did David die, turn himself off, or does it still live?
I didn't get that part.
And what about Teddy? does that mean he's all alone now? how sad.
I didn't get that part.
And what about Teddy? does that mean he's all alone now? how sad.
AI the movie: did the robot kid die in the end?
- Thread starter CyberCowboy
- Start date
He was reprogrammed and lives on as one of those animated Christmas elves at some classy department store.
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
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.
Gah the ending ruined the whole movie for me.
I guess i'll steal from son of hal
I really cannot speak for the people who did not expect this final chapter, but I found the original intention for it perfectly justified. Based on what the movie has been through and the ideas presented, the movie needed a proper conclusion. The whole idea of leaving David trapped underwater looking at the Blue Fairy forever is preposterous, since it resolves nothing about the themes involved. The final act set 2000 years after David was trapped inside the amphibious copter was necessary to conclude all the themes relevant to AI and human and robot evolution. This chapter of the movie was visually stunning, with the splendor of the frozen Manhattan landscape, and the massive deep ice exploration by the future mecha. David?s revival scene was an eerie one. I really have no significant problem with this portion of the film, except perhaps with the conception of the advanced mecha. They looked beautiful, with their svelte bodies, but they were reminiscent to the aliens from ?Close Encounters of the Third Kind? and other movies showing alien beings, and based on all the pop culture imagery assimilated in the past decades, some viewers were logically confused as to whether these creatures were space aliens and not robots. -Son of hal
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/forum...4706#post244706
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index2.html
"...Kubrick, however, wanted a coda in which the new race of robots, because of a technological limitation, cannot keep the mother alive after reviving her. The movie would end with David in his mother's bedroom, watching her slowly disappear.
I really cannot speak for the people who did not expect this final chapter, but I found the original intention for it perfectly justified. Based on what the movie has been through and the ideas presented, the movie needed a proper conclusion. The whole idea of leaving David trapped underwater looking at the Blue Fairy forever is preposterous, since it resolves nothing about the themes involved. The final act set 2000 years after David was trapped inside the amphibious copter was necessary to conclude all the themes relevant to AI and human and robot evolution. This chapter of the movie was visually stunning, with the splendor of the frozen Manhattan landscape, and the massive deep ice exploration by the future mecha. David?s revival scene was an eerie one. I really have no significant problem with this portion of the film, except perhaps with the conception of the advanced mecha. They looked beautiful, with their svelte bodies, but they were reminiscent to the aliens from ?Close Encounters of the Third Kind? and other movies showing alien beings, and based on all the pop culture imagery assimilated in the past decades, some viewers were logically confused as to whether these creatures were space aliens and not robots. -Son of hal
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/forum...4706#post244706
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index2.html
"...Kubrick, however, wanted a coda in which the new race of robots, because of a technological limitation, cannot keep the mother alive after reviving her. The movie would end with David in his mother's bedroom, watching her slowly disappear.
I found the film to be powerfully disturbing. It was unclear where the confusion between infatuation, imprinting, fixation, adoration, or just simple need as exhibited by David and real love lay. Was it the film makers intent that David demonstrate the shallowness of a notion that love is programed imprinting, or to show that his makers were shallow in thier notion that they could duplicate love in this way, or were the filmakers shallow themselves in their own analysis of the essence of love. The reason the film was disturbing to me was that David never grew up. He never realized that seeking to be loved, the wish to be the object of anothers attention is an empty path. There is only loving without object.
Very insightful, Moonbeam
I agree that the movie was shallow in such aspects. Due to these and other factors, it was everything but a thought-provoking movie.
Actually, it reminded me of Waterworld =)
I agree that the movie was shallow in such aspects. Due to these and other factors, it was everything but a thought-provoking movie.
Actually, it reminded me of Waterworld =)
i disagree with everyone. I didn't think it was the best movie ever... but I also didn't think it was that bad either.
i'd rather sit through this movie than the lord of the rings.
i'd rather sit through this movie than the lord of the rings.
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
i like both lotr and ai although ai is far sadder i'll be finishing the books by the end of spring break
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,267
- 126
apoppin
Lifer
<< I found the film to be powerfully disturbing. It was unclear where the confusion between infatuation, imprinting, fixation, adoration, or just simple need as exhibited by David and real love lay. Was it the film makers intent that David demonstrate the shallowness of a notion that love is programed imprinting, or to show that his makers were shallow in thier notion that they could duplicate love in this way, or were the filmakers shallow themselves in their own analysis of the essence of love. The reason the film was disturbing to me was that David never grew up. He never realized that seeking to be loved, the wish to be the object of anothers attention is an empty path. There is only loving without object. >>
all that I can say, moony, is that I am amazed and flabergasted!!:Q
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
The movie should (if you allow it) spark a debate about AI, the age old debate about AI. Is it life? How is life defined, and what constraints to classify something as life exist, such that AI is NOT included? Other than theological answers, there hasnt been a conclusive answer to say AI isnt life.
