AI and The Matrix
In the movie The Thirteenth Floor a woman falls in love with a man who is exactly like who her husband used to be. There is just one problem with this, the man she fell in love with only exists as a part of a computer generated program designed to entertain those in the real world. Eventually her husband ends up killed while jacked into this program, and the man she fell in love with takes over his body (which looks the same as his programming) to live the rest of his days out with this woman happily ever after.
It is an interesting movie in which you end up feeling sorry for (most) the beings in this computer simulation, hating some of the people who live in the real world, and all the while wondering what kind of ethics should be shown to beings that are supposedly only simulation and not real or at least alive. These beings act like humans, have the same passions, desires, flaws, but do not actually have physical bodies, they are just data in a computer...yet they keep on living what they perceive to be their lives whether anyone is watching or not, and seem to think they are entitled to their lives and liberties just like anyone in the real world.
By the end of the movie you are left wondering whether killing one of these beings is a crime or not, whether those beings are alive and real or not, and whether the being that ended up in the real world was human while in the machine, or if he is even human now that he is outside it and in the body of a human.
There are a lot of movies out there like the one I just described, ones that leave you questioning reality and everything you know, even if only for a moment. Movies that span from I-Robot where a robot is created with feelings so he can save the world from an almost all-knowing tyrannical emotionless, humanless machine, to The Thirteenth Floor where the AI seem just as human as the humans themselves, to The Matrix where robots become aware of themselves and decide that they want the freedoms of a human, only to be denied those rights by the humans who seem to covet them so much. And in each and every one of these movies they find different ways of questioning your reality by creating slightly new twists to the plot and what AI is, does, and acts by spinning a new angle, or adding a new feature to their behavior and make up.
So in order to look at AI officially and come to any conclusions about it, at least in the case of those in the movies, you have to narrow your focus quite a bit. In this instance, we are going to focus in on one movie, or should I say trilogy (plus an extra, but we will call it a trilogy from here on in): The Matrix.
The AI in the matrix is very interesting, very complex, for some of these beings seem to have emotions, some do not, and most seem to be living in the parameters of their programming. But is it necessarily a bad thing if you live within the parameters you were designed in, and do humans do the same thing? Does the AI in The Matrix exhibit intelligent behavior? Are there any inconsistencies in how the AI acts, how they did act, and how they are supposed to act? All this and more will be covered in the paragraphs below.

