A.I Artificial Intelligence: Aliens or bots?

So I watched "A.I" last night, I've seen it before and while it doesn't have the same impact on me as first watch, I still think it's a nice film, rather unusual and different, anyway I remember a conversation I had with a friend some years ago, I said about the aliens at the end and he corrected me, they are evolved robots not aliens, I had already proved him wrong on one other occasion, the film "American Psycho" he was adamant that every Patrick Bateman murder was a product of his imagination, it wasn't, he actually killed those people.

So I'd rather just hear peoples opinions on this without looking and I'm not entirely sure. There's a lot of mention in the film that "in the end we (A.I) will be all that is left" which makes sense to these beings are A.I but then at the end they refer to David as "this machine" why would they say that if they are machines also?

Also do you like this movie?

What say ye?

I've always assumed they were robots, and never really understood the arguments otherwise. It always felt like it was simply based in the fact that they look like some cliche image of aliens, and don't look like modern robots, though we have no reason to expect they would.

How did you prove this?

The same way people sometimes say "this person" or "that person" even though they are also people. Also, to expound a bit, it's entirely possible the word "machine" has older connotations than whatever they call themselves at that point.

It's pretty good. If it had ended at the bottom of the ocean, that would've been far more powerful, though.

Huh, I had most of this typed up already before I checked the Wikipedia page to confirm some relevant plot details and the plot summary actually confirms that they are robots, not aliens. Regardless...

It would seem like they are such an advanced type of A.I. that they are effectively as different from older A.I.s like David as David is from actual humans (if not more so). Also, it's not like them referring to him as "this machine" necessarily implies that they themselves are not machines either - saying "this machine" sounds like it is supposed to distinguish David from advanced machines such as themselves and the way they use "machine" is similar to how a human might use the word "creature" when they see a chimpanzee.

A good way to look at it is not merely as a confirmation of a fact but also to think about how each of the possible answers would fit in with what the rest of the film has been trying to accomplish in terms of both narrative and thematic substance. Aliens makes a certain amount of sense in the abstract, but they still exist at something of a disconnect from the rest of the story and their sudden inclusion will come off as a little too weird and disjointed. If they are advanced robots, then it brings the story full-circle in a way - just as David was dependent on humans to feel complete, so too do the advanced robots depend on David to complete their search for answers about the old world.

This is where certain story outcomes being "confirmed" one way or another can become a problem if said ending ends up contradicting the rest of the film (which is definitely the case with the final scene in Blade Runner's final cut, which effectively confirms a character detail that arguably could have improved the film if it had been removed or left more ambiguous). The same goes for American Psycho - does "proving" that Patrick is truly guilty necessarily work for the film? He's definitely delusional by the time the ATM tells him to feed it a cat, so there is room for doubt as to how many of his twisted escapades actually happened. It's also a question of which ending makes more sense thematically - him getting away with murder simply because nobody cares for whatever reason or him imagining crimes as a way to break free of his lavish but monotonous lifestyle as a corporate drone? They are both viable options, which is why I don't necessarily think that either one has to be 100% proved for the film as a whole to work. Then again, it's been a while since I've seen it so I may need to revisit it to argue further.

Also, I like A.I.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

It's called A.I., not E.T., and it's very good.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I didn't like A.I.

I didn't know there was an argument but yeah they do have the Alien shape.. which makes one ask interesting questions as to why or is it just coincidence

I read a lot about it and it was confirmed by Bret Easton Ellis in something I read I am sure (this was quite a while ago) and I don't think a movie would change such a fundamental plot decision in another way completely, also I just believe it, I loved the movie and I think it is far to simple to say he just imagined everything and more intriguing it's more about a kind of vacancy in his lifestyle and people who share his lifestyle that allows him to do what he does, there may be a bit of arrogance on my part but I like this better than he made it all up

makes perfect sense

I think that's why I wanted to believe it, it felt far out for a film that size at the time and it completely took me left field. Also to me both idea can be equally plausible, Aliens or very advanced "machines" in 2000 years even if it something of a disconnect from the story, but wiki never lies.

Ehh...