Looking deeper, can AI love? What is love? If its a mental state, AI obviously can love. Love is the result of thoughts. If love is a physical state, synapsis and electric impulses in the brain, then cant machine "duplicate" those same stimulus?
Moonbeam, I thought the "imprinting" of love was a wonderful touch by Kubrick. When a parent creates a child, they love it, very much so and unconditionally (except for some cases). Unlike love for friends or romantic partners, the love for a child isnt built over time. Its "imprinted" in a sense. Does that make the love a parent (or any family member) have for that child "shallow"? By your reasoning it does, which I dont agree with.
The ending to the movie brought everything full circle. The advanced AI at the end were trying to "create" humans, much like humans trying to create AI. Also, the narrator of the story, happened to be the AI that talks to David in the re-created room. So the story is told by the advanced AI, based on David's memories (though there are a couple scenes in the movie that arent from David's point of view, that advance the story). That is why the "moon" was chasing them, the guys on bikes looked so freaky, that his home looked so warm and bright. That was David's memory as seen through the distortion of feelings, told by the AI. This distorted storytelling is very reminiscent of Kubrick's point of view in Eyes Wide Shut. To further show that David's memories werent "robotic", when they told him they needed a sample to recreate Monica, he didnt know what to do. Though he had a "perfect" memory, he didnt realize that Teddy had a sample. His "mind" was concerned with other matters; but Teddy (who doesnt have those feelings that David has) had no problem solving things.
Then you get into the debate about love being a virtue or a vice. Clearly, love (or feelings) distorted David's point of view, and forced him to act in illogical ways. He was "blinded by love" so to speak.
I thought this was THE BEST movie of 2001, with The Man Who Wasnt There in second place. AI was probably the best movie since 1999.
Looking deeper, can AI love? What is love? If its a mental state, AI obviously can love. Love is the result of thoughts. If love is a physical state, synapsis and electric impulses in the brain, then cant machine "duplicate" those same stimulus?
Moonbeam, I thought the "imprinting" of love was a wonderful touch by Kubrick. When a parent creates a child, they love it, very much so and unconditionally (except for some cases). Unlike love for friends or romantic partners, the love for a child isnt built over time. Its "imprinted" in a sense. Does that make the love a parent (or any family member) have for that child "shallow"? By your reasoning it does, which I dont agree with.
The ending to the movie brought everything full circle. The advanced AI at the end were trying to "create" humans, much like humans trying to create AI. Also, the narrator of the story, happened to be the AI that talks to David in the re-created room. So the story is told by the advanced AI, based on David's memories (though there are a couple scenes in the movie that arent from David's point of view, that advance the story). That is why the "moon" was chasing them, the guys on bikes looked so freaky, that his home looked so warm and bright. That was David's memory as seen through the distortion of feelings, told by the AI. This distorted storytelling is very reminiscent of Kubrick's point of view in Eyes Wide Shut. To further show that David's memories werent "robotic", when they told him they needed a sample to recreate Monica, he didnt know what to do. Though he had a "perfect" memory, he didnt realize that Teddy had a sample. His "mind" was concerned with other matters; but Teddy (who doesnt have those feelings that David has) had no problem solving things.
Then you get into the debate about love being a virtue or a vice. Clearly, love (or feelings) distorted David's point of view, and forced him to act in illogical ways. He was "blinded by love" so to speak.
I thought this was THE BEST movie of 2001, with The Man Who Wasnt There in second place. AI was probably the best movie since 1999.
<< The movie should (if you allow it) spark a debate about AI, the age old debate about AI. Is it life? How is life defined, and what constraints to classify something as life exist, such that AI is NOT included? Other than theological answers, there hasnt been a conclusive answer to say AI isnt life. >>
life - a complex collection of processes (chemically in the case of us carbon-based lifeforms) capable of interactively responding to its environment.
This means that not all AI is 'life', especially these forms of AI which are currently used do not qualify as 'life', since they're more or less programmed, they are limited by their programming.
[edit]: added 'complex' to the definition of 'life'.
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. 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. It seems to me that HendrixFan, here, has some interesting things to say that you might react to. Perhaps by non thought provoking you mean that the film doesn't take you deeper into you philosophical understanding of AI. The more I look into whay I find the film disturbing, the less It's about AI and the more it's about how I feel. I have a similar reaction to a Woody Allen movie where he plays a neurotic caught up in an endless stream of negative events that happen to him and which he is helpless to resist. Until I recognize that the inept Allen reminds me of an aspect of how I feel about myself, I have an almost uncontrolable desire to kill him. You know what I mean? Stand up for yourself, GD it, you mealy worm! I felt the same thing about David. Get over it butt head, you don't need your mothers love in order to 'love yourself', as in 'love too' and 'love oneself' on which the capacity to love others is dependent.
kamian: "all that I can say, moony, is that I am amazed and flabergasted!!"
