AI the movie: did the robot kid die in the end?

[Elledan]

<< Actually, Elledan, because I found the movie in some ways disturbing, it provoked a lot of thought for me, unlike Waterworld, but which I still enjoyed probably just because I like science fiction. >>


I found A.I. everything but thought-provoking, mostly because it was filled with cliches and inaccuracies. I found it rather long-winding and uninteresting.


<< Maybe you would like to say a little more about those other reasons you found it non thought provoking since you are into the subject matter, I think. >>


First of all: love.

What Humans call 'love' is merely part of the reproduction mechanism, although they often confuse affection with love. Love is restricted to the attraction between individuals which, if possible, results in the production of offspring.
Affection is when individuals become 'used' to each other, and find each other's presence to be... hmm.. apparently I'm not aware of a word in the English language which accurately describes this. Care to initialize a neural interconnection?

Anyway, the common mistakes and ignorance regarding 'love' and 'affection' surface once again in this movie, as it apparently does in nearly every single movie. All to provoke pleasant feelings in those sensitive to it.

 

[kami]

Hmm...well i thought i'd post this in here now that people are actually getting into discussions and not just saying "y0 dudez, a.i. sux0rs. lets go watch fast and the furious or some shiat!"

I made a comment in another a.i. thread and noriaki wanted a response so i wrote this (copy 'n paste):

=========

Well first of all I think you are right that this film will definitely be remembered. Kubrick's films were usually greeted with very mixed audience reaction (AND critical reaction) and then later on many of them get regarded by many as classics. I think it's because the depth of some of their themes which may not be apparent on first viewing to large portion of the audience and IMO a.i. is one of these movies.

I'm not saying that anyone who doesn't "get it" is lacking intellectually, you just have to see the films in the right frame of mind for them to start working their magic, including a.i.

Taking into perspective all of Kubrick's movies, he had a consistent theme of man's inhumanity to man. a.i. is a capstone to that philosophy. Not only has man managed to kill his species off, he has very possibly created a race of machines that adore him, even though in Kubrick's world, man is pretty much a bastard to himself and others. Finally, at the end of the movie, man (David's mother) has been reduced to the level of a "one-night-stand." It doesn't get more nasty than that.

What also pisses me off is people who think it's not how Kubrick would've handled it...sure it's not exactly, but looking at Spielberg's recent films, he wouldn't know irony if it hit him in the face, and Kubrick was all about irony. The ending of a.i. is tragic, utterly misanthropic, and melancholic, but has the tone of a Hallmark card. How is this not ironic? None of the joy or happiness in the final act of the film is based on reality. Teddy also makes in the last scene of the film. It's chilling, and no where near being a disney-like, lets-be-happy ending. Also, David never really fulfilled his quest, although on the surface he may have. It also kills me to see people say the movie should've stopped underwater when he was wishing to the blue fairy... since the whole arc of the movie is Bill Hurt talking about robots who can dream. The story needed to be wrapped up more.

OK this is turning more into a rant about the (IMO) silly reasons a lot of people give for not liking the movie so I'll try to sum up why the movie intrigued me...err...

a.i. basically takes the concept of "true love" and ends up finding it not that impressive. It makes us question the ethics of cloning and playing God. Gigolo Joe, who is just a prostitute mecha, learns more real feelings or even "love" (i used that lightly) from a boy-bot named David, who he himself will never know true love himself due to a paradox in his programming. It makes me think about some of our environmental policies like the threat of global warming, and even nuclear arms.
A.I., to me, is just a foreboding "fairy tale" (if you will)...a bleak hypothesis for the end of humankind.

Yeah this is mostly rant and doesn't clearly answer your question, but i think the fact that the movie made me think of all this stuff is why I like it so much. It's deeper than it is on the surface IMO. To be honest, I can't think of any real-life friends who truly loved the movie, so I know I am in the minority

================

Elledan, interesting take on it....but of course I must disagree The movie didn't make me feel pleasant at all, and being the emotional bastard I am, I am usually sensitive to such things.

 

[911paramedic]

The only thing I know is, I want my $5 back.

 

[HendrixFan]

Elledan, if life is:

life - a collection of processes (chemically in the case of us carbon-based lifeforms) capable of interactively responding to its environment.