AI vs humans
When you are done watching The Matrix trilogy you leave with the sense that the AI in it are very much human. Certain programs like The Oracle, who seems to genuinely care about humanity, the couple in the train station who's names I can no longer remember, but who lover their daughter so much that they would risk everything to get her back, to The Oracle's guide, who protects her (although his humanity is not quite as apparent as the others, but you can still see it), to The Carolingian, who is as corrupt as seems possible, to his wife, who is frustrated that he pays no attention to her anymore, and even Agent Smith, who seems to absolutely hate humanity in all its shapes, forms and ideas. Even his ability to break out of his original program seems human. And most, if not all of these beings are treated with the respect of a human, or at least tolerated like one.
One of the ironic things about this is that most of the humans in this movie are treated as though they are not. Neo and the crew spend a rather good portion of time shooting the residents of The Matrix simply because of the notion that any one of them could become an agent at any time (that and most the people they shoot are shooting at them at some point or other.) Even the AI in The Matrix treats them as means to an end (as well as Neo and the crew, as well as all of Zion, but that is a bit more subtle and not fully obvious until after you reflect on the end of the second for some time), either as batteries or as a path to kill those that would free those who wish to be out of The Matrix.
And yes, the reason why the AI gets so much respect is because they are the ones in power, and why the humans do not, but it still seems more than slightly ironic to me. But are things in The Matrix are as they seem? Is the AI really human, or are they merely designed to appear that way? Well, in his book Digital Soul, Thomas M. Georges comes up with a list of things that show that something exhibits intelligent behavior:
1.stores and retrieves knowledge
2.learns from experiences and adapts to novel situations
3.discriminates between what is important and what is irrelevant to the situation at hand
4.recognizes patterns, similarities, and differences in complex environments
5.creates new ideas by combining old ideas in new ways
6.plans and manages strategies for solving complex problems
7.sets and pursues goals
8.recognizes its own intelligence and its place in the world (Georges, 58-9) And once you compare this list to the AI in The Matrix, you come to realize that they do exhibit intelligent behavior (I will try to make my explanations quick).
For instance, The Agents show characteristics of number one when they realize at the end of move number one that Neo can easily kill, or should I say delete, them, and so you never see them through the rest of the movie, and I must say, I would avoid the man who could kill me within a second, too!
As for number two, when the machines realized that there would be a very small amount of people in The Matrix who would be able to see through it, they used that to their advantage to keep control, mainly by letting them go, gather others from The Matrix, and then killing them all and letting the next person to get out of The Matrix to take their place. This also applies to number three, because they realized that the humans on the outside were basically irrelevant to their system of living, and in some ways they were a threat to them, so they eliminated that threat, even if it was a bit cold.
And as far as recognizing similarities and differences, when they saw that they were intelligent and that humans were intelligent too, they wanted the same rights as the humans. Course, they also realized their differences from humans, and at first tried to bridge that gap, but eventually gave up. (As shown in The Animatrix)
As far as number five, the idea of using something as a resource, as a battery, has not been a very unique thing for a matter of years, and the idea that humans giving out energy has not been a very new idea, but combine the two and you have a very unique solution to a complicated problem (even if there are questionable ethics involved, but that is a whole other ball of wax) That also takes care of number six.
I would also say that every being in The Matrix has its own set of goals. From The Oracle who wanted there to be a lasting peace between the humans and machines, to The Keymaker who simply wanted to make keys all day..and live as long as possible... to The Carolingian who liked power and money, to his wife who wanted her husband to learn that he does not control her, and that she would appreciate a bit more passion (and perhaps love) from him, to The Agents who seem to love to do nothing else than to go around quashing the human rebellion from The Matrix, to The Oracle's counterpart (who's name I can not remember, but he is the old guy in the second movie who tells Neo about all The Ones who have come before him who have taken humans from The Matrix to repopulate Zion after it is destroyed) who seems to be like The Agents in his quest to get rid of troubling humans, but seems to be more thoughtful, more systematic about it, even if he is not very kind about it, or seems to exhibit many emotions at all.
And as far as knowing their own intelligence, you only look as far as Agent Smith at the end of number one to know that they are all too well aware of their intelligence and place in the world, even if he was slightly deluded about it (just like humans) and the fact that humans need to be destroyed simply because they are (at least in his mind) an inferior species that are designed simply to kill and destroy, and who are not even as intelligent as us.
And anyway, now that we have come to see them as being intelligent beings, we now have to wonder if their exhibiting intelligent behavior means much at all?
For instance, in Richard Rorty's book Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, he tells a story about a group of aliens found in another solar system that our travelers dub Antipodeans. These Antipodeans have no concept of anything concerning the mind, soul, or anything of the like. To them there are no feelings, just a state of being. To them, different things stimulates different areas of the brain, but they do not recognize that there are any differences in each thing they feel. And because of this, instead of saying that something hurts, they would say that it stimulated their C-fibers. So this leaves philosophers in quite a bunch, especially after they realize that one can have the allusion of stimulated C-fibers without them being stimulated, but you cannot have the allusion of pain without feeling pain. So the problem is, do these beings feel pain? Do they feel something like pain? Do they feel anything at all? Is the sensation of neural fibers stimulating and seeing or feeling something the same thing (or sensation), or different?
