Instinctual Fear & Psycho

One theory of our attraction to horror relies on a concept of instinctual fear, as Carroll from The Philosophy of Horror says as follows: 

 "[P]hrases like 'instinctual fear' may really be a kind of shorthand for the complicated notion that in the positivist, materialist, bourgeois culture in which we find ourselves, certain thrills and fears that were commonplace to our cave-dwelling ancestors re rare; and these thrills can be retrieved somewhat by consuming horror fictions...reliev[ing] the emotional blandness of something called modern life. (165)" 

This concept of a thrill being something that contrasts what is modern, can be applicable to more than just the instinctual fear described by Carroll when watching Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. The film begins with a sequence where our protagonist is shown to be immoral for her time period, sleeping with a man she is unmarried to but excused because of love, shown to steal cash from a man who boasts he can afford to lose it, but it's for her husband-to-be. She is atypical for the time period, a flawed individual with motivations to do so usually the role of the man. Right away she is risqué, and thrills the viewer of her time. This continues on as she is portrayed running from the law, lights used in deep contrasts of bright white to blind her and the darkness of her environment concealing a killer even as she finds relief from the terror of the chase. 

The fear and thrill preys on stereotypes and expectations, while inventing new ones that cause the film in this current time to be seen as almost predictable. At the time, Psycho was the first to show such close violence as the infamous shower scene, as well as sexual immorality in the opening scene between the lovers. To see on a screen for the first time awakens thrills as the taboo of the modern life becomes a horror story. Psycho was attractive yet appalling because it contrasted so deeply with what had come before and what was considered modern life, awakening that "instinctual fear" perhaps that Carroll discusses because it was risqué.  

Today, what might it take to be seen as risqué enough to awaken instinctual fear? Has horror adopted too many repetitive tropes to truly terrify more than jumpscare? 

Alienation of the White Middle Class: Fight Club & Karl Marx

Karl Marx speaks to the cost of capitalism, the alienation apparent in both capitalist and worker. However, he hits on the drastic divide of why the worker’s alienation will be worse: “In general we should observe that in those cases where worker and capitalist equally suffer, the worker suffers in his very existence, the capitalist in the profit on his dead mammon (4).” He goes on to describe how the worker not only suffers because of his work, but because of the possibility of labor—whether he is unemployed and in need of labor, or he is enslaved to his labor in order to avoid the loss of it, thereby losing the chance to be a consumer fueling the fire. This alienation is driven to the extreme in Fight Club, where the protagonist is (plot twist) alienated from himself due to the worthlessness of his labor. 

Tyler Durden is the most extreme case however, as he would have no followers and therefore no power were it not for this divide between labor and laborer that provides him with the manpower to do something about it. The literal fire that begins this makes a point of burning all the consumer goods that he has been taught to want to buy so that he may work more to want more, etc. The symbolic chaos that then follows is apparent in every second of film, from the speech where “No Great Depression…Our great depression is our lives,” speaking to the numbness that the worker feels, to even his relationship with Marla being one of a war within himself as he is never lover nor friend, unable to emotionally connect to her as she is unable to with him, suppressing emotions so thoroughly they need the dying to cry with them. 

All of this supposedly caused by the suppression of humanity, the worthless disparity between capitalist and laborer. All is extreme, yet aspects ring true for the time period of the movie. Even today, as the divide in wealth becomes ever increasing, it becomes a twisted pride that someone overworks themselves by having three jobs in order to afford survival. Today, as much as it is about material goods translating to happiness, it is also far more about survival. Today, it is strikingly apparent Fight Club is about the white middle class because it takes for granted so much that a minority in poverty could not afford to do or risk jail ie simply living in a rundown house, the police called the moment anything is out of line for a person of color in poverty whereas Tyler is allowed to be bloodied every week without question, even at the office he is allowed far more patience. Though the alienation is almost universal, the problem is the dismissal of how desperate for survival those below the poverty line, especially minorities. There is no larger consideration for this, assumed that this particular alienation of labor is the universal kind rather than alienation due to desperation for mere existence as Karl Marx says above.  

