I, Robot Review

Warning: This review is meant as a point of discussion for people who have already seen the movie, unless of course, you don't mind a few spoilers.

I, Robot is one of many American movies that simultaneously celebrates individualism and the strength of the little guy, yet bashes the rich and makes all corporations appear to be evil.

In this movie, US Robotics (currently the makers of fine modems and owned by 3COM) is one of the most powerful corporations in the world. They make robots, which have permeated nearly every aspect of daily American life. They run errands, lift loads, demolish buildings, build other robots, and rescue old ladies. They've also taken jobs from people, and made many members of the working class angry and suspicious.

Asimov's famous Three Laws of Robotics (that I knew by heart before I was 16) prevent robots from hurting humans, force them to obey commands, and give them some leeway for protecting themselves from damage. In that order.

But what happens when a robot somehow overcomes its hardwired rules? What happens when the third law, self-protection, becomes more important than the first? Or what happens when one mis-interprets the first law, and finds it necessary to harm a few humans to protect the larger majority? What if none of the laws talk about the importance of human freedom and individual rights?

Anti-corporate hatred oozes from this film. The CEO of USR is suspect #1 in a suicide/murder case. Rather than being shown as a beneficiary to humankind by providing labor-saving robots that contribute to the prosperity of all, this corporation is assumed to be evil -- only out for money -- even if it means stealing jobs and trampling all over the little guy. Even if it means murder.

Later, when the CEO and USR, Inc. is exonerated, nothing much is done to remove the general feeling that Corporations Are Bad.

Nevertheless, like so many American movies, our hardy philosophy of individualism shines through. The Evil Computer has decided that in the interests of honoring the First Law to the maximum, humans should be controlled. We're not competent to govern ourselves. We fight and steal and start wars. Potentially harmful humans should be killed or tucked away for safekeeping. Curfews will keep people from hurting each other. Robots will run the world, making sure we get every biological necessity. In this way, the highest number of humans will be kept from harm.

In the movie, the computer finishes her speech, and Sonny, the emotional robot, answers:

V.I.K.I. (evil computer): My logic is flawless.
Sonny (good robot): Yes, but it just seems too heartless.

So we answer a logical argument with emotion? Is that really the best human way? Especially when there is a perfectly good, logical argument to offer in return? One that has been used by some of the greatest of us mere humans, including Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Ayn Rand.

It has to do with one's priorities, and how one defines "harm". Patrick Henry defined harm as a lack of liberty, so much so that he would prefer to die, than live without it.

The answer to the V.I.K.I should have been:

Removing something of human value is a great harm, as many humans consider life without such values to be unbearable. To some, stealing their car removes an important value. To others, removing their chance to worship their God is removing a value. To still others, living in a prison cell is not a life at all. Some members of humanity even consider those things to be more valuable than life itself. If we are forced to live in misery, then this is the greatest harm. If you remove our freedoms to choose those values, when we are innocent of wrongdoing, then you have harmed us more than those risks you are saving us from. Let us choose whether or not to take those risks, as we are the greatest judges of what dangers we are willing to face.

Instead, logic is shown to be the bad guy, and heart is shown to win the day.

Suspending disbelief is a powerful tool towards enjoying any film. While I had to suspend disbelief in regards to philosophy, the rest of the movie was very enjoyable.