Mutia, Aila G.

BS Criminology 2A

ACTIVITY 6.1. FILM AND PAPER ANALYSES. I, ROBOT AND THE QUESTION
CONCERNING TECHNOLOGY
Directions. In a paragraph form, answer the following guide questions. Make sure to
answer the questions within the parameters of the film- ‘I, Robot' and the essay- 'The
Question Concerning Technology'. Cite literatures that support/contradict the notion of
the film.

I, Robot
Movie Title

Director: Alex Proyas with 20th Century Fox

Cast: Detective Spooner, Sonny (il Robot), the doctor Susanne Calvin, V.I.K.I. (Artificial
Intelligence), Dr. Lanning
Run Time: 1 hr 55 min
Summary: I, Robot begins with a setting in the time of 2035 where individuals and
robots are in a similar network, living and collaborating like normal with the last as aides
and laborers of, and modified to live and secure their human proprietors. These robots
are made to observe the 3 laws of advanced mechanics: (1) A robot may not harm a
person or, through inaction, permit an individual to come to hurt; (2) A robot must obey
orders given it by people aside from where such requests would strife with the main law;
(3) A robot must ensure its own reality as long as such security doesn't struggle with the
first or second law. A 'robotophobic' homicide investigator Del Spooner is shipped off
research on the passing of U.S. Robotics co-founder and researcher Dr. Alfred Lanning
who is accepted to end it all by jumping from the 10th floor of the USR building. Having
built up a doubt to robots because of an episode before, Spooner speculates the
occurrence as murder. With the reluctant assistance of robopsychologist Susan Calvin,
the investigator embarks to discover the responses to the riddles, yet faces attemps to
take his life by controlled robots. In spite of the fact that no one appears to heed his gut
feelings, Spooner thinks the homicide is brought about by USR's new robots controlled
by supercomputer VIKI (Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence), besides by an
autonomous, trial, more human-like NS-5 unit named Sonny.
The NS-5s are heavily influenced by VIKI, and start to force curfews and
prisoning people in their homes. Spooner and Calvin figured out how to sneak into the
administrative center with the help of Sonny who has not been infused by nanites. VIKI's
man-made reasoning starts to advance thus her understanding with the 3 laws, that is
the reason she understands that so as to secure mankind overall, a few people must be
relinquished and a few opportunities must be given up, since regardless of the
endeavors of robots, people utilize methods for implosion. Lanning having gained from
this arranging requested Sonny to slaughter him, and realizing Spooner is a sort of
individual who abhors robots, utilized pieces of information to take care of the issue.
Sonny demonstrates his unwaveringness to humanity by helping Spooner and Calvin
rout the frantic robots and infuse the nanites, expected to be utilized by Calvin to Sonny,
into the PC center, pulverizing it, and restoring all the NS-5's into their fundamental
programming.

