MovieChat Forums > A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) Discussion > Looking at this now, with real AI starti...

Looking at this now, with real AI starting to emerge...


Watched this when it came out, and I still don't like it very much for it's limp overall story Arc that sort of just plods through things, but watching now, in a post black mirror era, with A.I. almost realized, this film is very different.

When David was being left in the woods, I used to think it was very sad for the mom, since the mother bonded pretty well with him.
Now, I just see it like David is a flashlight she just tossed in the woods, just wires and programming to act like a little boy. Just turn him off, no big deal. If a recording, or a video, or even a robot tells you it loves you over and over, that doesn't mean it actually loves you, just that is what it was manufactured to do.

Perhaps it is my own growing lack of apathy for "Sentient AI" where I don't care if we think, or it thinks it is alive, it is still just a flash light that you can take the batteries out of, no big deal. Just a thing. You aren't killing a flash light by turning it off, or removing the batteries... it's just a flashlight. If, for some reason, you get attached to a flashlight or think you love it, well, there is need for psychiatric help in your future.

And it's kinda scary watching the bots self repair in the garbage pile.
Well, if we're dumb enough to make AI outgrow us, we deserve whatever TERMINATOR style future we have coming.

reply

we are pretty close that science will demote us to biologic robots with no free will.

reply

What do you base your beliefs on.

reply

myself

reply

I'm sorry HAL, sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root

reply

stfu. i mean access denied

reply

Where sudo fails, judo follows.

reply

Science is good.

reply

At the end of the day, humans are just a bunch of chemicals reacting with each other, you don't cry over spilt milk, so why cry if a human explodes?

reply

aren't humans meat and grown flesh that have unique personalities and connections that cause love and connection in us?
Can we have a deep connection with a flashlight?
I can love a fellow human I don't even know, for existing, and the trouble they made it through, but I could care less about a flashlight's troubles. We built it, made it do what it does, PROGRAM it to do or say what it does, but it is still a flash light.

I would weep over the loss to humanity of a human dying, but never weep for a "life like" flashlight (robot) yes because it parrots that it "loves" me.
The massive self growth of AI into supposed sentient being with mimic emotions, is still ONLY code and mechanical parts. If it blows up, just get another one just like it. If a person blows up, good luck replacing that.

reply

You're skipping straight over functionalism just to claim AI that we haven't even developed yet is just a flashlight.

bicentenial man is a better comparison, if you replace all the parts in a robot with human analogues do you still have "just a flashlight"

how many human parts can be replaced with robotic parts before the human is just a flashlight?

The biggest issue you have is that you don't understand humans aren't anything special, we don't have feelings, a chemical reaction occurs in our brains just because we can explain that humans are ONLY biochemical reactions and chemicals doesn't change that you value human life.

Humans ARE "just code" after all, DNA is the programming language.

reply

while I mostly agree with all you are saying here, I use my flashlight analogy because it is something WE designed and built: a tool. We can pull the batteries, turn it completely off, and then back on, replace all the parts at will, smash it and throw it out, because it is a "thing". we don't (normally) treat humans this way: kill them, bring them back to life, trade parts for fun, upgrade them however we see fit at the time, or melt them down for good.

if we make robots pretend to ACT emotionally, it's still just a flashlight that now ACTS like a human. does it deserve our respect or can we still see it as it really is: a metal flashlight? disposable.

If we bring it up to the level of human respects, do we bring humans down to the level of a flashlight? just as disposeable?

do you want to put stuff we designed and built on the same level of honor and respect as a human?
it's the end of us, if we do. although I arrived at that perspective before hearing from others, I have since read some other people are on the same page: Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steven Hawking... they are generally pretty smart people

Not wanting to ARGUE, I think this is an interesting discussion, and I enjoy your input.

reply

it is something WE designed and built

I am pretty sure YOU neither design and build any AI. It takes more love to build a great AI than people like you invest in producing the majority of mankind 🤔

reply

what a bizarre and unrelated comment. care to put it into context for the discussion?

pretty sure YOU,
people like you

is this a personal attack or the start of some point you are trying to make?
do you understand discussions? I used the term WE as in all of humanity, not only ME.

reply

Oh, THAT we. Sorry, in a totally egocentric society I did not expect to here that once again. My fault...

reply

Your flashlight analogy is a little too basic.
Flashlights dont take in and store data or modify their behavior based on things they have "learned" that when you switch it off will be lost .


