I had written:
> The movie is certainly not meant as a case study, a cautionary tale
> about how not to design your robot. It is probably not even meant to
> get people to be nicer to their robots in the future.
But I see in an article at
http://filmforce.ign.com/ai/articles/200190p1.html:
Here it would be observant to restate a point made by Sara Maitland,
another writer with whom Kubrick collaborated on A.I. In her article
"My Year with Stanley," published in The Independent in March 1999
(referenced by Argent), she states Kubrick "believed computers will
become truly intelligent, including emotionally and are potentially
more environmentally adaptable form of human beings: they are our
future. The film is intended to make us love them."
So here we have Kubrick himself apparently saying that his intention in
making AI was to get people to love their robots, exactly contradicting
what I wrote above. Who knew?
BTW the article also has an interesting story about the genesis of
Gigolo Joe. Kubrick had observed that David in his journey needed a
guide, someone older and wiser, "a G.I. Joe character". Ian Watson went
off and worked on this and G.I. Joe became Gigolo Joe.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:41 MDT