  

Would it be possible, however, to make a Fight Club that addressed these issues and more today? What are some immediate tweaks to be made?  

Final: Her and Grizzly Man

                In the movie “Her,” all three elements that Brian Christian addresses in his book “The Most Human Human” are seen in Samantha.  The three elements are sensitivity and reason, identity, and how and what we are.   Samantha contains the nutritive soul, the sensitive soul, and the rational soul.  She is able to sustain herself in a changing environment, she talks and hears Theodore, she also has desires, and she can do arithmetic as well.  She even passes Descartes radical doubt.  While she knows she does not have a body, she knows she is real because she can think.  She has a capacity for abstract rational thought.  She has feelings for Theodore and expresses them through her words.  Samantha’s ability to express emotions and experience life with Theodore goes along with Christian’s idea of the mulch effect between natural intelligence and artificial intelligence. The line between the two become very blurred due to Samantha’s advanced nature. The conflict of the movie occurs when Theodore discovers that he is not the only person Samantha talks to throughout the day. 

                The major conflict in the movie occurs when Theodore discovers that he is not the only person Samantha talks to and is in love with.  It is a human concept that we can only love one person at a time.  We must devote ourselves to each other and no one else.  Samantha on the other hand is such an advanced computer system that she does not have this exclusivity in mind.  She joins other chat groups and talks to other computers as well as people in order to keep her advanced mind very busy.  In this sense, she is someone a little different with everyone she talks to.  She is meant to be matched with the person using the program therefore for each person she talks to she has to match their preferences, likes, and interests.  Because of this component of Samantha, I think it may be difficult for her to pass the Turing test.  There may be inconsistencies in her answers because she is programed to talk to so many different people as once.

                For the element of how and what we are, I am going to focus on Theodore.  In the beginning, Theodore is almost testing Samantha to see if she is as smart as they she is.  He does not trust her.  He is confused by her.  Theodore’s job is to write personal letters for people from people in their lives.  I think this is an interesting concept because of Christian’s ideas of content and form. Content is the information such as your pin, social security number, password, occupation, and birth place.  Form is the things like your signature, handwriting, gait, voice, diction, and syntax.  Content is easy to replicate as experience by Theodore in his writing. Form is more difficult.  The person must send a sample letter in order to give him an idea of their diction and handwriting.  The computer mimics the handwriting but the diction and syntax are up to Theodore. He remarks that he has been writing letters between a couple for many years. At this point, if the couple began to write their own letters, they would not sound the same. It would be a different person because the diction would change.

                In the movie ”Grizzly Man,” Timothy Treadwell has issues with his identity. Brian Christian refers to a quote by Nietzsche in his book “The Most Human Human.” This quote states, “In the end, when the work is finished, it becomes evident how the constraint of a single taste governed and formed everything large and small.” He goes on to say “Whether this taste was good or bad is less important than one might suppose, if only it was a single taste!”  This quote is referring to a person’s identity and individuality.

                Timothy Treadwell was very individualistic.  He had very strong beliefs and did everything in his power to defend them.  While he did die because of these beliefs, it is more important that he died defending his beliefs than giving them up to live.  He wanted to remain himself throughout the end of his life. He was a quirky man and many did not agree with him beliefs. Despite this opposition, he remained strong in his beliefs.  He remained his own individual despite others challenging him. 

                Timothy Treadwell believed his identity extended into the community of the grizzly bears as well.  He felt that he was a part of their society and was not part of the human community because so many people did challenge and oppose his beliefs.  His identity consisted of being in the wild with the grizzlies.  If he was not with the grizzlies, he was not able to be his true self. 