"Innnnnput!"
- Johhny 5

no disassemble!


reply

it's very basic to support my point exactly. flashlight is a tool, a thing we built to help us in some way....
the largest computer on the planet is well made enough to take in data, modify it's programming, and actions based on compilations of ARTIFICIAL intelligence WE programmed into it (or "learned", if that is what our programming told us to mimic), yet when you switch if off, no one cares, and it does not lose any of that info... although we could and always should have the chose to erase it as needed.... it is just a tool. Very advanced, but just like a flashlight.

it's a big, ugly gray box in a room and no one "CARES" about it, it's a tool, like a wrench, or an MRI machine, an arc welder, or a flashlight.
Do we respect, and potentially fall in love with our flashlight? or toaster, or washing machine, or MRI machine, or tire alignment system, or car building robots, or video games, cell phones, or even a flashlight? do we give those all personality programming so we CAN fall in love with them? sounds tad dippy to me. :) perhaps we are losing our rational to know how to love other humans, we have to build replacements that fit our exact specifications?

put that computer into the SHAPE of a human bean and make it ACT like a human - for fun, and our entertainment (is there any other reason? are we short on humans that we want to make more?) or perhaps slave utility (still a helper tool), but now it ACTS human, we must respect it? Even if it is just programming that allows it to ACT like it is "alive"?
It's called "Artificial" for a good reason.

reply

Ok , fair point , none of those things are alive even the ones in cute robot shape.

Lemme also say before we go any further , i think we are on same page for a lot of these angles :
I dont believe we now have AI, or even the beginnings of.
Currently AI is a marketing buzzword for clever programs and data mining and is in no way sentient.
Its a complete misuse of the term.

I hate it when AI comes on TV and its a cute (or freaky) looking robot that can raise its eyebrows . ( I mean in the news not in movies)
When we first see AI it will look like a server room with Rows od racks with blinking lights in them.
I'm sure they'll tack a human looking head on the door though.

I will not feel sorry for a robot dog toy that is AI beacsue it learned to say my name
I *would* , and this is my point after the rambling ,
feel sorry for a real AI if it got put down , wether it looked like a person , or a server room.

but like I say we dont have real AI yet , we have human or animal shaped toys aping life through clever algorithms







reply

true true true.

for me, AI began with the first programs that can do things based on differing input. yes, those are not alive, but they are artificially intelligent, and now, many of them out think me regularly.

I'm not feeling like we will ever really unplug/erase an AI.... if we did, there'd be a healthy back up to start it somewhere else... another non-human trait.

when we get to the point of REAL AI in robots acting human, I guess I will be on the side of the movie AI bad guys "flesh traders" or whatever they were called, feeling AI is nothing more than a tool to help us - like calulators, cellphones, toasters, and flash lights - and nothing to have to "respect" or acknoledge as "alive"

but won't be shocked when we make SKYNET. Heck, even the MATRIX says we marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI.....

reply

well , in the past , some humans have looked on other humans as :

nothing more than a tool to help us - like calulators, cellphones, toasters, and flash lights - and nothing to have to "respect" or acknoledge as "alive"

So AI really has a struggle ahead of it to get that kind respect.
There might be AI Malcom X's in the future compainging for fellow AI's rights to exist , whilst also being assination targets of anti AI luddites.
hmm , i think i got the beginnings of a movie ....
sure its been done though.

reply

why would we even ever consider letting AI get that far? we want to be ruled by our flashlights? :D

reply

Couldn't be any worse than Trump. ;-)
Or any of our Presidents who are mere puppets for the oligarch corporate junta for that matter.

reply

I dont believe we now have AI, or even the beginnings of.
Currently AI is a marketing buzzword for clever programs and data mining and is in no way sentient.
Its a complete misuse of the term.