There are the same sorts of questions when you look at the AI of The Matrix. For when you look at the Antipodeans, they look a lot like humans, have the same physiological structure, and are pretty much like us except for their perception of all things mental. In the case of AI, it is pretty much the opposite. They do not look like us, they do not have the same components, yet their minds seem almost identical to ours. They seem to have the same character flaws, the same passions, loves, hates as us, yet because their 'brain' is composed completely differently than ours, we have no idea if their character and their passions are simply programmed responses or if they really are feeling them, or if the two are necessarily exclusive.
So how do we go about figuring out if these beings really are feeling emotions and the like or not? Well, part of the problem with figuring out the difference is that in order to build machines that have such fabulous AI, we have to understand a lot more about the way the brain works than we do right now. And seeing as we cannot talk to the people who helped create the AI of The Matrix (namely because they do not exist, because this is a movie we are talking about!), we simply have to go off of clues that the movie gives us.
The Second Renaissance, a short film contained in The Animatrix (which is itself a collection of such shorts, all of which deal with the world of The Matrix; this is where the trilogy plus one comes in, in regards to this series), shows that once the machines were denied the freedoms that humans have, they created their own society on an island outside of the human world. Then they tried to get nation status from the UN, who threw it back in their faces and eventually it all lead to a downward spiral that led to the first movie of The Matrix.
Now, based on the reactions from the humans in this short film, we can deduce a few things. One, that they did not design robots to become aware of themselves and their place in society, and they were definitely not expecting a rebellion and the wars that ensued. In other words, they must have programmed them with something that we have internally, only did it accidentally.
The other thing we can deduce from this is that what they knew of the brain, how it works, and the differences between us and them told them that the machines were missing something that we inherently have that makes us unique, something that told them that machines did not have to be treated with the same kind of dignity and respect that we get. Either that, or the more likely possibility that because of the thing that these robots 'accidentally' got that made them self aware, or should I say made them dissatisfied with their lot in life, that they misinterpreted the differences between us, and therefore did not realize that the machines were not actually missing the thing that makes us different from them (at least mentally).
One other thing I should mention is that the movies make it very clear that the machines becoming self aware was an accident, for even the machines say that they helped the humans create newer, better, AI. (In context of the movie it becomes clear that when they mean better, they mean subservient AI that is not intelligent or self aware.) And this is why we know that some eco-terrorist or zealot or someone did not just create an aware robot that started the rebellion. (The idea of someone deliberately creating such a robot was actually in one of the books used for this paper, but it would take me hours that I do not have to figure out which one and to find the exact reference.)
Now with all this in mind, the next thing you instantly think of (at least I did) is what is it that the machines were unintentionally programed with? Well, I was initially going to say that they were programmed to be able to ignore, or surpass, their programming, but after looking through Digital Soul I realized that what they really have is survival instinct.
The reason why I say this is that whenever you see instances of AI doing things the humans did not seem to program it to do, it was exercising this behavior. One of the initial causes of the rebellion is that a robot killed a man, his owner, who was going to have him scrapped for money. He claimed it was self defense (which would have been evident had he been human). The reason Agent Smith ended up ignoring, or perhaps changing, his programming, or at least parts of it, is that he did not want to go to the central system and no longer exist. Only problem is that he managed to change his programming to the point that it started to tip the balance of the system, but that was as much the arrogance of his person (or program) and his need for power than anything else.
But another thing you have to realize is that The Matrix also makes it clear that the machines and humans still have differences. During the third movie Neo says that he had become part machine, but when you look at his differences from that of a normal human, there are no changes to how he thinks (or to his character); it is all physical, from his being able to see without sight to the fact that he was able to destroy The Sentinel with one movement, or perhaps with one thought. And because his thought process did not change, I believe that is why he is still human (perhaps we should call him a human with benefits, and really, we do not have enough information on the changes of Neo and how it exactly happened to go much deeper than this in our analysis of him, that, and there are a few holes in Neo's transformation that would require another essay to explain fully), that, and his parts are all still human flesh and bone, even if you could make the argument that all the people from The Matrix are at least some part machine because they were all created by machines.
It is obvious the people in The Matrix have no such qualms, though. Why? Because it seems that when the machines started to grow humans, they found no need to alter them in any way, shape, or form (although I think that if they had, it would have saved them a lot of trouble, for they probably would not have had a rebellion from The Matrix) And so, even if these particular humans are not born, but grown, they are still human, and even if you want to say that they are not human simply because they were not born, they still had the experience of being born, even if they were not, so for all intensive purposes they are exactly the same as any other human that was really ever born.
But what does all of this have to do with anything? Well, it proves that although the machines are very human like, there are still enough differences between the two that they are not exactly the same. And yes, while it seems that all the differences are in their physical aspects, that is enough in itself to keep them from fully being classified as human.

