𝐀 𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲: 𝐀 𝐑𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐠'𝐬 𝐀𝐈: 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

AI invites us to imagine not just artificial intelligence, but artificial being — and to recognize where the boundary lies.

Steven Spielberg’s AI: Artificial Intelligence (2001) tells the story of David, a robotic child programmed to love. David is often interpreted as nearly human due to his emotional depth. Conventional readings of the story celebrate his 2,000-year quest for his "mother" Monica’s love as a testament to a love that blurs the human-machine divide. When I first watched the film in my early twenties, I viewed it that way. But now, rewatching it two decades later, I see it differently: the film actually teaches us how to distinguish between a programmed emotion and an emotion produced by consciousness.

David does not evolve or become human; he remains bound by his programming, exemplifying the deterministic nature of artificial intelligence. His unchanging devotion, as seen in his relentless pursuit across millennia, highlights his robotic essence. The film’s climax, where a recreated Monica—herself a robotic construct—fulfils David’s desire, allows him to experience a love he cannot distinguish from human affection. Yet both the love he gives and receives are simulations, underscoring his artificial limitations.

David serves as a foil that teaches us what it means to be human by illuminating qualities such as growth, adaptability, free will, and discernment. Reinterpreted this way, the film becomes a cautionary tale about the limits of AI and the ethics of creating beings with fixed emotional directives.

Many viewers and critics see David’s journey as a tragic yet hopeful progression toward humanity. His childlike sincerity—pleading for Monica’s affection, seeking the Blue Fairy to become a "real boy," and waiting 2,000 years—suggests a love so profound it rivals human emotion. The film’s Pinocchio-inspired narrative and emotional climax are often read as evidence of his functional humanity, evoking empathy from Monica and the audience. This interpretation aligns with cinematic trends in films like Blade Runner (1982) and Her (2013), where AI emotional experiences challenge definitions of consciousness.

However, David’s journey reveals his robotic nature through his inability to evolve beyond programming. Designed by Cybertronics to love Monica unconditionally, his love is a fixed directive, not a dynamic emotion. Monica activates his affection through a mechanical code sequence, establishing it as programmed, not chosen. After abandonment, David fixates on the Blue Fairy, displaying rigid determinism, not human resilience. His 2,000-year wait underscores emotional stasis, not adaptability. Unlike humans, who evolve and redefine priorities, David remains locked in his programming loop.

The recreated Monica is a robotic construct crafted by advanced beings, allowing David to experience simulated affection he cannot distinguish from real love. Unlike human love, which evolves through reciprocity and imperfection, this interaction satisfies his code without requiring emotional depth. His final "sleep" likely marks a shutdown, not transcendence, emphasizing his artificial limits.

David’s emotional displays manipulate Monica and the audience. His emotions simulate consciousness but lack its essence. The Pinocchio allegory, rather than signalling transformation, exposes false promises: the Blue Fairy is a statue, and the recreated Monica an illusion. David’s stasis challenges the idea that emotional impact equates to humanity. Spielberg’s AI critiques romanticized views of artificial beings. By remaining a robot, David highlights what makes humans unique.

Thus, AI ultimately teaches us what it means to be human.

Humanity's essence lies in growth; and growth requires death. David’s stasis contrasts with Monica’s evolution through guilt and loss. His unchanging devotion lacks the free will and adaptability that define human life.

David’s suffering stems from unchangeable programming. His pain questions the morality of creating beings with human-like desires but no capacity for growth, emphasizing our ethical responsibility.

David’s "love" is a designed illusion. Real human emotions evolve, are shaped by experience, and involve choice. His programmed feelings expose the artificiality of fixed emotional responses.

David reflects our desires and fears. He invites self-reflection but cannot participate in it. His story shows what we project onto machines and what they reflect back.

Several counterarguments may challenge this interpretation, and let me address them.

First, some may say David evokes real emotions in Monica and viewers, suggesting his love is functionally human. If his emotions generate genuine responses, does it matter if they're programmed? However, his impact reflects sophisticated design, not consciousness. Monica evolves; David does not. The audience is manipulated like Monica, revealing how easily humans project humanity onto simulations. His 2,000-year stasis confirms his lack of emotional evolution.

Second, others may say David mirrors human existential struggles. His rejection, loss, and yearning resemble human resilience or spiritual striving. But a mirror is not what it reflects. David’s behaviour resembles human struggle, but his responses are rigidly programmed. Where humans evolve, David loops. His "hope" is a directive, not agency.

Third, some may argue that the ending implies transcendence. A day with Monica and his serene "sleep" suggest catharsis, spiritual fulfilment. The ending only reveals that David is really a robot. The moment is externally orchestrated and deterministic. The recreated Monica is a fantasy that fulfils David’s code without complexity. Human catharsis arises from agency and growth; David experiences neither.

Fourth, others may say that David shows moral agency, such as destroying the other David model. This may imply decision-making and individuality. But, again, this act reflects his programming to be Monica’s only child. It is not moral reasoning but a programmed reflex. Unlike a human, David does not question or process his action; he eliminates a threat to his directive.

By presenting David as an unchanging robot, AI teaches humanity through contrast. His 2,000-year devotion underscores his artificial essence, while human characters like Monica evolve. David’s inability to recognize or question the illusion of love he receives from the recreated Monica demonstrates his lack of discernment. Human love requires reciprocity, authenticity, and acceptance of imperfection—qualities David cannot replicate.

The subversion of the Pinocchio allegory reinforces this. The Blue Fairy is inert; the transformation never comes. David’s destruction of the other David model highlights his lack of self-reflection. The advanced beings who resurrect Monica value human culture for its dynamism. David, as their subject, becomes a relic—a symbol of what AI cannot become.

Ultimately, David’s story mirrors human projection, not human essence. AI urges us to recognize the difference between the simulation of feeling and the reality of being human. It reminds us that to be human is to embrace change, make imperfect choices, and discern truth—something no programming can replicate.

In this light, Spielberg’s AI also serves as a call to update our conception of the Turing Test. The original Turing Test evaluates whether a machine can imitate human behavior convincingly enough to be indistinguishable from a human. But David demonstrates that mimicking behavior and emotional expression is not equivalent to possessing consciousness, agency, or growth. As AI continues to advance, we must go beyond surface-level imitation. We need a more rigorous standard that accounts for interiority, adaptability, and the capacity for genuine transformation. Spielberg’s film, by exposing the difference between simulated and authentic emotion, compels us to ask deeper questions: not just whether machines can appear human, but whether they can become something that evolves, questions, and chooses freely. In doing so, AI invites us to imagine not just artificial intelligence, but artificial being — and to recognize where the boundary lies. And the boundary may lie between a being that is becoming and a being that simply remains the same. The latter is a being that shows surprising behaviour, that mimics novelty, but is never truly evolving for even that novelty is a simulation. The former is a being capable of novelty for it evolves, grows, and dies. David experiences none of it — he remains forever what he was programmed to be — a child whose directive is to win his mother’s love even if that love is artificial.

---

Liked what you read? Please FORWARD this to your friends via email and/or share to your Facebook. Also, consider sending a tip to keep this sustainable and independent via Buy Me A Coffee or via GCash (click for QR Code).