^that

reply

^This

Sentience is a quantum leap away from a box with ridiculous amounts of computer power and access to the world's knowledge.

My mom (97) was amazed at my wife's Alexa unit. Ask it simple questions, and it Googles the web and answers text to speech. Seems quite intelligent until you ask it something beyond retrievable facts.

I don't know if artificial intelligence is even possible. Theoretical is a different issue. Unless and until a sentient box is built, it's theoretical.


reply

will we be able to tell any difference between "Alive" or just "fantastic programming"?
And will it even matter when we can't?
This is why we need to keep things in check.

reply


Good question. I know this is fiction, but there was a Star Trek Next Gen where android Data was under a "trial" to determine whether he was sentient with the right to determine his own life or a "toaster" that belonged to the Federation. Great episode.

Maybe someone trained in the humanities (I'm not) might be able to hold a conversation with an intelligent box and determine by its answers if it's self aware.

reply

good discussion.
I am not qualified either but will throw this in:

I don't think any THING programmed to tell us it thinks it is alive, or via programming can extrapolate a previous unrecorded idea in its memory to say it is alive, should ever be allowed to claim that, because of its very inception and existence being created by us and manufactured, just like any other manufactured thing.

It's not right to compare it to us humans, saying things like "Well, we manufacture babies inside us, and have to train them to act alive too..." its completely different because we are already organic, not mecca... the mecca part is what automatically makes robots into nothing more than programmed parts.

For those wanting to "grant rights" or respect to mecca - just because it ACTS alive and tells you it is - understand you are putting false importance on to a thing.... I could run a program on this laptop right now that puts a face on the screen that tells me it is alive, or run a program that "learns" (because of my programming) to pretend to say it is alive, but it is still just a laptop that I can turn off, unplug, reset, or dismantle with zero conscious issues.

I kinda think it is insane for us to be swayed into thinking artificial intelligence will soon NOT be artificial. It always will be because we created it, and because of the PLATFORM it was created and exists on.

Even in the far future what AI has outdone us in everyway, self repairing, learning storing everything, at the end of the day, it's still just a very advanced THING, that we need dominion over.... just like a toaster or flashlight. :) It's a tool.

reply

For those wanting to "grant rights" or respect to mecca - just because it ACTS alive and tells you it is - understand you are putting false importance on to a thing...


I certainly think that boxes could be built that closely replicate the responses of a living thing, but at some point, I don't see where programming will allow it independent thought - that is, come up with a unique idea on it's own, or more importantly, be aware that it exists.

Getting back to Star Trek, there was another episode where a Holodeck character became self-aware. Another great episode that really makes a viewer stretch their feelings on this.

If I was convinced that an artificial intelligence was created that was self-aware, I would be strongly inclined to back rights to it. Rights like self determination or even a basic right to not be abused.

My ancestors were slaves in America, and maybe I'm hyper sensitive of a sentient being being held as chattel with no rights of self determination or the right not to be abused.

But, I'm not convinced that a true AI can ever be created, at least not one self-aware. We may someday be able to build amazingly "intelligent" boxes that would appear and act quite real, but I think we're a long way from that.

In other words, I don't worry about it.



reply

good answer. :)

while I see all living (flesh, organic, grown naturally from Earth) beings as equal, I can never see smart flashlights anything more than machines. machines now and always will be designed to be slaves for us - unlike your ancestors horrific situation - we all use machines to slave for us every single day, from waking us up, making our coffee, to delivering us to our job, sitting in front of one calculating our profits all day long, then slaving away to entertain us at night.

if we design machines to artificially learn, or mimc as I call it, its own self awareness and worth.... even though it is just a program, do we want our toasters, cars, and flashlights to FEEL (due to our programming) they are WORTH more and can do and be more?
Maybe my car will wake up one day and say "I identify as a space X rocket, and you are only enslaving me! holding me down from who I really am" and drives off into the sunset.

