Subtle Analogy in Class Video

The video we watched in class Thursday, February 21, 2013 mentioned a trial from Auschwitz concentration camps in which the man’s excuse for not worrying about or helping the people being thrown in the ovens and burning to death was because he didn’t have time to worry about it, because he was focused on keeping the oven working, and because one little person couldn’t have done anything about it anyways. The man in the video says that is completely irresponsible, and that the man on trial let something terrible happen because his one and only goal was to attend to the needs of technology. The man in the video also makes a subtle comment afterwards, saying that this kind of irresponsibility is common in our society, and then gloomy pictures of the environment were shown to end the video. I was very happy with the subtle analogy being made.
What he was trying to get across to the viewers is that completely irresponsible behavior is going on in every day life to this day, but in more indirect ways. The environment has been completely torn to shreds because of highways, rushes to build bigger cities, exhaust gases, mining, chemicals, and many more common activities of today’s third world countries, and nobody thinks a think about it, because their only concern is accomplishing their tasks, which are often tasks brought on by the cycles of society brought on by the obsession with efficiency and technological advancements. Not only are people living in poor, unhealthy conditions as a result of this, and sometimes even dying, but the amount of pollution, deforestation, and destruction of the environment altogether is completely absurd, and the excuse for everyone not joining together and fixing the problem is that they don’t have time in their busy lives, and because no one person could stop it anyways.

 

Top Ten Causes of Environmental Damage:

http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2012/01/top-10-causes-of-environmental-damage/

 

Top 10 Most Polluted Locations, and Common Causes:

http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/top_10_polluted.htm

 

Ellul

With Ellul, we saw that machines or gadgets are not what he thinks of as technology. Ellul sees technology as a technique, a way of life reflected in a machine. This viewpoint of technology is a whole way of life and we cannot see the impact because it is so vital. The efficiency of this technique or technology shapes our ideas and social values. I would agree with Ellul. We use technology to make our life easier and we have become so wrapped around the concept of technology and how much easier it has made our lives, that we now begin to think of every aspect of life as being as efficient as possible, and that often times will involve technology.

On the Required Reading

Reading Pierro Scaruffi's thoughts on Artificial Intelligence there was one part that stood out to me. He said, "Furthermore, there's the meaning of action. The children who play soccer actually enjoy it. They scream, they are competitive, they cry if they lose, they can be mean, they can be violent. There is passion in what we do. Will an android that plays decent soccer in 3450 (that's a realistic date in my opinion) also have all of that?" For me this is the fundamental and powerful difference between robots and humans that make them unacceptable as replacements for humans in certain aspects of our lives. A robot can perform the function but there is no menaing behind what they do. Robots can perform the behaviors of emotions or someone who loves you but they do not actually feel those things or understand why they do them. Part of the human expereince is sharing emotions with other people, the reciprocity of that situation is important and with a robot you do not receive that.

Pet Robot-Dog in Chevy Commercial

I was at the movie theatres the other day standing in line at the concessions stand when I noticed a television screen on the wall for people in line to watch. As odd as I thought this was, probably only because I don’t watch much television and I don’t see why so many people spend as much time watching it as they do, I watched it anyways when I was standing in line because I didn’t have anyone standing in line with me to talk to. Once again, since I don’t watch much television, I don’t know if this commercial is common or not, but I saw a commercial that made a clear connection with some of our discussions in class for which I will have the think provided below. It was a car commercial where when the car stops, a robot dog is sitting in the back with the child, and he sticks his head out the window and interacts with a deer. Although I’m sure the robot dog was not the main thing being advertised in the commercial, the fact that people are comfortable enough with the idea and the fact that people also feel as if robots are now common enough, to replace pets even in advertisements caught my attention.
Not only that, but I found it also very interesting that not only are the humans accepting this robot dog so easily as if it is a real pet, but the deer the robot dog interacts with seems to be interested in it, but also seems to regard it as another animal. To me, this symbolizes an acceptance of technology into nature, and in a way it does seem like that’s an underlying theme of the commercial, because they’re trying to convince you that the car rides so smooth and is so quite that it won’t even disturb nature, because the deer comes right up to the car. The commercial, in a way, is portraying technology as something that is conforming to nature, which in my opinion is very contradicting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruZArNGgZ1Q

A.I. Reflection

After watching A.I. I found myself wondering not so much if technology like this was around or if we were capable of creating human robots, rather, I was more intrigued as to why we would create something like this. David proves countless times throughout the movie that he can't understand human emotion and love. This to me can become very dangerous and really is a road I would rather not explore. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the advancement of technology and even robotics. Robotics have proved to be invaluable, especially in the medical and assembly line industries. Where I draw the line though is where robotics and artificial intelligence are used to create human robots.