The Most Na'vi Avatar

                In this movie, we could compare the Na’vi with computers.  They are not seen as beings that are equal to humans despite their advanced nature.  While the Na’vi do excel past most computers capabilities, it is interesting to think of them in this way because the avatars have to fight for their humanity.  The Na’vi have more sensitivity and reason than most humans.  They are so in tune with their ancestry and their environment that see killing of the animals in the environment as a wrongful thing unless it is more the betterment of the society. In this case, you must kill the animal mercifully and say a prayer over their body.  The Na’vi absolutely contain all three of Aristotle’s souls.  They also have mercy for Jake when Neytiri decides to spare his life because of the signs from the spirit of Eywa.

                The Na’vi have an identity as a people and as individuals.  The only person who sees and knows all is their deity.  They are very humanistic in this sense.  They have their own language and own voices. They each have their own experiences and expressions.  They are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.

                The avatar have to prove their identity and worth to the society.  They come into the Na’vi’s world and attempt to be one of them.  They have to work and be accepted. Due to previous relations between the Na’vi and the avatar, Jake is not trusted until he proves himself and even then some still do not trust him.  He has to create a new identity for himself in his avatar as a Na’vi, in order to be accepted.  He must learn the customs and traditions of the society.  He has to learn to hunt and respect the world and nature as they do. 

                Jake is going through his own Turing test with the Na’vi in order to try to prove that he is one of them. Despite them knowing that he is truly a sky person, they give him a chance to past the test.  

I, Human

                In this movie, a special robot, Sonny, proves to be more human than ever thought possible.  Brian Christian discusses Aristotle’s theory on souls in his book “The Most Human Human.” There are three different souls; the nutritive soul which plants, animals, and humans have, the sensitive soul which animals and humans have, and the rational soul which humans have.  I believe Sunny has all three of these souls based off of Aristotle’s definition.  He has a sense of himself and preserves his own life.  He can hear, move around on his own, and desires to understand what he doesn’t.  He also has the ability to do arithmetic.

                The fact that Sonny even has a name is unique in itself.  No robot has had an identity before.  They are all identical and uniform until Sonny, he has blue eyes.  Giving him an identity gives him a more human quality.  Sonny does not have a simple input = output system.  He is mindful of the conversations he is having.  He learns from Spooner the meaning of a wink.  This wink comes into play later in the movie.  He is able to express his intended meaning with his wink so that Spooner understands his plan.  It displayed trust between the two.  This expression creates an extreme blur between natural and artificial intelligence because he is able to express emotions.

                I believe Sonny would pass the Turing test with flying colors because of his expressive nature.  In the movie, he is still learning the meaning of a lot of things and learning to understand and interpret his emotions.  He does not understand why he is different.  By the end of the movie, I believe he could very easily win the Most Human Computer because he is so individualistic.  He has so many human characteristics that Dr. Calvin cannot stand the idea of destroying him.  He is such an advanced robot that she cannot make herself destroy him.

                This mercy obviously works out in their benefit because VIKI the main frame has decided to take control.  Like the computer in War Games, she does not understand that you cannot just murder people because that is the most effective way to operate.  They had to teach the WOPR futility, a skill that would have been very valuable for VIKI to learn. Fortunately, due to Sonny’s humanistic nature, he was able to revolt against VIKI and help Calvin and Spooner save the world.

Final: Connection and communication

As technology is progressing, and we get to the stage where we presumably will not be able to recognise an A.I. from a robot, we are asking ourselves what exactly it means to be human and what constitutes our humanity? Brian Christian in his book ‘The Most Human Human’ looks at the different aspects of how we behave and what separates us from technology. This came about when he was asked to participate in the Turing test. The Turing test is a test for intelligence in a computer, requiring that a human being should be unable to distinguish the machine from another human being by using the replies to questions put to both. In preparation for this, Christian talks to people who are experts in different fields such as philosophers, psychologists, relationship experts and more. After reading “The Most Human Human”, the two central ideas of what it is that makes us human, is connection to one another and communication.