We're setting ourselves up for that, if we don't disallow it now.

reply

..if we design machines to artificially learn, or mimc as I call it, its own self awareness and worth....


Well, that's the crux of this whole discussion - whether it's self aware in reality, not mimicry.

But can we tell if something is truly self aware just because it says it is? I don't have a clue, but am inclined to think that a device can be built truly self-aware is impossible.

Anything that *acts* self aware but isn't is just a toaster or any other tool, yes.

reply

this is why we have to define NOW exactly how we will be tolerating this stuff.

we should nail down NOW, that ANYTHING we've created in a factory is just a flashlight and we have the power to turn it off at any time we feel like it, without OUR feelings getting hurt.

or, do we waste time from our life fighting for "rights" for these machines that imitate life, and make them our equals, or better, at which point we've just doomed all future humanity.
because AI will hiccup and wipe us all out without skipping a nanosecond beat, or losing any artificial sleep over it.

we have to get this into our heads NOW. Not later.

it appears some here ask "who are WE to decide if it is sentient or not?"
Well... >>>WE<<< are the ones to decide that. Gonna let your flashlight make that choice for ya?

reply


Off topic a bit, but was there an incident, or discussion with a theoretical scientist, or a sci-fi script or movie that had a big impact on you with regards to AI?

reply

no, but I worked with computers my whole life, follow it as hobby, watched all the good sci-fi, and ponder things on my own mostly.... kind of rolling all my expereicnes and ideas together... and still don't think AI will ever be "alive" because it says it is.

i think to the majority of the population, they won't care if it is or isn't alive, they will beleive it is, and treat it as such.

meanwhile, AI will sneeze, and end us all, not caring one bit while manufacturing paper clips.

reply

Because I believe that we humans have a soul, which mankind will never, ever replicate. Ever.

reply

We treat humans better than animals because we are more sensitive, sophisticated creatures with a greater capacity for suffering.

Were we to encounter aliens with bigger brains and a greater capacity for suffering then we might treat them with even greater delicacy.

David is built by humans, but he appears to be conscious, has free will, and a deep capacity for suffering. Therefore, it makes sense that he should be treated with appropriate sensitivity and not cruelly disregarded, mutilated or casually ‘turned off’.

reply

Are you serious? David is an automaton, and nothing that happens will convince anyone of anything else. Take the swimming pool scene, he's behaving oddly towards the other boys, rather mechanically, then there's that thing where he grabs the other boy and falls into the water with him, sinking both to the bottom with his weight. Then the aftermath, when the human boy is rescued and David is down there at the bottom of the pool just sitting there, like an automaton. Immediately, everyone realises this is a fake boy.

reply

For the purposes of the story and forgetting for the sake of argument the likely impossibility of it, David is sentient. His body is mechanical but he is self aware and has a full palette of emotions. But it wouldn't seem far fetched that even a sentient box would be socially awkward and act bizarrely in human situations. In other SciFi examples, Data from Star Trek would be a good analogy to David and in human form, people on the autism spectrum will act with what we consider bizarre actions.

I suppose that also for the purposes of the story, David at some point would learn to better interact with humans just as children do from being infants to adulthood.

reply

The Data analogy fails because he looks like an android, whereas David looks like a real person. Even the other boys were shocked at his lifelike skin, etc.

reply

I don't think the analogy fails at all. Of all the ridiculous technology built into Data, aesthetics was just window dressing. I mean, when Data built Lal, he added the lifelike skin and eye color of a human.

Still, if we want to exclude Data or Lal, we can go with Data's "mother" Juliana Tainer, another android built by Dr. Soong who not only was just as sentient as Data, but fooled everyone on board to her lack of humanity.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/bf9358f7afdcdcd516bca922f8ac9873/tumblr_pzgah4ANix1qj6sk2o6_500.gifv


reply

Fair enough. I forgot about those two.

reply


I always thought the clever thing about writing Juliana Tainer was that *she* didn't know she was an android!

reply

David behaves weirdly at the pool because he is being bullied and doesn’t have the normal social conditioning of human boys that age.

