Spielberg's "Artificial Intelligence" has become a standard. The core idea is very cordial. "Love" gives robots a "soul". He did not ask the viewer to jump out of the human-based thinking habits to imagine the various possibilities of artificial intelligence, and everyone can enjoy it and fully understand his intentions. I guess that Kubrick likes to ask questions so much. He once said to make a film on this topic. If "Artificial Intelligence" was directed by him, it might be different. (To defend what used to be a headline party, but was unsuccessful. Revised in 2021)
I actually think that the tools in everyone's minds are not much different (Da Vinci Einstein did not become immortal and escaped from the sea of suffering). If you persist in thinking about a problem, you may reach a very close result. But most of the time we don't need to go that far to find an anchor point in our comfort zone. The widely accepted value system was established because they alleviated the urgency of the problem, allowing people to get rid of the instability of "unexplainable" and "unable to find an answer." People who are accustomed to continuous questioning are not necessarily welcome (think Socrates). Although the result of the questioning may be to broaden the comfort zone of the concept, those who point out that we can go a little further are likely to be rejected. But in the final analysis, our thinking tools, brains, what are the flaws and limitations, are difficult to be included in the thinking category of our brains (how do tools repair tools?), and logic itself is a distorted machine, right?
Speaking of the causal relationship between "love and soul", it sounds very easy to accept. If you say "love is called a person", it feels too correct. It is difficult to ask again, how does "love" manifest itself? Is it continuous contact on the timeline? Growing feedback information? The act of giving or even sacrificing? Is it a garbled code? Is it dislocation or inevitable? The one-time solution to these problems may be to say, "If you don't believe in love, then what is the problem worth thinking about"! So most of us can accept, well, the origin is love. If we put aside the hot potato of "love", can "soul" talk? When did humans have so-called "souls" in the process of evolution? Then, in the development and evolution of machines, can we repeat this evolutionary process of man and get a so-called "soul"? I originally hoped that "Artificial Intelligence" would explore such a problem.
Imagine if the robot would say something like this: "Who am I? Where am I from? Where am I going? I may be just repeating the questions I have heard elsewhere, and I don’t know these questions. So I can’t stop repeating these questions.” If the robot says this, then what is the difference between him and humans? Existing problems are like bugs for robots, but are they not for humans?
Besides, the screening of memory. Forgetting is the defect (or advantage) of humans over robots. The screening of memories is not completely controlled by us. Our personal memories constitute the basic data for us to reflect on future events, and our common memories constitute our cultural environment. The formation of these memories, to a large extent, is not achieved through our own thinking. We really don't have to regard our autonomous "decisions" as being too effective. In fact, the "forgetting" process that we cannot control should have more absolute influence on the construction of the so-called "self". Although we don't have the super memory function of robots, the "forgetting" function that we can't control may be more critical to the development of civilization.
Eco said that culture is the cemetery of books and other things that have since disappeared. The question they are discussing is, if all words and languages are recorded electronically and no longer disappear, then in what form will culture exist? What would a culture look like without organic growth, decay, filtration, and digestion? In artificial intelligence films, one can think about what culture will be for robots? If the robot can record everything that has happened, then probably nothing has a more "profound" meaning than other things. The more critical issue is that "love" keeps us asking for the future, because the past can only be stored by memory, and memory is always cut and faded. We desire to have it but fear to lose it. Therefore, while we continue to lose the love in our memories, we ask for more love from the future. However, if the robot has a clear memory that will never fade, is the "future" still so important?
What does the concept of "time" look like for robots? How do you feel? Innovation, creation, art, repetition, will these concepts disappear? Will the stupidity and fallacy disappear? What will be the driving force for social progress? Does the robotic society need an "individual" form? Humans have some important abilities, but robots don't know if they can have them. Such as the ability to learn and the ability to choose. Learning is self-revision. Can the robot revise its own basic program? The choice is also to give up. How to choose between two identical apples? This problem is simple for humans, but similar problems for robots may be very complicated. If we examine the familiar concepts through the perspective of a robot and imagine this kind of system with huge storage capacity and accurate calculation ability, how will we deal with the problems we are familiar with? Will it come to answers we haven't seen before?
The above are some of the questions I hope "Artificial Intelligence" will touch. I have no answers (in fact, many questions do not call for answers), but Kubrick's self-evident method will stimulate people's imagination, just like "A Space Odyssey" The appearance of "Star Boy" at the end of 2001 made us all very excited.
View more about A.I. Artificial Intelligence reviews