I wish I knew if that was a good or a bad amazed and flabergasted but I'll take it as good ones.
HendrixFan, a very interesting post. You and probably even Elledan haven't been around long enough, unless you have a new name, to know that I am rather deeply interested in AI. I bought the film the day it came out after months of checking at the video stores to see if it were released yet. Missed it at the theaters.
I agree that there is no conclusive answer to say that AI isn't life. There is the argument that if AI exists in the universe it should have visited by now. The probe goes to a star, makes two of itself, which then proceed to the next two stars, etc. argument....
But when you say that love is the result of thoughts, I think I disagree, partly because I don't use the term thought for any old activity that goes on in the brain. I think of thought as a part of cognition, self talk, or analysis, a penny for your thoughts kind of thing and not hormonal effects or autonomic functions of the brain, etc. Thinking about designing a machine that can love is a trip, as is just trying to comprehend the design of the machine we are that is capable of love is also a trip. I don't think we are too far along with the blueprints, though.
But I think that the notion of pleasure and pain, reward and punishment, inate self preservation and the intent to reproduce are inherent to our design, and are endocrinal or hormonal as well as brain location specific etc. How analogs to all that can be done in silicon I'm not quite sure of.
Perhaps you are right that shallow isn't right. When you talk of imprinting, though, you reversed the situation in the film. It wasn't about the love of parents for the child, the kind of imprinting, for example that researchers have indentified acturally occurs with a mother to her newborn, but the love of a child for its parents. In the natural course of things we pass from that love to a deeper one for others and beyond. To remain at an early stage of development is what I meant by shallow. I certainly believe that humans have a true human nature; in fact I believe that a distinguishing characteristic of that nature is a profound capacity to love in a Universal sense, but we aren't ants where everything we do is so extensively chemically predetermined. Our evolutionary path toward intelligence brings with it a great freedom to transcend our mechanics.
Your analysis of the film is nice. Maybe I'll hold my nose and watch again to pick up on some of it.
It is, of course, the blinded by love part of the film that drove me crazy. I think it is the perversion of our inate need for love as children that creates all the evil in the world
You know what I mean? Stand up for yourself, GD it, you mealy worm! I felt the same thing about David. Get over it butt head, you don't need your mothers love in order to 'love yourself', as in 'love too' and 'love oneself' on which the capacity to love others is dependent. kamian: "all that I can say, moony, is that I am amazed and flabergasted!!"
I wish I knew if that was a good or a bad amazed and flabergasted but I'll take it as good ones.
HendrixFan, a very interesting post. You and probably even Elledan haven't been around long enough, unless you have a new name, to know that I am rather deeply interested in AI. I bought the film the day it came out after months of checking at the video stores to see if it were released yet. Missed it at the theaters.
I agree that there is no conclusive answer to say that AI isn't life. There is the argument that if AI exists in the universe it should have visited by now. The probe goes to a star, makes two of itself, which then proceed to the next two stars, etc. argument....
But when you say that love is the result of thoughts, I think I disagree, partly because I don't use the term thought for any old activity that goes on in the brain. I think of thought as a part of cognition, self talk, or analysis, a penny for your thoughts kind of thing and not hormonal effects or autonomic functions of the brain, etc. Thinking about designing a machine that can love is a trip, as is just trying to comprehend the design of the machine we are that is capable of love is also a trip. I don't think we are too far along with the blueprints, though.
But I think that the notion of pleasure and pain, reward and punishment, inate self preservation and the intent to reproduce are inherent to our design, and are endocrinal or hormonal as well as brain location specific etc. How analogs to all that can be done in silicon I'm not quite sure of.
Perhaps you are right that shallow isn't right. When you talk of imprinting, though, you reversed the situation in the film. It wasn't about the love of parents for the child, the kind of imprinting, for example that researchers have indentified acturally occurs with a mother to her newborn, but the love of a child for its parents. In the natural course of things we pass from that love to a deeper one for others and beyond. To remain at an early stage of development is what I meant by shallow. I certainly believe that humans have a true human nature; in fact I believe that a distinguishing characteristic of that nature is a profound capacity to love in a Universal sense, but we aren't ants where everything we do is so extensively chemically predetermined. Our evolutionary path toward intelligence brings with it a great freedom to transcend our mechanics.
Your analysis of the film is nice. Maybe I'll hold my nose and watch again to pick up on some of it.
It is, of course, the blinded by love part of the film that drove me crazy. I think it is the perversion of our inate need for love as children that creates all the evil in the world
Elledan, I see you responded while I was too. You sort of answer my questions and as I expected- the machine is limited by its program.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter