# Your opinions about "AI : Artificial Intelligence" (might contain SPOILERS) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 1, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085 "2005-08-01T04:19:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/61 "2005-08-02T04:52:44Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > No, but a person’s reaction to art tells us more about the person than the work of art itself. > In fact, some people think that you can never explain a work of art at all. All you are talking about is yourself. > Maybe I should put down the bong. Oh wait, I don’t smoke. But it is late, so I’m off to bed. I think you need to keep talking, 'cause I like what you’re saying. But then maybe I need to put down my drink. My mom was an artist, and she impressed on me that good art is always years ahead of its time, and speaks to you about where we’re headed. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@The\_Hook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hook)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/62 "2005-08-02T05:00:11Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The major difference is that we can change our programming. It may be simply a matter of degree, but I didn’t get a sense that the robot’s programming adapted at all from it’s initial instructions. > > It’s the subtle difference between having thousands of pre-programmed responses and figuring out the best response based on experience. The movie sort of hints at that: near the end, one of the Close Encounters of the Third Kind robots tries to reason with David, yet finds it difficult to do for David has been programmed to act and think as a child. Based on experience (they talk of their unsuccesful attempts at bringing humans back to life and they find an original solution to communicate with David via the Blue Fairy), the new robots know a whole lot more than David and Gigolo Joe, who couldn’t distinguish the real moon from the Flesh Fair moon. Again, one of those cool questions for stoners the movie asks but forgets after the high wears off. ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/63 "2005-08-02T05:01:25Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > What should they look like? If they really _are_ advanced robots, I think they should look like Mechagodzilla. 'Cuz that would be waaaay cool. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/64 "2005-08-02T10:27:25Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > No, but a person’s reaction to art tells us more about the person than the work of art itself. Okaaaaaay… such as…? ---
**Author:** ![Hunter\_Hawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/50afbb/32.png) [@Hunter\_Hawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hunter_Hawk)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/65 "2005-08-02T15:24:40Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Okaaaaaay… such as…? That’s kind of a big question. Try going [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism) for a starting point on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/66 "2005-08-02T15:55:49Z")
I haven’t read the thread. I thought the film was good until it ended. The forty-five minutes after the ending sucked. What I mean is this: I think the film should have ended with David trapped underwater. No super-advanced androids, aliens, or whatever they were to deliver a cuddly message. Ending it underwater would have been wonderfully downbeat. The film was based on a short story by Brian Aldiss called [_Supertoys Last All Summer Long_](http://downlode.org/etext/supertoys.html). I’m surprised they could make such a long, long movie from such a short short-story. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/67 "2005-08-02T17:55:26Z")
People keep talking about the ending. Which one? There were something like 23756 endings tacked on, each one more dreadful and maudlin than the previous one. I got the distinct feeling that there was no ending, and Speilberg kept tacking on celluloid hoping that the movie would end all by itself. No such luck. When ET showed up at the end, I yelled out a loud “Oh, for fuck’s sake!” It seemed to me like Speilberg said “Hey, I did a good movie once that ended with aliens, I can just do that again!” It was all icing and no cake. It was Velvet Elvis without the Elvis. It was empty calories. And the science was just horrible. A helicopter that turns into a submarine? A toaster that can live for forty bazillion years underwater and yet is done in by a mouthful of spinach? Give me a break. If this says more about me than it does about the movie, then let it say this: I have better things to do with my time. Jabbing my eyes out with a knitting needle springs to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/68 "2005-08-02T18:50:18Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > David didn’t want a Mom-bot, even one that would fool him. He wanted his mom. > > –Cliffy He wanted his Mom’s love. That was all. Link to [[The Kubrick Site: "Supertoys..."](http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0068.html)](Super-Toys Last All Summer Long) This movie really lived up to it’s Kubrick heritage for me. Adding the Spielberg sentimentality and his ability to work with child talent made it even more powerful. What does it mean to be human and to love? What’s real? It raises these questions to the viewer and in the ending. I think that’s why the boy was so valuable to the robots. In researching their original creators, they found a early one of themselves that was designed to function purely for love. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/69 "2005-08-02T19:41:29Z")
**tdn** quit beating around the bush, what did you really think about the movie? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/70 "2005-08-02T20:00:00Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > The film was based on a short story by Brian Aldiss called [_Supertoys Last All Summer Long_](http://downlode.org/etext/supertoys.html). I’m surprised they could make such a long, long movie from such a short short-story. Well, _Deathrace 2000_ (a far more enjoyable film) is derived from a three-page short story titled “The Racer” by Ib Melchior. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/71 "2005-08-02T20:00:24Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > **tdn** quit beating around the bush, what did you really think about the movie? Meh, it was OK. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/72 "2005-08-02T20:03:20Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, _Deathrace 2000_ (a far more enjoyable film) is derived from a three-page short story titled “The Racer” by Ib Melchior. Short stories translate to the screen far easier than thick novels do. Telling a story on film takes a lot of time, so any faithful retelling necessitates cutting a lot of plot points. A short story adapts in the allotted time much better. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/73 "2005-08-02T21:07:03Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > I thought the film was good until it ended. The forty-five minutes after the ending sucked. What I mean is this: I think the film should have ended with David trapped underwater. In light of **tdn** ’s comment, I’ll say that this was what I meant too. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/74 "2005-08-03T04:15:26Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Okaaaaaay… such as…? Well, let us look at your review. (with a little bolding from me) > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > **I felt way more sympathy for Teddy than I** ever had for David, and Gigolo Joe was the most interesting character of all (why was he “in bad trouble”, though? Wouldn’t his memory of finding the body and the killer’s confession be useful evidence? It’s too pointlessly heavy-handed, like a black man in 1950s Mississippi witnessing a white man commit a crime and knows he’ll be accused of it no matter what). > > **I** was somewhat annoyed by William Hurt telling the babe to undress, then stopping her and revealing her as a droid. What was the point of that, except blatant titilation and misdirection of the movie audience? Hurt’s lecture audience certainly didn’t need the Robots 101 presentation, did they? > > What was the deal with that 24-hour soul stuff, anyway? The hyper-advanced droids (it never occured to me that they were aliens, and it’s pointless to assume so) could surely perform a detailed scan of David’s mind and construct a Mom-bot that would behave exactly as David wants (yikes! Oedipus reborn!) There’s no indication that it is necessary to make a copy of the real Mom, since David’s impressions of her are immature and one-dimensional, anyway. The technobabble time limit is supposed to add poignance or something. > > **I** dislike the obvious and intended emotional manipulation of the film. It’s not Spielberg’s worst, but the same subject has been handled far better elsewhere, including _Blade Runner_. You are telling us how you felt about this film. You are telling us about you. This what you get when you mix the movie AI and **Bryan Eckers**. Your reaction, your feelings, your thoughts are absolutely correct. (for you) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/75 "2005-08-03T11:24:03Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > You are telling us how you felt about this film. You are telling us about you. Well, that’s for the recap, but I already know how I feel about the movie. My question was in regard to this earlier statement of yours: > [@](#): > > As to the arguement that the kid was only a robot and so they have no real feelings and you don’t care what happens to them, well, I think that tells us more about you than the movie. Namely, _what_ does it “tell us”? If there’s no specific observation one can make about a person who feels this specific way about this specific film, isn’t the statement completely meaningless? I guess maybe it _sounds_ profound, or something. In any case, I’m inclined to think a lack of sympathy for David doesn’t really say _anything_ about the viewer except that the viewer didn’t buy into Spielberg’s rather blatant attempt at emotional manipulation. That suggests theh movie is flawed, not the viewer. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/76 "2005-08-03T12:11:05Z")
You seem to think that quality of the film is only determined by the film makers. What ever they do is the only thing that makes a movie good or bad. But we’ve seen lots of people in this thread who watched the same movie and got different results. You, as a viewer, have to suspend your disbelief. You also have to try and see how the main character is you. If you couldn’t do that, or refused to do that, it does say something about you as a viewer. I’m not sure what. Maybe you can’t relate to a robot character. Maybe you can’t relate to a little boy character. It doesn’t tell me anything precisely about you. I can’t read that and say **Bryan Eckers** is “this” because you said it. But it definety gives me a feeling about you. Why do think that emotional manipulation is a bad thing? That is what Spielberg does. That is his M.O. If you don’t like that, what were you expecting when you went to see the movie? If other people ‘bought into Speilberg’s rather blatant attempt at emotional manipulation’ are you saying that the viewer is flawed? Are you saying this because you did not do that? Did you even want to do that when you saw the movie? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/77 "2005-08-03T12:32:42Z")
> [@](#): > > by **msmith537** > > - Anti-human slur used by Bender from Futurama Actually, that’s more HK-47 than Bender. Ironically, HK-47 is a very human robot, albeit disturbingly violent. Actually, come to think of it, both the Star Wars droids and the Terminator (movies 2 and 3) were quite “human”. Sure, they were metallic and had programming. BUt they were also capable of thinking, analizing, and changing. And they naturally developed personalities arising from their advanced bahaviors. In the case of terminator, that personality was limited by the youth and circumstances of the robot, but c’est la vie. > [@](#): > > by **clairobscur** > What’s the difference between thinking we love and actually loving? How could we tell? In our behavior. Thinking you love someone means nothing. I’ve known a lot of people who believe they’re in love but aren’t. It’s what you’d be willing to do for the ones you love which tells. > [@](#): > > by **Zebra** > In fact, some people think that you can never explain a work of art at all. All you are talking about is yourself. Only if the work of art fails. A work of art must be comprehensible at least when one understands the circumstances of its creation. Obviously not everyone will understand every work of art, but art that communicates nothing to any slice of humanity, or which unintentionally miscommunicates, fails. > [@](#): > > by **levdrakon** > My mom was an artist, and she impressed on me that good art is always years ahead of its time, and speaks to you about where we’re headed. I don’t mean to insult your Mom, but she’s wrong. Art can say about where we are, where we were, where we’ve been, where we might have been, or even just how the artist feels and nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/78 "2005-08-03T17:22:22Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > You, as a viewer, have to suspend your disbelief. Or, in this case, haul it up with a crane. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/79 "2005-08-03T17:36:16Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > I don’t mean to insult your Mom, but she’s wrong. Art can say about where we are, where we were, where we’ve been, where we might have been, or even just how the artist feels and nothing more. She never meant it as a blanket statement about all art, or even all “good” art. And when it comes to art, who are you to pronounce someone’s opinions & observations about it as right or wrong? Art can tell _you_ whatever you want it to. Some people in this thread see AI as a stupid movie about stupid robots. Others see it as a more important work with something to say about us. A relatively simple, blunt interpretation of the movie may be nothing more than sooner or later, we’re going to have to decide how we feel about robots as they become more human-like. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085/80 "2005-08-03T17:42:57Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Some people in this thread see AI as a stupid movie about stupid robots. Others see it as a more important work with something to say about us. And yet others see it as a reason to insult the intelligence and morals of fellow Dopers. “It says something about you”, indeed. Yeah, I didn’t care for the movie the way you did. Must be because of some personality flaw in me. It couldn’t possibly be because the movie sucked ass. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-opinions-about-ai-artificial-intelligence-might-contain-spoilers/315085.md?page=5)