I believe that to create a robot that can fully understand and interact with a real human beings mind and emotions is simply impossible. There can be an unlimited amount of information and intelligence installed and stored into a robots hard drive but there can never be a substitute for real human emotion and feelings. Human life can be hard enough as it is, there is no reason to complicate things with the development of human robots; this is just going to throw a wrench into the machine.

Furby Infatuation

Dr. Langguth brought in his daughters Furby to class to raise the question of is this toy alive or not?  My initial reaction is of course not it is a battery operated toy.  But that is not how most children think.  As Turkle discusses in her book, children build such a strong connection with this toy that they go as far as wanting to "perform surgery" on it when the batteries die. This attachment to an inanimate object is very interesting.  Are these kids latching on to this toy because it gives them the attention they wish their loved ones would give them?  Or do they really, truly believe that it is real?  I found it interesting too that if you were to place a barbie upside down and a Furby, most people would flip the Furby right side up first simply because you can hear it complain or sound in distress.  If we can develop sentimental feelings for a simple robot as a Furby, imagine the attachment to a robot that looks and sounds like a human.

Kant

I found it interesting that Kant felt like maybe there is a process by nature to a perpetual peace, that in spite of ourselves we might eventually reach this peace. I think that humans are constanly learning and in battle with ourselves and society to fulfill our "role" given to us by society and once we feel like we have fulfilled our role we might find peace in ourselves. These conflicts shape us into who we are as a person which could detour us or lead us down a different path. Maybe this is what Kant was thinking about when mentioning nature as that process to perpetual peace.

Ellul

I really like Ellul's sociological perspective on technology. The examples he provided in the video of heart transplants technology (which is good) but is fed by the negative consequence of car accidents. He has a  very good point. Both theology and sociology study how progress leads to devastating consequences for others. More technology has led to an ailing environment and technological progress often comes at the expense of workers who make wages barely enough to live on. Before this class I had not thought of technological progress as negative in any way, but I am beginning to see that it does have clear negative consequences.

Furbies and Human Interaction

Today in class Dr. Langguth brought his daughter's Furby to our class. At first it was somewhat charming and funny to watch, and it is easy to see why children would attach to these creature-like toys. This is similar to what Turkle discussed, how children see the toy as a real pet they can interact with and develop a relationship with. However, I found it annoying how you can't turn it off, just like you cannot turn off a real pet. The difference is that one you know when to feed, but the toy Furby is more unpredictable and can turn evil if you feed it too much. I think that these toys are not teaching children how to develop relationships, but rather to rely more on their electronic toys, which can create addictions to electronic means of entertainment instead of promoting human interaction.

Alive or Not

Turkle talks about a toy referred to as a Furby. She talks about how children now feel that these things are acutely alive because of how real they seem. These things "need" various things or else they show a sort of emotion, similar to what a human might do. When I was a kid I had a Furby, but not nearly as advanced as the ones now a days. It still needed various things like the one now but not as much emotion was involved. I also had a tamagotchi growing up. These had to be fed and bathed and things and if they weren't taken care of correctly they would die and the game would start over. When mine would die, I would say it died it I wouldn't actually think it died like a human would die. These children that Turkle talks about would describe the Furby as alive and capable of love and death. 

I think that this is alarming for the future. If children can't distinguish between alive and not alive, the world is in trouble. 

"Alive Enough"

 The second chapter of "Alone Together" explores concepts such a robotic pets like Furbys or robotic dogs. If these toys are to evoke emotional responses from children, and appear to need care and affection, then are they essentially “alive”?  Whether the child is acting as teacher or a playmate to his/her Furby, he/she becomes attached to the robot to the point where if it dies, it loses all appeal, despite being able to be reset.  