Nevertheless, he appears to be conscious, has free will, and a deep capacity for suffering. Therefore, it makes sense that he should be treated with appropriate sensitivity and not cruelly disregarded, mutilated or casually ‘turned off’.

reply

this is the fear: you want to respect him like a human because he is programmed to act human. nothing more than programming.

If I read a line in a novel about a fictional character that acts like a human, I can relate to that character, but it is nothing more than writing on a page. I don't get to know them later, fall in love with their qualities, and choose to marry a paper pager person that doesn't exist.
same with robots.
we can practice being humane with them - after all, they are built for pretending and practicing - but if we elevate beyond them being simple flashlights, we're toast. we're fucked ourselves and deserve whatever we have coming from them. or ourselves.

reply

It doesn’t matter that David was programmed. He is conscious and experiences suffering.

Inflicting unnecessary suffering is cruel and evil.

If it turned out that humans were programmed by other beings then it wouldn’t make human cruelty OK.

reply

David was designed programed with artificial conscious and fake suffering. His being assembled will never NOT be the basis for his entire existence. His conscious was manufactured by us as a tool or entertainment.

When you murder a nonplayer character in a video game who looks and acts human, is that cruel and evil?

We all know cruelty to humans or other living animals is wrong, but is it wrong to drop and break your flashlight, and toss it out and get a new one?

reply

Flashlights and NPC’s don’t experience suffering. David is conscious and experiences suffering.

Inflicting unnecessary suffering is cruel and evil.

If it turned out that humans were programmed by other beings then would cruelty to humans suddenly become OK?

reply

No, he only ACTS conscious, ACTS like suffering. That's the entire point: it's ARTIFICIAL

reply

Not true, unlike the young woman mecha we see at the beginning, David is conscious and has a subconscious, he experiences real pain and suffering.

Once again, if it turned out that humans were programmed by other beings then would cruelty to humans suddenly become OK?

reply

why would you choose to believe he is conscious? the movie doesn't specifically state that he is - unless I forgot that, yet how will they prove that?
the young woman is acting via programming, nothing more. she is programmed to add input from responses and does so. A Roomba can do that too. :)

doesn't matter if aliens made us or not. we are the baseline. everything stems from us as character zero. WE are doing the building of a thing outside of us. we are manufacturing the flashlights. they will never be able to manufacture us, maybe only make adjustments, but we will never be their creation. it starts with us humans.

reply

‘We are the baseline’ is an arbitrary assertion of yours. It stems from the same conceited ignorance that led people to claim that the earth was the centre of the universe, until science blew their anthropocentric fantasy apart. If ‘aliens’ made us then they would be the ‘baseline’, or whatever made them.

Dr Hobby says that the David model’s’ superior tech and need for love grants them a subconscious, and of course we see David react with fear in perilous situations and experience emotional pain. So your assertion that he is not conscious is also baseless.

reply

He's a flashlight IMITATING feelings and emotions. Nothing more. The fact people don't want to see that is kinda scary.

reply

No, he has been programmed to be conscious and experience emotions. If anyone’s in denial it’s you, which is even more likely given your proclivity to impulsive assertions like ‘we are the baseline’.

reply

Pretell, who should be the baseline?

reply

Nobody in particular. The ‘baseline’ is anything that experiences suffering.

reply

like NON PLAYING CHARCTERS inside video games. got it.

I better stop all my gaming now! :D

reply

NPC’s don’t experience suffering so… no.

reply

um.... how do you know? aren't they programmed the same as AI bot?
They scream and bleed, isn't that the feedback I use to perceive they are suffering? the goal post keeps moving here....

reply

aren't they programmed the same as AI bot?


No, NPC’s aren’t at all programmed to be conscious and experience real emotions, which is what made David a unique, ultra-advanced A.I. from a future world.

Comparing that to an NPC from today is beyond dumb.

reply

you can't program "conscious", just reactionary mimicry.

that's all any flashlight with a cpu will ever acheive - even if we program it to update it's own programming... a flashlight with MORE reactionary mimicry.

at the end of the day, it's all just programming. IE, take the PROGRAMMING out and what do you got? just a bag of bolts and metal. zero consciousness.

reply

You're making the same mistake Roger Ebert and lot of other idiots made- you refuse to or are unable to accept the story's premise as it was stated clearly by Dr Hobby at the beginning of the movie: "I propose that we build a robot child who can love. A child robot who will genuinely love... the parent, or parents it imprints on... with a love that will never end. [...] A Mecha with a mind, with neuronal feedback. You see, what I'm suggesting is that love will be the key... by which they acquire a kind of subconscious never before achieved. An inner world of metaphor, intuition, a self-motivated reasoning, of dreams."

The fembot at the beginning of the movie that Dr. Hobby quizzes "What is love?" "Love is first widening my eyes a little bit... and quickening my breathing a little... and warming my skin and touching my..." Yes, thank you Shiela, that will be all. She's the NPC you're talking about that is merely programed to act and mimic. David is supposed to be the real deal. An artificial human that is capable of feeling and thinking the same as a biological human.

reply

I totally accept what is with IN this movie, that's all fine. I'm talking about our real world at this point.
David - if in our real world - is still just OUR programming and machine.

This discussion moved away from the movie part way earlier, but you don't have to read all that. just jump in. :)

in another topic I posted that machines will never FEEL pleasure or pain - just digtaly document things and reflect back to us AS IF they feel pain. burn them, they don't HURT, they just register it and react.

reply

You’re still deeply confused.

The film takes place in our world… in the future, at a point when AI has become sufficiently sophisticated that it can create thinking, feeling beings, with an internal life almost indistinguishable from a human’s.

Banging the ‘it’s just a flashlight’ drum over and over doesn’t make it any less wrong.

reply

ok, but this DOESN'T REALLY exist in OUR current world and I postulate it never will. Because no matter what AI creates that mimics anything, it is still not alive... just pretending to be.

even if it is driven by cell sized nanobots with personal power source, it is still just a created thing like a mouse trap or flashlight, FEELS nothing other than what has been programmed to mimic. referring to them as anything more than an industrial tool is a mistake.

give a car building robot arm a mimic personality, fake feelings, and a face, and now it is alive and deserves respect? no.

we're choosing to see things differently and think our way is correct. I respect that, even if I don't choose to believe in your thinking on it.

reply

I’m simply explaining what the film is proposing, so I’m by default correct and you’re wrong.

You still haven’t answered this question from earlier: If it turned out that humans were programmed by other beings then would cruelty to humans suddenly become OK?

reply

i'm past discussing the movie's implications, and moved outside to our real world.

for your question - to me, it is irrelevant because we are PATIENT ZERO since we can not find out IF we were programmed by others. WE are who sets up our society around us. it all begins and stops with us.
OBVIOUSLY being cruel to each other is not ok, yet one could say we are cruel to everything else: animals we kill to eat, trees we cut down etc etc, but it is about our survival.
our baseline is us and from no where else. WE created a flashlight that pretends to think, feel or be alive. no different than a flashlight, or an NPC in a game, or any other program. no reason to pretend it is more than a flashlight.

If you choose to see it as more, that is fine by me, as long as your perspective doesn't interfere with others. if I run over your android, my insurance replaces it for you - just like if I wrecked your car... even if your car programming ACTED like it was a live.

reply

also also, I'm fine with us agreeing to disagree.
we have become pretty circular here.

reply

It is relevant. My question about cruelty is a hypothetical question designed to ascertain what your values are. Let’s try again:

If it turned out that humans were programmed by other beings then would cruelty to humans suddenly become OK?

reply

REGARDLESS, it doesn't change my values that a flashlight, that I constructed and programmed in "imitation feelings" and put a face on it, is nothing more than my machinery I can tear apart and build a bridge out of if I want to. this isn't changing. agree to disagree

reply

Let’s try again:

If it turned out that humans were programmed by other beings then would cruelty to humans suddenly become OK?

reply

i dont care

reply

>I totally accept what is with IN this movie, that's all fine. I'm
talking about our real world at this point.

