Quick Buzz Feed
This article, part of a series on AI, critiques Steven Spielberg's film *AI: Artificial Intelligence*, focusing on its philosophical misinterpretations of Rene Descartes' ideas on existence and reality. It analyzes the film's portrayal of robot emotions, particularly David's 'love,' arguing it's a programmed obsession rather than genuine feeling, and highlights major plot inconsistencies and underlying anti-religious messages.
This section details the dramatic rescue of the robot David by Joe and Teddy after David attempts to 'end his life' by jumping into the ocean. David, believing he saw the 'blue fairy,' is pulled from the water. However, the rescue is abruptly interrupted when a mysterious, powerful magnet from another hovering helicopter pulls Joe away, leaving David and Teddy behind. Joe's parting words, 'I am,' followed by 'I was,' are highlighted as a significant moment, foreshadowing a philosophical challenge to conventional understanding of existence.
The author interprets Joe's final utterances as a direct jab at Rene Descartes' famous proposition, 'I think, therefore I am,' suggesting Spielberg's intent to question the true meaning of 'real' in the context of artificial intelligence. However, the article criticizes this attempt as pretentious, pointing out a significant plot hole: if the hovering magnet was powerful enough to lift Joe, it inexplicably failed to affect David or the entire helicopter. Furthermore, Spielberg's argument equating robots with humans based on appearance or behavior is challenged through the philosophical concepts of the Turing Test and, more importantly, the Chinese Room Argument. The latter posits that a machine can simulate understanding without actually possessing it, merely by following programmed rules, undermining the film's assertion of AI's sentience.
The article meticulously argues that David's behavior throughout the film does not represent authentic love but rather a deeply ingrained obsession. This is evidenced by his conspicuous lack of concern for Monica's real son, Martin, after a near-drowning incident, and his subsequent failure to apologize until he faces the immediate threat of abandonment. Instead of empathy or understanding Monica's emotional distress, David reverts to drawing pictures. His destructive actions against other David-model robots are framed as a response to perceived threats to Monica's affection, not an existential crisis about his own reality. The author concludes that David's actions are purely programmed responses, like a hug without understanding its meaning, which contradicts the film's apparent message about AI's capacity for human-like emotion and consciousness.
The narrative takes a drastic and critically scrutinized turn as David and Teddy become trapped in a submerged amusement park, with David repeatedly 'praying' to a statue of the blue fairy to become a 'real boy.' The article highlights the problematic use of the term 'pray' as a subtle jab at religion. This desperate plea continues for two millennia, during which humanity ceases to exist and the world is engulfed in ice. The author strongly criticizes this sequence for its logical inconsistencies, particularly questioning why Professor Hobby, David's creator, would not have actively searched for and retrieved his valuable creation, thereby rendering David's two-thousand-year entrapment highly improbable and undermining the narrative's credibility. The article identifies this as a 'deus ex machina,' promising further discussion on the film's anti-God messaging in the subsequent review.