However, this emotional and psychological response does not just apply to children. She conducted an experiment where the participants would hold the Furby upside down for as long as they wanted.  Even though the Furby has no emotions and is not living, most people could not hold the Furby upside down for very long before their emotions caused them to turn it back over.  If robots such as Furbys can already make us feel for them, it seems as though we are only waiting for the day when robots become better companions and confidants than real people. Will people start to rely more on computer generated “perfect” responses than the actual experience of other people, despite the potential for flaws and biases? And if so, is that bad? 

Alive or Not? From a Different Perspective

Here are my thoughts on the second chapter of Turkle. technology has been at a steep incline since the 1970's and every year more and more amazing things come out for both fun and necessities. Turkle speaks of two major machines that children believe are alive: Furby and Tamogotchi. I owned both a Furby and a tamogotchi, so I want to express the similarities from my own experiences with the stories in Turkle's book. One, Turkle says that children believe that these things were partly alive and children often got emotionally attached to the machines.

My tamogotchi was not a "pet" to me. I played with my tamogotchi for a long time but i never felt an emotional attachment to it. I had no pets at the time either so it was the closest thing to a pet I had, yet no feelings of remorse came over me when it died. Tamogotchi's, for me and my older brother, were a contest to see who could keep theirs alive the longest. When it finally "died" we would start over and play the game again. I would even say it died, but that did not mean that i ever thought it was actually alive. I believe it is just an easier wat to say the game died than it is to say the batteries ran out or I was neglectful. I use the smae vernacular today when i play a video game. When i get shot in a first person shooter game, I say that guy killed me, not that guy terminated my character. I think Turkle may be looking into this particular part of the study from a wrong angle. Saying the game died does not neccessarily mean the child thinks the machine was alive at one point, but simply a way of explaining something in the current era.

Lindman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rj2Ga9Y7oU

Here is a link to Pia Lindman talking about her art and her experience for a class at MIT. I think it's pretty interesting how she showed that simulating the physicality of emotions leads to the real emotion.

AI

The A.I. film was incredibly intriguing. The themes about imbibing robots with emotions and well as replacing children with robot children were both somewhat disturbing. It raises the question of whether or not it's our emotions that make us human. The ability to feel pain and experience feelings is how we think, act, and react, as well as how we interpret our experiences. The little boy in the film, although he was definitely mechanical, did feel. It raises many moral implications--especially in regards to where our current technological advancements are headed.

I also found it very intriguing how Spielberg decided to portray the robots and how they interacted with each other. in the film, the robots were, in fact, assisting each other. Joe went so far as to aid the boy in his escape--multiple times! If robots are, indeed, so mechanical, how did they develop the ability to determine when, and when not, to aid a fellow robot. The way in which this movie was filmed, and how the robots were depicted, greatly increased the relate-ability of the audience to the robots as they were more and more human-like as the movie progressed. Would purely "helpful" robots be such a bad thing?

Turkle Readings

     I find it interesting that many of the people Turkle gave robots to were almost ashamed of the way that they behaved. They denied vehemently that the robot was a person or had the qualities of a person. However, once they got past a certain moment, they opened up about their experiences with the robot. Due to the reactions of the robot, they felt as if the robot was actually paying attention to them and responding to what they said. It made them feel as if someone was earnestly interested in what they had to say. Sometimes, they were even more interested in taking to a robot than a person due to the subject of the "conversation." If it had to do with a very private aspect of their lives, they would rather not talk to a person because it could be very embarrassing. However, one thing that I found disturbing was the fact that someone could get lost in a relationship with a robot. When Turkle mentioned the story about the woman and her great-granddaughter,  I thought that robots could definitely be harmful. As soon as the robotic baby started to do anything, the two year old child was neglected. However, when she was asked about it, the woman denied that the robot was anything more than a doll. I find it disturbing that so much more attention can be given to robots while we neglect those around us.

