus they were not conscious human beings. In my own opinion, they were just a bunch of wires that impersonated humans but never could ever have the capability to ever become a human.
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

A.I. visually shows the heart of Searle and Dennet's argument. At the beginning we see a woman robot who is void of deep emotions. She defines love and explains the bodies reaction when we feel love; she is strictly logical and very different from the humans surrounding her. This kind of robot would be expected if you side with Searle. We can imagine that she sees the world quantitatively, always calculating and computing things rather than relying on her feels. Searle would argue that she is simply performing a very complex Chinese Room Argument. Instead of passing back responses to questions she is taking in her surroundings, analyzing everything, then based on her results she carries out the proper response. It is clear that she is syntactic, she has no feelings or beliefs other than what she is programmed to feel or believe. David, on the other hand, is much different from the woman robot. He is built to experience real love, not just the biological processes that result from feeling love. David would support Dennet's argument because we would assume that David's "love program" is just like all the other programs that are running inside of him. The only difference is that for whatever reason this program is the "right kind of program" that allows David to experience real love, beliefs, and feelings. As a result, he acts very different from the other robots. Unlike the other robots being destroyed at Flesh Fair, he pleads for his life. The audience is shocked by this and demands his release because they believe he is a real boy. Similarly, when David travels to Manhattan he finds many copies of himself; he is outraged by this, insisting that he is unique. We realize that David is operating outside of his programmed self; he is letting his beliefs and feelings guide him. This scenario is exactly what Dennet would argue happens when we create the "right kind" of software.

In Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence, the distinction between real human organisms (Orga) and mechanically constructed robots (Mecha) is made quite clear. In this movie humans have been creating Mechas for different purposes that are beneficial for themselves, and humans don not seem to expect these robots to possess any emotions or human-like qualities. However, David, a boy Mecha, was built as the first child Mecha, constructed to love. This sort of Mecha is typically ideal for parents to adopt in replace for their human child. David is adopted by a Henry and Monica - whose son, Martin, is in a coma. As soon as Monica starts to accept and care for David, Martin returns home. Martin and David could not coexist in the same home. David, a Mecha of love, only wants Monica ("mommy") to love him back, and this movie explores his journey over 2000 years to find Monica's love for him.

After being kicked out of the house for unintentionally harming Martin, David with his super toy, Teddy, wanders the wilderness, trying to become a real human boy so that Monica will love him. At the Flesh Fair, where stray robots are brutally destroyed for humans' entertainment, the crowd will not allow David to undergo this cruelty, since he seems different than the other Mechas. As the movie progresses, David acts more and more like a human as a result of having dreams and aspirations. At the end of their journey, David and Teddy are in Manhattan, New York, which in present day is submerged by the rising sea level. In a hijacked police amphibicopter, the two find themselves in front of an old statue of the Blue Fairy from the Pinokio story, who changes Pinokio into a real boy. After 2000 years pass in front of this statue under water, David and Teddy are discovered by aliens during an Ice Age with the Mecha and Orga races extinct. The aliens' advanced technology and fascination in David allow David to spend a day with a recreation of Monica in their home. That day is the best day of David's life, and Monica tells him that she loves him. David then falls asleep for the first time in his life and creates subconscious dreams in his sleep, which is what his creator's goal was.

This movie relates to our course matter through the struggle of how to treat robots that appear and act like real humans. David acquires sensations of pain, love, and hate that are different from other Mecha's capabilities, and humans do not know how to react to this artificial human duplicate. Does David have a mind? Humans do not know, but it seems as though he does.

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.

Here's a blog with a nice post about Spielberg's A.I. featuring a 15 minute video entitled, "A Visual Study of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. I recommend this highly, as it can help you to see how the thematic elements of the film that we're interested in are reflected in its visual aspects. Also, the blog post concludes with a list of various web resources on the film. If you're considering discussing the film in your final paper, you might explore them a bit.

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.

Is David real?

The movie A.I. was a great movie to deal with the controversial aspects of Artificial Intelligence. In the movie the Mechas (mechanical robots) were different from the Orgos (organic people). The differentiating factor between the two beings was that Orgos are real. They had real experiences of feelings such as pain and they also had consciousness. The Mecha named David was the main character who was built to represent a real boy. He was built with pain receptors and other receptors but he was not considered a real boy. He did not function in the same way humans would. For example, at the dinner table David was imitating the real son in the way he was eating. He wanted Monica to love him as a real boy and when he ate food, his machinery broke down. When the programmers were fixing him, he was “awake” and said that it didn’t hurt. He was awake but is not “conscious”. He is not treated as a real boy because he is only made of machine. However, Monica treats him as if he were real. She makes the excuse that David was jealous of the other son. However, machines can’t feel or experience jealousy according to Searle.
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.

Welcome to Our Virtual Classroom

As I mentioned in my email earlier today, next Tuesday's class is canceled. Instead, I'm going to ask each of you to contribute to this blog a post about Spielberg's A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. Posting is straightforward. All you have to do is accept my invitation to join the blog, then visit the blog and click on "New Post" on the top of the page. Once you've entered your text and you're ready to publish, click on "Publish Post" and you're all done.

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.