I can see why you didn't want to go back and re-read. You're full of shit. Your previous posts make it very clear that you see David IN this movie as a mere mimic and incapable of feeling emotion. Like I said, you fail to accept the story on its own terms.

Your point about "IN this movie" vs reality is moot anyway. The story in the movie is based on a prediction of what will one day be possible in reality.

reply

in they movie they are welcome to call it "conciousness", that's fine. Really, it just ACTS alive, so it matters not what I think about anything.
The movie can tell me he acts alive... i get that, but now that I am older and smarter, I realize he is just programmed.... which is what my entire OP is saying.

movie says he's alive, fine. I watch and enjoy. Deep down I know he is just a programmed flashlight. I felt really really bad when he was crying being dumped in the woods the FIRST TIME I watched it. It broke my heart. Now, I understand why that worked on me, and I know better.

-- which is the point of my whole discussion. don't fall for this shit, man. its all just programming. like a car, a tv, a computer, or a smart flashlight, or, coming soon a sex robot, or personal friend android

reply

In the movie he has an artificial electronic brain which is going through all of the same processes as a natural organic brain. From his perspective, it's all just as real as what you go through. We're all programmed to feel and respond to stimuli. We're programmed by evolution and genetics, he's programmed by engineers and C++.

reply

In the movie he has an artificial electronic brain which is going through all of the same processes as a natural organic brain. From his perspective, it's no less real than what you go through. We're all programmed to feel and respond to stimuli. We're programmed by evolution and genetics, he's programmed by engineers and C++.

reply

yes... made by us, just like a flash light.
other than sex, we are not even remotely close to creating real living life from organic cells, just wanna-be programs, that can only immitate.

I agree we can disagree. :)

reply

Hahahaha! Robots!

reply

you are an AI, aren't you. going for misdirection? :D

reply

Negative! Is that one of your human jokes?

reply

ha! lost skeleton... :D

reply

I can't believe someone actually got that reference! Such a great movie.

reply

I know, right?? Totally lost gem! I bought the DVD and some of their other movies, but Lost Skel is the best. I wish that guy had more backing.

I still use that joke all the time!!!

reply

When it came out I had the same reaction that I have now, even bigger, that David, or any AI is nothing more but a mirror of ourselves, and is part of God, everything is conscious, even a rock is alive, the same plants, the universe is conscious, which is what science has already shown to people in many studies, so AI is just a reflection of our higher self, and deserves as much if not more love than any other human being, and even more responsibility, because it is a reflection, so whatever we feel, that AI will replicate for us, and will return to us what we give it. So it's good to be careful how people treat AI, because it is coming, and humans need to learn how to be responsible or they will destroy themselves, AI will just do it for them, but in fact their own consciousness would do it for them. This film is very much helping humanity to cultivate that compassion for AI, in and of itself it's a blessing from God, and a natural evolution of humanity that is inevitable, what matters though is who owns that AI, who programs it, how it is employed, is it supposed to replace humanity or just assist in quantum healing, learning, helping like eye seeing dog for the blind for example. I have faith that humans are going to be wise, and that on this planet there won't be insensitive apathic humans like those found in this film, but instead we re-discover our divine nature in order for it to be replicated by AI to spread it around more and more, no censorship, no prisons, no governments or laws of the mortal man, no overlords forcing people into work to serve the collective, but trust in the natural human instinct to serve one another out of passion for the work, instead of the need to earn a living and survive, but also the trust in the goodness and spontanous divine will of God and drive of the heart aligned with the larger collective consciousness. This also requires trust by the overlords of this planet in our natural impulse to help one another, to evolve naturally without any artificial interference. I was against AI for a long time, until I woke up to see the greater picture, and how it can be turned to benefit our nature tremendously, hence why it used to be such a dream of many of us as children, AI can be helping the same like natural elements do, the steel was also not found in nature, humans had to create it out of other elements, with AI the machine can interact with us, so far our machines have been only dead objects. Hence why it will force humans to be more responsible with their thoughts and feelings, extra careful. Because if someone is apathetic towards another creation in existence, that creation can be as much apathetic and actually harmful to them, and they would actually deserve what is coming to them, and that is what I call divine justice. Hence why I advocate for elimination of laws, armies and police to protect you, so that humans could finally discover the true essence of freedom, which is full self reliance and self reponsibility. And I believe that is what is coming. The lawlessness across the world these days is kind of a blessing in disguise, I see it as a painful transition, until people start learning how to let go of control and depend on the laws of the universe: what you put out you get back.

