Artificial Intelligence Kubrick/Spielberg

[Eliot Mess]

I recall finding this movie distasteful and unenjoyable in the early 2000s. Things change.
It was on TV last night, and I found myself riveted. It looks like a classic to me now.
Anyone else see it again?

[OccidentalShoreline]

Eh, a good concept that unfortunately becomes a Spielberg fairytale. I was half expecting Monty Burns to show up at the end:

Voice: You truly are a king amongst men!
Burns: Eeeexcellent.

[Jack Sidious]

I saw it for the first time recently at my daughter's insistence.

I thought it was a good film, great concept. Not perfect but like you say, quite watchable and engaging. I think it will endure

[MaxyB]

I recall finding this movie distasteful

Interesting. Distasteful how?

Aldiss wrote a much darker story. I had an appetite for Science Fiction way back then that went hand in hand with an apocalyptic outlook on the future of humanity. Ron's hand was on the button.

That machines would gently integrate themselves into society and be every thing that humans aspired to and pretended to be fascinated me. My conclusion was that we would neither realise or care until it was much too late.

I liked the film. We all need a Teddy.

[Eliot Mess]

I recall finding this movie distasteful

Interesting. Distasteful how?

Aldiss wrote a much darker story. I had an appetite for Science Fiction way back then that went hand in hand with an apocalyptic outlook on the future of humanity. Ron's hand was on the button.

That machines would gently integrate themselves into society and be every thing that humans aspired to and pretended to be fascinated me. My conclusion was that we would neither realise or care until it was much too late.

I liked the film. We all need a Teddy.

Oedipal programmed robot, Sibling rivalry, Prostitute Robot, Flesh Fair, equation of robots with the beauty part of Slavery, exploitation galore, complete failure of the Maker to empathise with David's emotional predicament, David destroys Oedipal love rival, then suicide attempt, leading to 2000 years of praying and praying in hope, and Oedipal dream ending.

It's chock full of disturbing.

[Crazy Dazz]

I am a big fan of Sci-Fi. Science Fiction challenges us to expand our thinking, which is fine provided people can still distinguish the Science from the Fiction.
Some of the reoccurring themes explore the idea that "life" and sentience could (somewhere in the universe) exists in forms we have not encountered and would not recognise. Unfortunately, when examined closely, such theories yield more holes than answers.
One of the obsessions springing from this, is the notion that "life" can be created artificially, be it robots, androids, "holograms", software, etc. The idea being that a person is simply a (biological) machine, programmed by God, and so therefore could not a machine programmed by man be equivalent.

Of course the element used to drive this in movies, is simply anthropomorphism. We conceive of a machine that looks like a person, use a human actor to portray the machine and give it human characteristics, so the audiences feels its alive. It makes for some good movies (eg Bicentenial Man) but ultimately its hogwash.
The funny thing is that when such levels of AI can be condensed to that level, it is more likely to be found in a bus or a fighter-jet, than in a personal companion.

[Eliot Mess]

I am a big fan of Sci-Fi. Science Fiction challenges us to expand our thinking, which is fine provided people can still distinguish the Science from the Fiction.
Some of the reoccurring themes explore the idea that "life" and sentience could (somewhere in the universe) exists in forms we have not encountered and would not recognise. Unfortunately, when examined closely, such theories yield more holes than answers.
One of the obsessions springing from this, is the notion that "life" can be created artificially, be it robots, androids, "holograms", software, etc. The idea being that a person is simply a (biological) machine, programmed by God, and so therefore could not a machine programmed by man be equivalent.

Of course the element used to drive this in movies, is simply anthropomorphism. We conceive of a machine that looks like a person, use a human actor to portray the machine and give it human characteristics, so the audiences feels its alive. It makes for some good movies (eg Bicentenial Man) but ultimately its hogwash.
The funny thing is that when such levels of AI can be condensed to that level, it is more likely to be found in a bus or a fighter-jet, than in a personal companion.

Did you see the movie in question?

[Crazy Dazz]

I am a big fan of Sci-Fi. Science Fiction challenges us to expand our thinking, which is fine provided people can still distinguish the Science from the Fiction.
Some of the reoccurring themes explore the idea that "life" and sentience could (somewhere in the universe) exists in forms we have not encountered and would not recognise. Unfortunately, when examined closely, such theories yield more holes than answers.
One of the obsessions springing from this, is the notion that "life" can be created artificially, be it robots, androids, "holograms", software, etc. The idea being that a person is simply a (biological) machine, programmed by God, and so therefore could not a machine programmed by man be equivalent.

Of course the element used to drive this in movies, is simply anthropomorphism. We conceive of a machine that looks like a person, use a human actor to portray the machine and give it human characteristics, so the audiences feels its alive. It makes for some good movies (eg Bicentenial Man) but ultimately its hogwash.
The funny thing is that when such levels of AI can be condensed to that level, it is more likely to be found in a bus or a fighter-jet, than in a personal companion.

Did you see the movie in question?

Yes I did. I felt the early part, where AI's are portrayed as some kind of underclass, are hunted down, and paralleled with slavery, etc, was pretty far "out there."
And after that, it left normal completely behind. Your initial commentary is interesting, because basically I was left thinking "WTF was all that about?"

[Crazy Dazz]

Science Fiction insists on exploring this issue (of Artificial Sentience) ad nauseum. It become quite tedious.

I think the vast majority of us would accept that human slavery is an abomination.
And yes, there are those that view the domestication of animals as unacceptable.

I am currently reading a book, wherein an argument is made that if you create a machine and fail to give it the ability for sentience, you are in fact guilty of slavery.

Again this illogical argument is easy to make in movies such as AI, where the machine is notionally a human facsimile (of course portrayed by a human actor.)
But where would you draw the line?
As I said, sophisticated AI is more likely to find its way first into something like a fighter jet. So should we attempt to make them sentient? Make them self-determinant, then set them loose and allow them to make their own decisions on who to attack?

And what of my coffee machine?
Am I truly no-better than a slave-owner using an imprisoned servant to make my coffee?