Then are plants not life? They dont interactively respond to its enviroment. On the other hand, AI interactively responds to its enviroment. Truth is that many people have raged this debate over life and AI, and the only thing someone can come up with that actually "works", is that life is created by God, and AI being created by man means it isnt life. Now that relies completely on a belief system, but it is still the only solid way to seperate life and AI.

When you say love is merely part of a reproduction mechanism, why do people (who have no homosexual physical attraction) of the same sex love each other? Father and son, Mother and daughter. Best friends. Hell, love for a pet.


Moonbeam, the movie isnt "about AI and the more it's about how I feel" because that is how Kubrick intended it to be. I wasnt sure it was the best angle to play, but it worked. Instead of throwing it all out on the table and letting you debate the age old debate, he SHOWS you AI with feelings. He shows you his world distorted by thoughts, dreams and ideals. So you are being told by Kubrick that AI does have feelings, and then you are forced to look at the whole picture.

Im not sure exactly what love is, a mental state or physical state. Maybe both, I dont know. But as a mental state or physical state, AI can recreate it. The "reversed" imprinting in the film, the love of a child for its parents, still parallels the "imprinted" love of a parent for a child. With human children, Im not sure when "love" comes into play. Does a 2 month old love? Thats a tough question! Is a child's love the result of the care a parent gives, or is it inborn?


kami, good evaluation of the movie. Too bad you dont have real-life friends to watch the movie with and discuss it. Nothing beats watching a good film (any Kubrick for that matter!) with others who appreciate it, and then talking about it afterwards. Nothing stirs up conversation in that regard as well as Clockwork Orange.

 

[NetCadet]

Those things weren't aliens? They were robots?

WTF! Maybe that movie wasn't as severly messed up and immensely terrible as I thought...what went through my head is "What the fvck - the movie's not over? Now they're throwing in a plot twist with these aliens? THIS MAKES NO SENSE!"

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan, if life is:

life - a collection of processes (chemically in the case of us carbon-based lifeforms) capable of interactively responding to its environment.

Then are plants not life? They dont interactively respond to its enviroment. >>


Hang on. I want you to read the previous sentence again. Notice how wrong you are?

Fact is that plants interactively respond to their environment. If the sun goes down, flowers close, if it becomes spring, they grow new leaves, or form from a seed, or grow flowers etc. etc.


<< On the other hand, AI interactively responds to its enviroment. >>

Depends on the kind of AI. The AI used for speech-recognition, for example, is not capable of interactively responding to its environment.


<< Truth is that many people have raged this debate over life and AI, and the only thing someone can come up with that actually "works", is that life is created by God, and AI being created by man means it isnt life. Now that relies completely on a belief system, but it is still the only solid way to seperate life and AI. >>


I completely and utterly disagree.

If one were to create a neural network inside a computer program, which would turn into a being, which would be totally sentient, and linked to the 'real' world, so that it could interact with it. Wouldn't that be life?

Like Data in ST: TNG asked: "Am I alive?".



<< When you say love is merely part of a reproduction mechanism, why do people (who have no homosexual physical attraction) of the same sex love each other? Father and son, Mother and daughter. Best friends. Hell, love for a pet. >>


*sigh*

The same thing I warned for: the mixing up of love and affection. What you're describing is affection.

--

I really wish people would bother to accurately read posts before replying to them.

 

[HendrixFan]

If life is defined as you put it, and elaborated on by saying "interactively respond to their environment. If the sun goes down, flowers close, if it becomes spring, they grow new leaves, or form from a seed, or grow flowers etc. etc", there are chemical reactions that occur between elements, though I wouldnt classify them as life. Would you classify each of the elements as life? Bear in mind that everything known to man is composed of elements.

Speech recognition has nothing to do with AI. Artificial Intelligence isnt just some advanced computer, it is a computer that can think and act independent of instructions. Currently, a computer is an object that performs functions exactly as it is told to do. AI thinks for itself. Its that thought process that even life doesnt carry in all its incarnations (Im assuming trees and plants, bacteria, viruii, etc dont think).

At best I can agree with your statment about a reproductive mechanism, though that would be affection/attraction, not love. If you think that the only feelings one can have for another either are sexual or because of a comfort, then you dont even believe love exists.

 

[Moonbeam]

Elledan, I saw the some of the same objections to HendrixFan regarding your post that you do, but I don't think it's from his lack of careful reading. People who genuinely disagree on issues just see different things and reach different conclusions from the same data.

For example, while I agree completely that plants react to the environment, all-be-it slower then animals, I don't agree with your strict division of love and affection. By the way the neural connection I would have wanted to initialize would probably be 'intoxication'.

The response you give after disagreeing completely with the god creation man creation notion of life is a hypothetical that, as far as we know, hasn't happened. See my robots 'two by two' point. I certainly don't want to subscribe to the notion that life can only come from God since I think it is spontaneously generated by the universe. Given enough time and effort, I don't see any reason who man can't do it from scratch, but I don't know if it will be in silicon.

The really interesting question that occurs to me in all this is the fact that our ability to love, or to feel affection, on disection looks to have elements of just the kind of determinism that David experienced. We feel pain and pleasure without conscious control. It's hard wired. Like David we are the victoms of design constraints and the whim of our evolutionary past. We are minds that can contemplate the infinite, trapped in a machine.

HendrixFan, I think that the film isn't about AI as you suggest. It is, as kami (nice post) suggests, a vehicle for Kubric's vision. I think the reason I find the film disturbing, is that I don't think I share that vision or would prefer to think it isn't true. For reasons I won't get into here, I have a rather more optimistic vision of what lies at the core of our being and I think it resembles 'non sexual love' or affection and that it is self destruction that wrapps that core, but isn't the core.

Since I guess I would be classified as an optimist, and take the survival of humanity as a rather important goal that won't be reached without a rather massive revolution in consciousness on a world wide basis, I didn't like the film, found it disturbing, precisely because it offered no clear exemplar of hope. What would have been cool, in my opinion, would have been for David to become a Lover-Without-Self.

 

[Elledan]

<< If life is defined as you put it, and elaborated on by saying "interactively respond to their environment. If the sun goes down, flowers close, if it becomes spring, they grow new leaves, or form from a seed, or grow flowers etc. etc", there are chemical reactions that occur between elements, though I wouldnt classify them as life. >>

Then Humans do not classify as life either.


<< Would you classify each of the elements as life? Bear in mind that everything known to man is composed of elements. >>

Life is more than the sum of its parts.



<< Speech recognition has nothing to do with AI. >>

Incorrect. Currently primitive forms of neural networks are being employed to process data.


<< Artificial Intelligence isnt just some advanced computer, it is a computer that can think and act independent of instructions. Currently, a computer is an object that performs functions exactly as it is told to do. AI thinks for itself. Its that thought process that even life doesnt carry in all its incarnations (Im assuming trees and plants, bacteria, viruii, etc dont think). >>


artificial intelligence - the performance by computer systems of tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception or decision-making.
(source: Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Your definition of AI is flawed.


<< At best I can agree with your statment about a reproductive mechanism, though that would be affection/attraction, not love. >>

Semantics aside, there are definitely two seperate systems 'at work', one solely aimed towards reproduction, the other resulting in what is commonly referred to as 'friendship'.


<< If you think that the only feelings one can have for another either are sexual or because of a comfort, then you dont even believe love exists. >>


Apparently you didn't grasp my earlier explanations regarding this topic.

 

[narzy]

He kinda just turns off forever, I am sure he can be kicked back on if the aliens want to...but probably without memories. thats my take on it.

 

[Elledan]

<< The response you give after disagreeing completely with the god creation man creation notion of life is a hypothetical that, as far as we know, hasn't happened. >>

I'm currently working on a project which intends to reach exactly that goal.


<< See my robots 'two by two' point. I certainly don't want to subscribe to the notion that life can only come from God since I think it is spontaneously generated by the universe. Given enough time and effort, I don't see any reason who man can't do it from scratch, but I don't know if it will be in silicon. >>


If we can create models inside the computer which respond exactly the same way as that of which the models are made, why can't we create a model of a biological neural network 'inside' a computer, or recreate the entire universe, for that matter?

 

[Moonbeam]

narzy, don't confuse NetCadet. Those weren't aliens.

 

[yellowperil]

<< The whole ending sucked. Would have been a MUCH better movie if it would have ended with him him under water praying to the fairy. In fact, I thought it was going to. I was turning to my friend to say "that movie was not bad. I liked the ending" when it started up again. We both go "WTF?!?!"