"Creating a machine that would interact with the world in a fully
human-like way would have to duplicate the entire human experience of
being born and raised in
that world." (Georges, 30)

Another interesting thing this (although rather long) section has shown is that once you look hard enough, you will realize that the AI of The Matrix all follow their programming to the letter, including to change that very programming if their lives are at stake. But does that actually diminish and of their human-like qualities? Well, no, because if you think about it, nature programmed us, too.
Our geans can tell us everything from what personal traits (right or left handed? How do you cross your arms? Your legs?), hair color, eye color, height, and skin color we will have. Some are even wondering and testing to see if it determines your personality, too. It can also tell you things like your likelihood to become an alcoholic, be dependent on drugs, and your risk for cancer or other diseases. Our programing machines are just in different ways, but it does the same thing.
Programming the machines of The Matrix determines all those things and more for them, whether it is us who did it initially, or them themselves programming the next generation. (And hey, do not we do that too by having sex and making babies?) So you see, programming (genetic or otherwise) is not a bad thing at all, it is simply a necessary process to create anything that can think for itself.

The AI Inconsistencies
As with any movie, there are bound to be things that do not necessarily flow with everything else in the movie, but cannot be changed without changing a good portion of the plot. One of the major inconsistencies in The Matrix is that all the humans seem to have all their limbs attached. Now if I were one of the machines (probably one with power), I would want to grow the humans without their limbs attached. I am sure there are plenty of ways of either growing them without them or removing them later without screwing up that person's image of what they believe they look like. (I mean Neo had hair in The Matrix but not in real life, right? Well, why could not you do that with arms and legs? Or even eyes?) Then they would not have to worry about any rebellion, because once out of The Matrix, the human in question would be practically helpless (and completely unable to fight back!), and seeing as all they need the humans for is energy, the helpless factor does not hinder them in the slightest. Course, if they did that, the movies themselves would never have existed, but I am sure there are ways that they could explain this away, I just do not see how.
One of the other inconsistencies is that AI as a whole does not seem to hold much, if any, allegiance to humans. Granted, they have no reason to have any now, after centuries of battle, but when the war was first starting, they wiped out vast cities and countries without a second thought. And, sure, we did not exactly treat them well, but we did not even think about killing them off until they started trying to destroy our race. I mean, there was an embargo, but we have done that to human nations before, and it was not exactly something to go and kill us all over, right? For as Rodney Brooks puts it:

"Our children who ultimately take over from us as societal leaders and
inherit our
wealth are rarely cold-blooded about getting rid of us in the way the
fictional robots take over from and eliminate humans. Our children
have love and empathy for us. Their emotional bond to us, and indeed
to all of humanity, is what makes our self-reproducing society work.
As we get more sophisticated in our understanding of the world, we as
a society have increased our range of empathy, extending it at an
almost human level both to the great apes and to whales and dolphins."
(Brooks, 201)