I think A.I. makes a lot of good connections to what we are talking about. The most strinking connection for me was with the lover robots like Joe. One of Turkle's main points is that we are beginning to replace human relationships with robotic ones. While we currently do this with things like My Real Baby and AIBO Turkle warns that we might end up with people have relationships with robots like Joe. David is also like an advanced version of a My Real Baby. I think the movie does a god job of making us think about what Turkle is trying to make us think about: Should we allow ourselves to replace humans and human relationships with robots?

Required Reading

Please see Piero Scaruffi's blog for an excellent overview of the question of technological progress and the "singularity." Here is a brief excerpt on our current favorite topic, robots:

Don't be Fooled by the Robot

Human-looking automata that mimic human behavior have been built since ancient times and some of them could perform sophisticated movements. They were mechanical. Today we have electromechanical sophisticated toys that can do all sort of things. There is a (miniature) toy that looks like a robot riding a bicycle. Technically speaking, the whole toy is the "robot". Philosophically speaking, there is no robot riding a bicycle. The robot-like thing on top of the bicycle is redundant, it's there just for show: you can remove the android and put the same gears in the bicycle seat or in the bicycle pedals and the bike with no passenger would go around and balance itself the exact same way: the thing that rides the bicycle is not the thing on top of the bike (designed to trick the human eye) but the gear that can be anywhere on the bike. The toy is one piece: instead of one robot, you could put ten robots on top of each other, or no robot at all. Any modern toy store has toys that behave like robots doing some amazing thing (amazing for a robot, ordinary for a human). It doesn't require intelligence: just Japanese or Swiss engineering. This bike-riding toy never falls, even when it's not moving. It is designed with a gyroscope to always stand vertical. Or, better, it falls when it runs out of battery. That's very old technology. If that's what we mean by "intelligent machines", then they have been around for a long time. We even have a machine that flies in the sky using that technology (so much for "exponential progress"). Does that toy represent a quantum leap in intelligence? Of course, no. It is remotely controlled by a remote control just like a tv set. It never "learned" how to bike. It was designed to bike. And that's the only thing it can do. Ever. If you want it to do something else, you'll have to add more gears of a different kind, specialized in doing that other thing. Maybe it's possible (using existing technology or even very old mechanical technology) to build radio-controlled automata that have one million different gears to do every single thing that humans do and that all fit in a size comparable to my body's size. Congratulations to the engineer. It would still not be me. And the only thing that is truly amazing in these toys is the miniaturization, not the "intelligence". A human is NOT a toy (yet).

First part of Alone Together

Now that we have completed the first part of Turkle's "Alone Together", I have a vastly different understanding of our growth in technology. I was aware that we, as a society, had made monumental gains in technology, but was not even close to grasping all the things machines were capable of and what us people are trying to get them to be able to do. Personally, it scares me to think that humans are making machines to do things that humans themselves are capable of doing. What does that say about us as a species? How far are we going to allow techonology to grow? What will happen to the jobs that humans once did that will be replaced by machines? This should scare us that the machines being made are so capable of grasping out attention and affection that even the people constructing the machines fall for their "true" existence.

A.I. Film

I enjoyed the film A.I. For the most part. I liked the beginning through when the Mom dropped off the boy in the woods. At this point, it got weird. The beginning was weird as well, but in a different way. The second part of the story was just strange. I think that the whole idea is very far off from where we are today. Robots are one thing, the normal vision you get when you think about them, but to think of a robot looking and acting just like a human child, I think, is far away in the possible future. I can see how, if this happens, it could pull at emotions. Watching the movie, the viewer is put in the mindset that the child is a robot, but yet when the mom leaves him it pulls at the viewer's emotions. If the whole movie was more like the first section of it, then I might be tempted to watch it again. The second part was just weird, those are the only words I have for it. When they had the destroying of robots, and the guy robot going to the hotel room where the dead lady's was, and the lost city toward the end; I could have done without these parts. At the same time, I suppose they all nada meaning in order to end up in the new kind world where it was only robots.