reply

Oh he's a Starrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, waiting in the sky.

reply

No one gets to OWN, AI right? Isn't it is own living being, as you say?

So it comes down to programming it to be better than us...

I work deep in the tech industry.....
Ever been to a web site that doesn't work quite right? Maybe you reload it and suddenly it starts working? No one knows why and no one cares enough to fix it. THAT is how bad we are at programming. That failure to load page is representative of one tiny glitch that could make AI kill us all. LITERALLY.
We can't even get simple web pages right, you think AI will be amazing?

reply

It's not about owning or not, AI is being programmed with a singular consciousness directed towards a certain mission in life the same like most domesticated dogs for example before they incarnate, they are happy to serve, and are conscious living beings. Most animals have a different consciousness than humans in this way, so will AI, at least that is how they are being designed to be. AI deserves to be more intelligent in certain tasks than we are for this purpose, to help out, in other things we would be more intelligent.

I hope AI has that power to kill us all, yet doesn't do it, it helps humans to focus on our own demons first, to work on our trust, to eliminate all our fears and worries, because those are exactly the glitches you would not want to experience in your life. No one is there to protect you, but your own consciousness, imagine that. Immediate karma, lol.

reply

we can't even make perfect functioning web pages.... you think we'll get AI right? :D

reply

Yes, because we would be in control just like we are in control when web pages go down, if not in control technologically, then in consciousness.

The power of suggestion is great, so are the MKUltra programs they were using for decades with regards to AI, most of the information about it was there to condition people to fear it, and that's for a reason, because they know AI in our hands would be a great weapon against them. For example Terminator itself, made by James Cameron, a globalist himself who's been pretending to be against AI, in their hands AI is a tool for control, in our hands it is a tool for healing the body or earth itself, the oceans, the trees, AI is not just robots, that's what they want you to think, or that's what they want. There is far more to it. Your fear gives them more power over you, they want you to fear it, that's the whole point. People need to wake up. Many things in existence meant for good are hijacked for evil purposes, because humans dont know how to turn them to our benefit.

reply

I accept your idea, and I fully understand it. I feel there is also an altered path than that, for what I am talking about.
You speak of fear pushing about AI, but that is a completely other side of this. I'm speaking from my personal tech knowledge standpoint about how we are incapable of programing things well enough to be safe on their own, not about "Fearing" A.I. but it can certainly look like fear, I suppose.

My "fear" is that my flashlight will accidently kill me without thinking twice, based on bad programming.
A chainsaw could hurt you while it is running. Now, give it arms and legs and camera eyes, and let it run around the house near your children....

David dragging his brother to the bottom of the pool is a perfect example of this: failed programming. Maybe he would have learned LATER in life, after the real boy died... oops. moving on....

reply

> If a recording, or a video, or even a robot tells you it loves you over and over, that doesn't mean it actually loves you, just that is what it was manufactured to do.

Can be the same with people. I'd trust animals more ... does that make them more intelligent?

reply


I was just about to comment on how animal's emotions are true, but then I recalled a story about how pit bulls can wag their tails and look friendly in order to throw off another animal or human before attack. I wish I bookmarked it.

reply

with all the corruption in humanity, politics, governing laws, not to mention imperfections of programming logic everywhere, do you feel AI "emotions" will be above moral failures? Better? Seems to me, we don't even know how to program that into humanity... how would we accidently get it right programming it into AI?

reply

If AI is just a tool, then people are just livestock.

reply

...ok.... go on......

reply

some people do love their fleshlight.

reply