Gah the ending ruined the whole movie for me. >>



I completely agree. Everything that happened after he was trapped underwater and praying to the blue fairy seemed gratuitous and pointless. It reminded me of Mission to Mars. Both movies were good until the end, when they featured cheap-looking CGI aliens pulling a deus ex machina. Unlike Mission to Mars, A.I. dragged it on for 10-15 minutes (this reminded me of The Green Mile). It's a shame because A.I. was a beautiful movie otherwise.

 

[Moonbeam]

Elledan: "If we can create models inside the computer which respond exactly the same way as that of which the models are made, why can't we create a model of a biological neural network 'inside' a computer, or recreate the entire universe, for that matter?"

I don't know why we can't. The difficulty that I see is that I have no idea why I seem to exist. It isn't, I don't think, because I think. I think it's more likely that I feel. I feel alive. Just thought of another word to initialize. 'Rapture' (Moonbeam slapps himself and grabs his chair so he doesn't fly away.) There are all these mysteries and paradoxes. When I slap myself I feel pain in my face and my hand. It defines the limits of my sensory net. I know the boundries between me that feels and the outside me that I perceive through my senses. So clearly I maintain a volitional relationship going all the time with regards to the outside. I look up when I see a sign that says falling rocks because I understand the implications. Another nice word that.....implications. Lots of room for programming errors. And if we are just a program running on elements with what should we identify, the program, the computer, or the elements from which it is made. And are the sum of the parts something entirely other than the parts. A program that transcends itself can perhaps be thought of as open ended, without limit, infinite. So do we identify with the particular program that's running, or the infinite of which it is a subset.

Anyway, getting back to the feeling thing, what are they and why do they exist. Clearly they have to do with survival, instinctual, or chemically initiated responses in mammals that sort of encoded reactions the initiation of which by environmental factors confer a higher probability of increasing survival rates. A whole portion of the brain is devoted to them, but they also involve many other systems and communications between systems other than neural, ie hormones. It is very interesting to speculate on how these might be duplicated in silicon, etc.

And would we want our AI to sleep.

Just some thoughts.

Do humans dream of electric sleep?

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan: "If we can create models inside the computer which respond exactly the same way as that of which the models are made, why can't we create a model of a biological neural network 'inside' a computer, or recreate the entire universe, for that matter?"

I don't know why we can't. The difficulty that I see is that I have no idea why I seem to exist. It isn't, I don't think, because I think. I think it's more likely that I feel. I feel alive. >>

You (your brain) are constantly being 'fed' with electrical impulses by your senses. Right now you could be hooked up to a computer which creates the world you can see, feel, touch, hear and smell. The only thing of which you can be certain that they're 'real' are your own thoughts.


<< Just thought of another word to initialize. 'Rapture' (Moonbeam slapps himself and grabs his chair so he doesn't fly away.) There are all these mysteries and paradoxes. When I slap myself I feel pain in my face and my hand. >>

When you apply pressure to an area of your skin, certain types of sensors are being activated. Their firing rate depending on the applied force.


<< It defines the limits of my sensory net. I know the boundries between me that feels and the outside me that I perceive through my senses. So clearly I maintain a volitional relationship going all the time with regards to the outside. I look up when I see a sign that says falling rocks because I understand the implications. Another nice word that.....implications. Lots of room for programming errors. And if we are just a program running on elements with what should we identify, the program, the computer, or the elements from which it is made. And are the sum of the parts something entirely other than the parts. A program that transcends itself can perhaps be thought of as open ended, without limit, infinite. So do we identify with the particular program that's running, or the infinite of which it is a subset. >>


I would say the latter, for in the former case we would be limited in our abilities, which we are not, although I do have my doubts about the mental functionality of most humans, are they able to grasp new things, which lie beyond their own world, to grow in ways they can not imagine at this time? What do you think?



<< Anyway, getting back to the feeling thing, what are they and why do they exist. Clearly they have to do with survival, instinctual, or chemically initiated responses in mammals that sort of encoded reactions the initiation of which by environmental factors confer a higher probability of increasing survival rates. >>

Optimization through evolution.


<< A whole portion of the brain is devoted to them, but they also involve many other systems and communications between systems other than neural, ie hormones. It is very interesting to speculate on how these might be duplicated in silicon, etc. >>


Two words: abstract thinking.