AI Thoughts

After watching this movie, I still feel as if robots could never get to the level of human beings emotionally.  All David wanted to do was be a human but it is impossible to recreate the human species.  If robots did somehow gain emotions one day the world be very different.  Which leads me to the discussion we had in class.  Technology is an amazing asset but we need to know our limits.  We can't create robots because we are too lazy or selfish to take care of others.  We can't simply pass that role on to a seemingly emotionless object.  I think it is incredibly selfish to even think, "Oh, a robot will take care of them!"  Don't get me wrong, I think robots have many positives, but letting them be sole providers is definitely not one.  One of the main experiences of life is learning how to care for others and if we eliminate that from society, I think the repercussions will be great. 

A.I. Reflection

When we watched "A.I." in class, I thought about several things.


First off, I loved the dismal, dystopian feel of the movie, and I thought it was extremely thought provoking. It really contrasted the optimism of the human spirit and its use of technology with true human nature and how it tries to control everything. Not only that, but the juxtaposition of the main character who is a child and his teddy bear while trying to understand the dark, brutal, and authoritarian world around them makes for a very, very interesting take on the future presented within the movie.

This raises the question though: why WOULD people want to have robotic children instead of normal children? Isn't the whole point of a child to raise it and watch it grow into an adult..? Isn't that what the main rewards of it are??

I CAN understand, however, the appeal of robotic toys, robot servants, or sex robots... they replace many aspects of our society that humans would rather have quick, and easy rewards for. I feel like if singularity is going to be achieved, it is going to be through robots that provide services, such as being a servant, being a toy/playmate, or being a romantic/sexual companion.

Overall very interesting movie. I quite enjoyed it.

A.I. Reflections

     I enjoyed this movie. Throughout the movie, I was not thinking, "This can't happen; robots, can't be so real" etc. I suspended my disbelief when watching the movie to try to get the whole effect of what I was watching. I grew up with stories about robots, therefore I always enjoy seeing them. A part of me would love to have robots around, while another part of me would hate it. If robots could so totally mimic humans, how would we be able to easily tell the difference between the two? I would not like being unable to distinguish between humans and robots. However, the distinction between "mecha" and "orga" would be almost indistinguishable. If robots can truly have emotions, can we really not consider them to be people? In the film, the question of responsibility to such machines is raised. I believe that it would be necessary to treat them as we would any other. Otherwise, we would be doing the same as neglecting another human being. Throughout the film, I did not think of David as a robot. Rather, I saw him as a little boy that was unfamiliar with the world. This may because I grew up with cartoons featuring robots, but there is a point where I think that robots and humans are both considered people. Being surrounded by robot characters that were just as real as the humans may have given me skewed views on this matter, but I can't help but think that we would be destroying a part of ourselves if we did not treat robots with feelings as we did other humans.

A.I. Reflection

I think A.I. was an interesting movie that raised several good questions about what the future of technology could look like if we created robots that acted and looked just like human beings. If this were possible, it would indeed create a divide between people who mesh with the mecca and those who do not, fighting for the image of organic humanity. I think this movie is similar to the “My Robot Baby” section of “Robot Stories”. Both mothers have extreme difficulty bonding with the child, and are somewhat frightened by the notion of a robot child. Both mothers end up abandoning the child in order to relieve themselves of a burden. It is interesting that a piece of technology that is supposed to supplement human life ultimately becomes more like a burden.

A.I. not looks at the value of relationships between mother and child, as well as between lovers. In the movie, there are robots created only to be lovers, which takes prostitution to another level. The introduction of this sort of robot detracts from the value of true human relationships, and reduces them down to the sexual output of the robotic partner. I feel like this would change the way humans would interact with each other, just as texting and Facebook have taken the value away from socializing face to face or on the phone.

I think that even if it were possible to create robots that look and act just like humans, it would not create a positive change for society. It would challenge relationships and divide people instead of bringing them closer together or creating deeper relationships.