The line among maker and creation has gotten blurrier recently, because of
modern robots that are sufficiently keen to concoct innovations of their own. These are
not shortsighted contraptions any semblance of which you may come up with while
fantasizing at a red light or doodling on a napkin. We are talking about creative drug
plans and hereditary fixes that may ordinarily take many researchers numerous years
and a large number of dollars to create.
The robot itself has become the researcher's scientist. This new type of robot has taken
data innovation to an unheard of level. What used to be known as the study of
robotization has been toppled to turn into the computerization of science. Truly, the
robot itself has become the researcher.
Spooner is the protagonist of the film. Quite a while back he had got into a car accident
yet was spared by a robot. There was additionally a 11-year-old young lady who was at
risk for death also, however the robot determined that Spooner had a greater number of
opportunities to get by than that young lady, thus spared the other yet not her. That is
the motivation behind why Spooner treats robots with much scorn: he finds in them just
peril. Engaged with examination of Dr. Alfred Lanning's passing Spooner faces,
numerous perilous circumstances, as assaulted by robots in the passage, and
numerous other. With his rationale and doubt to robots Spooner figures out how to
comprehend the explanation of Lanning's passing and forestalled the insubordination of
robots.
Susan is a principle robotsychologist at the U.S. Advanced mechanics organization, she
helped Dr. Lanning in making the new arrangement of robots – NS5, which were to
supplant the past ones. Susan could hardly imagine how a robot may be capable of
killing a man, yet when she dissected Sonny's mind she discovered that this robot was a
unique one, on the grounds that some way or another he could pick obey or not to
comply with the principle three laws of advanced mechanics. Susan helped investigator
Spooner to stop the defiance of the robots.
Lanning is a designer and maker of the robots in U.S. Robotics. He discovered that VIKI
was turning into a threat and arranged his death to include Spooner. He was certain that
Spooner could discover the danger of robots defiance and forestall it.
Lawrence Robertson is the CEO of USR and was against Detective Spooner's
examination inside the organization base camp. Normally, he never became tied up with
Spooner's bias of his robots to pulverize any chance of blunder with his organization's
items.
Divine Providence is regularly credited with giving the cure before the hardship. The
cutting edge difficulty is intricacy. For instance, the issues that researchers face today in
biotechnology include a huge number of factors, each having different states and
connections with different factors and natural components, bringing about great many
potential results that all must be assessed before you even get to the phase of making
an investigation to actually test anything.
The cure is preparing power. The present robots can recognize issues, audit
existing choices, plan new other options, test them all hypothetically, and decide the
best and hearty arrangements. Astonishing.
However, the new fixes create their own arrangement of difficulties, one of which is
lawful. Who has the option to patent these cybersolutions, the designer of the robot, or
the robot itself? In all honesty, as per the diary, SCIENCE, it relies upon where you (or
the robot) lives. In the USA, just creations by people can be ensured by licenses. In
Europe, it appears, the laws overseeing licensed innovation stretch out to any legitimate
substance, conceivably even robots.
What would we be able to gain from this? First how about we take a gander at things
from the robot's point of view. Left to its own gadgets, such a smartbot could take a
gander at himself gladly and proclaim, "I'm astounding! I've contemplated everything out
there and nothing can dissect issues and make arrangements like I can."
Your extension is restricted, your insight counterfeit, your character vacuous.
Well hold tight there, Mr. Bot. You are yourself a simple creation, the result of
investigation and plan by an inventive insight more prominent than yours. Valid, you
also can develop, and splendidly at that, however your extension is restricted, your
knowledge fake, your character vacuous, your hardware shortsighted. What's more, the
very undertakings you have been designed from the start to perform are simply the very
assignments you dishonestly pride in. In the event that anybody merits the credit, it is
the inventive virtuoso that made you the imaginative virtuoso you are.
What's more, the equivalent might be said of us.
Man, the innovator, is the development of a creative psyche like his, however limitlessly
more noteworthy still. Valid, his expository and inventive ability is unique in all the world,
however man would do well to notice the Torah's advice in Deuteronomy 7:12-11:25:
"And you think, 'My strength and the power of my hand acquired this wealth for me.'"
Is it any more crazy for our techno-infants to assume restrictive praise for their
innovations than it is for us to flaunt our own? Trustworthiness requests that we also
look upstream to recognize our source and perceive who possesses what.
There's another exercise to gain from robots. As modern as they get, they just seem, by
all accounts, to be cognizant, conscious and free-willed. To compare robots with people
isn't just a bogus vaunting of their characteristics, it is a relinquishment and gross
disregard of our own. What's more, on the off chance that that occurs, G-d restrict, at
that point to be sure they would merit their patent rights – in any event more than we
would.
Heidegger's words advise us that innovation isn't value neutral. On the off
chance that our regularly extending experiences with innovation are confused by the
idea that it is a worth unbiased intends to closes that have regulating esteem – be they
positive or negative – we will neglect to perceive and fundamentally consider the
unpredictable way in which the substance of our correspondence decides and is
controlled by the mode in which it is verbalized.
As Marshall McLuhan has broadly said, "the medium is the message," it is additionally
that the medium and the message are constantly bound to each other in a perplexing
and dynamic relation. The advancements we use condition the things we state, yet
things we state condition the innovations we deliver.
What's more, it is this inquiry with which I might want to end, to be specific, how, for
better and more regrettable, is human observation itself changing as we participate in
the movement that is web-based innovation?