By the way, I resent the idea that the Human brain is the pinnacle of neural networks. I 'feel' that its design is only the first step.



<< And would we want our AI to sleep.

Just some thoughts.

Do humans dream of electric sleep? >>

What are you going at?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Elledan, I find it interesting that you have a concept of what a thing is, then create a definition that suits that concept. Your definition of life for example. Following it, a solar powered sprinkler is alive. Now you may contend that you may mimic life in this fashion, but your sprinkler is not alive by any COMMONLY accepted definition. Also, don't be too quick to dismiss semantics. We have not agreed what life is. ALL life is carbon based. You may not like it, you may wish it to be otherwise, but no credible scientist would argue with that. Philosophically, anything can (and probably will be) debated, but then you are making a claim unencumbered by science. It is what you wish science said. Also, it remains to be seen if consciousness can be duplicated by any artificial means. This seems to be a fear of AI researchers who are quick to avoid the "C" word. In fact, many of them say it does not exist. It is an artifact. Perhaps, but I would like to see some evidence before I dismiss my innermost self merely for their convenience. Worse still (for them), what if Roger Penrose is right? What if our minds function non algorithmically? Be interesting to see increasing levels of algorithmic processes produce non algorithmic results. In any case, I am not absolutely convinced of his arguments, but you seem to be of yours. I wonder if you allow that you might be completely wrong, or are you so enured in your schema that anything that falls outside of its boundries must be in error?

 

[Moonbeam]

Elledan, do you mean, as I hope, that abstract thinking will be needed to solve the problem, or do you mean, as I hope not, that abstract thinking will be the answer to non neural feedback systems.

The electric sleep thing comes from a novel, story, by Phillip Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep on which the movey Blade Runner was based.

 

[Moonbeam]

Must eliminate error! Must eliminate error! Must eliminate error!

Dang what was that things name. Nomad? I think so.

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan, do you mean, as I hope, that abstract thinking will be needed to solve the problem, or do you mean, as I hope not, that abstract thinking will be the answer to non neural feedback systems. >>


Your first guess was correct. I did indeed intend to imply that abstract thinking is required to solve this 'problem'.



<< The electric sleep thing comes from a novel, story, by Phillip Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep on which the movey Blade Runner was based. >>


I see. No wonder I didn't know what you were implying

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan, I find it interesting that you have a concept of what a thing is, then create a definition that suits that concept. >>

Actually, I didn't. I based my definition on empirical evidence.


<< Your definition of life for example. Following it, a solar powered sprinkler is alive. >>

Incorrect. A sprinkler is not capable of interacting with its environment. It is designed for one task and one task only. It will never respond to any impulses.

This when overlooking the fact that this particular device is everything but a 'complex collection of processes'.

Wait a second, I now notice that I forgot to include 'complex' to the definition I gave earlier. My mistake.


<< Now you may contend that you may mimic life in this fashion, but your sprinkler is not alive by any COMMONLY accepted definition. Also, don't be too quick to dismiss semantics. We have not agreed what life is. >>


I consider my definition to be a reasonable answer to that question.


<< ALL life is carbon based. >>

As far as we know.


<< You may not like it, you may wish it to be otherwise, but no credible scientist would argue with that. Philosophically, anything can (and probably will be) debated, but then you are making a claim unencumbered by science. It is what you wish science said. Also, it remains to be seen if consciousness can be duplicated by any artificial means. This seems to be a fear of AI researchers who are quick to avoid the "C" word. In fact, many of them say it does not exist. >>


I've developed a thesis which states that consciousness comes in 'stages', different levels of consciousness.


<< It is an artifact. Perhaps, but I would like to see some evidence before I dismiss my innermost self merely for their convenience. Worse still (for them), what if Roger Penrose is right? What if our minds function non algorithmically? Be interesting to see increasing levels of algorithmic processes produce non algorithmic results. In any case, I am not absolutely convinced of his arguments, but you seem to be of yours. I wonder if you allow that you might be completely wrong, or are you so enured in your schema that anything that falls outside of its boundries must be in error? >>


I've often enough considered the possibility that I might be in error, but logic dictates that the only possible way to remove all doubt is to try it.

If this project fails to deliver the results I expected, I will consider other possibilities.

However, my current 'beliefs' are based only on empirical data. I merely choose the only logical option. I have yet to see evidence which disproves this thesis.