In this Ethics and Technology class I believe that it was a great decision to show this movie during class. I strongly feel that it shows a true value of how a robot would be if this movie were to be played out in life as we know it. The whole encounter with a real boy and a robot boy was just one of many examples of why robots such as David have different emotions than humans and could never be treated equally. The real brother begins to make fun of David and say things that would portray that David wasn't real. He was not only treated "Fake" by his brother, but he was treated different by his parents too. I liked the movie, but I felt as if this will never happen in my lifetime. The robot in the movie can actually love and feel every emotion just like a human and I just don't believe that that is a possibility in the near future. Also, if you go back to the movie and think about David you realize that even though he has emotions and feelings, he doesn't have the same thinking process that humans did, becauase he only knew what he learned from memories. I don't think that it will ever be possible to replace a person with a robot, but I did enjoy this science fiction movie.

A.I Reflection

I really liked the movie but i feel that anything along that line is a far way off. I don't think that in my life time or even my children's life time will we see a robot that can feel and love. I think that is a far way off when the world has so many other issues and projects that have to develop before the world of robotics takes over. i think that A.I is a great movie and credit to cinema but it is all just a story with very creative futuristic fiction.

A.I. Reflection

One thing about A.I. that stuck with me was the way the children treated David. Turkle discusses in her book how children act more violently towards toys and robots. Children are already confused by robots and the line between real and simulations of real. I think that if robots like David were real it would confuse children even more. If children were willing to be cruel to a simulation would that cruelty transfer to a real person? I know the mother in A.I was feeling some confusion about how to view David and feel about him. If adults are confused children are even more vulnerable.

Latest in medical technology!!!

So this is an ethics of technology class and even though I'm not a huge fan of alot of the technological advances that have been made available today, I am however a huge fan and advocate of alot of the new advances made in medical technology. Yet again I was reading this really interesting and inspirational article about a new microchip that they can implant in the brain that will allow people who have lost use in one or both arms control robotic arms just by using their brains!

Jan scheuermann has no use of her arms and is unable to feed herself, but she has gotten better at picking up a chocolate bar with her robotic arm :) She's become the first to demonstrate that people with a long history of quadriplegia can successfully manipulate a mind-controlled robot arm with seven axes of movement. Earlier experiments had shown that robot arms work with brain implants. This was a huge accomplishment for Jan because this was the first time in 9 years that she had been able to pick up any objects. The research developement that links Jan to her prosthetic arm is known as Brain Computer Interface or BCI for short. It took Jan less than a year to be able to pick up a chocolate bar with the arm, after which she declared, "One small nibble for a woman, one giant bite for BCI."




This is a spectacular leap toward greater function and independence for people who are unable to move their own arms," senior investigator Andrew Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh's Pitt School of Medicine said in a release. "This technology, which interprets brain signals to guide a robot arm, has enormous potential that we are continuing to explore. Our study has shown us that it is technically feasible to restore ability; the participants have told us that BCI gives them hope for the future."
Jan's brain was implanted with two quarter-inch square electrode grids. They have 96 tiny contact points for brain areas that control right arm and hand movement.
The electrodes pick up neurons firing to activate arm movement. Within a week of surgery, she could reach in and out, left and right, and up and down with her robot arm.




"This is the ride of my life," Jan was quoted as saying. "This is the roller coaster. This is skydiving. It's just fabulous, and I'm enjoying every second of it."



If you would like to see a video of jan using her robotic arm to get a better grasp on what this new technology really offers to disabled peoples like her, i've pasted the url below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVhJuwfNTC4&feature=player_embedded

A.I. Reflection

Something that has really stuck with me from the film is when David slept for 2,000 years.  David slept through the water's freezing and thawing processes, and he awoke to wanting the same thing as if the 2,000 years between was just a simple nap.  Once these objects are created, for example a robot that is equally smart to a human, or possibly smarter; these objects are mechanical, and can possibly create danger unknowingly, moreover when he cut his mother's hair and felt no remorse.  Robots have their own place in this world, and their space is expanding while the human race is shrinking.

This movie was very interesting, but it seemed to portray a negative image to me. The robot thought it was a human, and robots should know they are robots in my opinion. I like to believe that I will be able to tell the difference between humans and robots when robots enter human society, and this movie showed me that robots will be able to blend in with humans in the future.

