Yeah, the aliens are hokey. Yes, the sentiment is Hallmark. And yes, the whole thing offends logic. Spielberg is pulling out all the stops, appending to the script just to get you to reach for the box of tissues.

But two things… 1) consider that *any* film you see about a “real fictional person” is a first-order simulacra. Spielberg clearly gets this and is playing with its implications for a film about a simulated person. 2) Check out the Teddy Bear! Spielberg understood the Teddy Bear as a foil to the artificial child — he did some really nice things with that.

But the first bit was actually pretty good, until he leaves the house. Chop it off at about 30 minutes, and it’s a good short film.

More background here:

http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2001/06/29/artificial_intelligence/index.html

and too much on IMDB

http://poll.imdb.com/title/tt0212720/usercomments-index?

In short, Spielberg wanted to be honoring Kubrick who was translating Aldiss while still having a Spielberg vision — in a way, the film is really about the *lack* of the vision of a single superstar director.

And that said, for me, the incoherence actually makes the film much better. There’s a whole lot of effort, by writers, actors, and directors, to put things into the film. There’s great stuff there that, yes, doesn’t tie together, but is still great stuff. The end is pure Spielberg while the plot is mostly Kubrick.

But at this point, the last thing I want from Hollywood is another clean consumer package with well-rounded edges where all the pieces fit. I honestly like it better when Hollywood bites off more than it can chew.

NO: Say it ain’t so! Yes, the last third is Hollywood pablum….I’d go so far as to say a secular humanist vision of a tech utopia put in the place of traditional soteriology. But the first parts are, I think, unusually sensitive portrayals of how technology can be misused.

http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/courses/eme6602/nassmoon00.pdf

Thought being: it may not be so much an intentional and mistaken ascription of agency to technology, but may instead be the working of a generally sensible heuristic.

GL: I look forward to the mindlessness research. As for the baseline: yes, perhaps ala Benkler we’re better off as creators of culture (even dreck culture) than solely consumers of it. As for you last point…that’s the hardest. Perhaps only a committed band of technology users can resist tech-hegemony!

“Study: Family, Friends Reduce Quality Internet Time”

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=1739

Just a note: this is the second time Co-Op has had a post on Turkle and AI. But I didn’t get any comments!

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/aibos_as_test_o.html

But you’ve got me interested, so here’s my 2 cents.

1 cent: Turkle is right to be concerned about the way AI interactions displace/modify human interactions. Actually, there are some studies on the cognitive science of “mindlessness” that suggest that the effects of this kind of animistic confusion might go deeper than technologies of AI or simulated creatures.

2 cent: Re the blackberries and all, I don’t know. People have made this pitch before. Remember Clifford Stoll and Silicon Snake Oil? I’m pretty sure people said the same things about the telephone. I think there’s some substance there, but there are limits to how far you can take the criticism, even in the case of contemporary technologies.

E.g. If you’ve got people watching TV 20 hours a week, are they better or worse off if they are socializing online for those 20 hours?

Some thoughts here:

http://www.physorg.com/news75042110.html

You might say it would be better if they were socializing face to face for those 20 hours. And I might agree with you… if I weren’t commenting on your blog post!!!