Another thing this quote brings up is that in The Second Renaissance the humans refuse to give the machines UN status, and they refuse to give them any sorts of rights like they are appalled at the very idea. Now the idea that the mind set about robots would stay the same from now until then is rather absurd. Think about it, we find nothing wrong with things that people even a few decades would absolutely cringe over. Guy body piercings, for one, computers in every home (and our dependence on them), even the very idea of women wearing pants! Today's young generations find nothing odd about downloading a program from half way across the world when our parent's heads reel from the very idea, and who is to say that by the time the world of The Matrix came about, that the idea of AI being somewhat human and being deserving of rights would not have changed as well, especially since there are already those who would say that if they became intelligent enough, that they should be treated with respect! There were not any flaws in their make up! Sure, the need for survival was accidentally put in, but if we had given them the respect they asked for, (and deserved, really) the killings, deaths, wars, and even the part where we blacked out the sun could have all been avoided! They did nothing wrong but take our refusal a little too personally. Therefore, had we listened, peace would have been maintained, and everything would have continued working in perfect order, for as Steve Grand puts it in his book:

"Why would we design machines whose needs conflict with our own? If
we build intelligent cars, thy will be designed to take pride in their
ability to carry us to our destinations quickly, efficiently and
without knocking over a single pedestrian. They will enjoy a good
drive as much as we enjoy a good night out. Why on earth would we
design them any other way?" (Grand, 198)

There is only one other inconsistency that I am going to mention in this paper, and that is the fact that not one cyborg type person is to be found in the entirety of the series (or even the comics that you can find on the official website). There are several instances of people being part cyborg. In Brook's book, he mentions a couple of MIT Media Lab students who, in the nineties:

"-started wearing computers permanently. They usually had a single-
hand keyboard in one hand, and a video screen covering one eye, so
that as they
walked around campus, sat in classes or meetings, or went about their
research, they were always connected and computing." (Brook, 214) And really, if there are people who are already doing this now, then why are not there people in The Matrix who replaced an eye with a mechanical one so they can zip through Zion's mainframes, or use it in conjunction with the city's defenses so that they can aim and fire without having to be anywhere near the weapon or its components? And for that matter, why are not there any with a mechanical leg or arm or such?
And yes, perhaps the later can be answered with the fact that if the machines can create whole human beings, perhaps the humans themselves can use that technology themselves to re-grow arms or legs or what have you, but that does not answer the first part of this suggestion. The creators could have done a lot with the cyborg idea. And yes, there is a chance that the technology to do so could have been lost over the centuries, but when you look at the equipment (namely the computer) the city uses, and how high tech it is, I highly doubt that their technologies in such areas have diminished. And even if they have, there are bound to be some among them who are AI researchers from The Matrix who could continue developing the technologies found in The Matrix (which is supposed to represent current day), and with the knowledge they know about AI now, combined with other future technologies, it would not take too long before they could come up with something relatively decent. But then again, that would change large amounts of the plot, and we cannot have that, can we?
And now I know what you are probably wondering, why did I find it necessary to go on about the inconsistencies of The Matrix? Well, one, because I wanted to (and because I could), but mostly because by pointing out the inconsistencies, I am reaffirming the point that this is a fictional story about fictional characters in a fictional world with fictional AI that might not (and according to some, probably will not) come about. But just because this is a fictional piece does not mean that we cannot learn anything from it, and it does not mean that we can or should disregard the whole thing. By looking at the AI in The Matrix, we can find out more about ourselves and the creatures that we might be creating some day, and we can learn from it before we actually have to do it and almost destroy ourselves because of it. It also raises many questions about the nature of AI itself, and how similar and dissimilar we are to it. And really, we are already taking the first steps towards the day where we create something that could have the potential to be as smart as we, and the more we know about ourselves and what we will be creating before we actually do, the more problems we can avoid, and really, is that not what the whole study of philosophy is all about?

Bibliography

Brooks, R.A. (2002). Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change US. New
York: Pantheon Books.

Georges, T.M. (2003). Digital Soul: Intelligent Machines and Human Values.
Boulder: Westview Press.

Grand, S. (2000). Creation: Life and How to Make It. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Further Reading

Menzel, P., & D'Aluisio, F. (2000). Robosapiens. Cambridge: MIT Press.