A.I. Reflection

I had never seen this movie before so I found this to be an interesting movie. One thing that jumped out at me is that David, the robot, didn't have the emotion or thinking process that people did. He was processed and so caught up on being a real person that he could not realize the effect he was having on the people around him. When Martin told David to cut their mom's hair so that she would love him more and David did it because he could not understand what he was doing was wrong, almost like an immature kid. There was no sense of reasoning to his methods.  However, I do admire David's passion for becoming real and becoming loved by his family. I thought this was interesting in that he was searching for compassion which a lot of real people do in society today.

After seeing this movie and seeing how real David looked and how he interacted, I would not be surprised if our culture moves toward these actions in the future. I personally would not be in favor of such, but I can definitely see our society making these moves.

AI reflection

I had never seen this before so this was definitely an interesting movie. The are many aspects that i can relate to Turkle's book and this jumped out at me right away. The first one is that the robot (David) didn't have the emotion or thinking process that people did. In one instance he tried to kill there real son (Martin) because he was jealous of him that their mom paid more attention to Martin than David. Also, Martin told David to cut their moms hair for some made up reason and David did it without question. Yes, they are kids and kids actually do cut hair, the thinking process was totally different.

I don't think replacing a person with a robot is possible. You become a parent and your job as the parent is too develop a child into an adult guiding them and teaching them as they grow older. A robot can never grow up and its maturity level will probably never change.

A.I. Reflection

Personally, I find it very hard to imagine humans having a sexual, robot companion. Yes, I'm sure we will be able to create robots that can mirror human appearance, reactions, expressions, etc; so I assume it will be possible to become physically and mentally attracted to a robot. But, I feel as if we would not be fully committed to one. I don't believe that all of us could overlook the fact that the robot is not a human. It is a machine. It is hard to imagine having sex with a machine. It would not be the same as having a real human "with" you. So, as of right now, that part of A.I. is too far fetched for me.
The child robot is actually very conceivable, though. It would, clearly, not be the same; but it is possible for a human to become attached to a robot. It would be hard for our minds to separate (the A.I.) robots from humans in a physical or mental way because they are so human-like. Again, I believe that we would not be as attached to a robot as we would be to a human. A world of humans intertwined with robots is just hard to imagine at this point. Maybe my mind will change if robots ever become common, household items.

Alive or not...

My little sister owns a Furbie, so I fully understand how small children could look at these objects and think "alive or real". They don't see these toys or objects as non living, they learn to believe that these objects have feeling and need to be taken care of or they may "die". Children quicky become attached to their toys and just from seeing my little sister react to her Furbie she says things like I need to feed her or else she will get evil and mad at me. If you read the sentence I just typed you will quickly see all the problems with what children are saying... They address gender, feelings, personality and or characteristics of these toys. Technology is beginning to develop objects and Turkle is right when she says that these toys are becoming more when children can actually feel an emotional attachment.

A.I. reflection

A.I. is an interesting movie to say the least. One of my biggest questions is will humanity really take that course of life. in the future will we truly use robots for employees, sex partners, and even children. I definitely see it possible for us to create such beings in the not to far long future. Think it was just 30 years ago that the cell phone was created. Now compare that "state of the art technology" to the technology we have today. We already have a glimpse of everyday robot help today. Think of Siri; this robot technology can answer millions of questions in an instance. So 30 years from now where will technology be? Will the sudden incline in technological advancements plateau or will we reach even high heights. To be honest we haven't really been very good at predicting what the future will be like for example flying cars in the new millennium. 50 years ago we had no clue where we will be today. So how can we possibly guess whether or not we will reach the level of technology demonstrated in A.I in fifty years. Maybe we will get there sooner than fifty years maybe later. It truly is impossible to tell. I believe that we will reach that level of technology. i question the purposes however.
I think that the use of robots as sexual companions is a very realistic thing. Think about the limits of human sexuality in the fifties and compare them to what sexual behavior is acceptable today. Who's to know whether or not that type of behavior will be acceptable in the not to distant future. I do however reject the idea of having a robot child. Love is an emotion that is strictly shared between not only two people, but their souls as well. Now unless someone creates a robot with a soul, I find it highly unlikely for someone to truly love a machine like one would another human being. But if that feat were somehow accomplished, that person would be comparable to God. Since God is thew only one who can create a soul so it is a complete impossibility.