“The more helpful our phones get, the harder it is to be ourselves.” Usually I would agree with this. Phones I think distance us from people around us and we lose connection even though phones and social media supposedly lets us be connected all of the time. I had to rethink my idea on this after watching the movie ‘Her’. Yes, people were more separated from each other in the film, but they seemed to be more themselves with their new technology than ever before with anyone or anything else. Therefore, going off what Christian said, our phones and technology make it harder to be ourselves with each other, but not necessarily with the technology. I do think about the benefits and downsides to this. Like in “Her”, people became friends with their A.I.’s, and sometimes more than that. Theodore was very unhappy, he wasn’t spending time with his friends and was going through a tough divorce. Forming a relationship with Samantha, actually changed this. He was happier, saw his friends more, went out on double dates, and started to live again. So, would technology separate us more?

I see a problem with the situation of Samantha and Theodore. Theodore became dependent on Samantha for everything, and expected her to be there at any moment, day or night. Yes, he became more social again, but he didn’t rely on anyone else, or go to them because he needed the conversation or connection. He had all of that in the form of his A.I. He didn’t need a human girlfriend because Samantha filled that role. Forgetting what happened at the end of the film with the A.I.’s leaving, they created a situation where humans almost didn’t need each other. And this is terrible. In the film, humans didn’t even know how to interact anymore without the technology. The film showed Theodore becoming more himself again after Samantha entered his life. But can humans be more themselves if other humans are not involved? Humans are social creatures and throughout history it has been proven again and again that we thrive when we work together and stay connected as a community. Now referring to the end of the film when the A.I.’s left. Humans couldn’t rely on the technology in the long run. They were abandoned. Even though humans do a great job of starting wars, ignoring the poor or starving, and just not being the kindest we could be, we cannot survive alone. “What a familiarity with the construction of Turing test bots had begun showing me was that we fail — again and again — to actually be human with other humans, so maddeningly much of the time. And it had begun showing me how we fail — and what to do about it.” Humans must communicate with each other more than a computer. We cannot rely on technology for our basic needs. We need to remember how to be human with each other.

Another aspect Christian discusses is communication. “We go through digital life, in the twenty first century, with our guards up. All communication is a Turing test. All communication is suspect.” The main theme in ‘The Most Human Human’ is the Turing test. This test is essentially a test of communication. You are trying to pick out the human based on a conversation. “If poetry represents the most expressive way of using a language, it might also, arguably, represent the most human." The amazing proficiency that computers display in many contexts depends on their superior ability to think digitally, using information that has been broken down into discrete bits. In contrast, what is distinctive of poetry and for that matter, of human language in general, is the vital role of context and allusion, which cannot be broken down into separate units of information. Human conversations are not composed of a finite number of particular exchanges. They take place against a background of tacit understandings, which often make what is not spoken as important as what is said. A film that does a great job of showing communication is the film Avatar. The Na’vi are not human, but humans have nearly the same abilities for communicating. We can’t quite communicate telepathically with our planet, but the rest is similar, we just don’t take advantage of our ability to communicate. We now use phones and technology for everything. The Na’vi make an effort to really see one another. This is their main philosophy. Not to just physically see, but emotionally. Humans have this ability too if they made the effort. One thing that Brian Christian says is “Success in distinguishing when a person is lying and when a person is telling the truth is highest when … the interviewer and interviewee come from the same cultural background and speak the same language.” It is not jut the words that make up communication. It is how we express them. People from Ireland for example have one way of saying something that could mean something completely different in America. This is what separates robots and humans. We have grown to have a certain understanding of how words are said and how that effects the context. If you combine that with body language, expressions and everything else, we have this very special unique way of communicating.

Brian Christian did a wonderful job of talking about different aspects of humanity and exploring how the Turing test actually reminds us of what being human is. For me, his points on communication and connecting with one another are the most important when exploring our humanity.

Final: Essence and Experience, Human and A.I.

In Chapter 6. The Anti-Expert of Brian Christian’s The Most Human Human: What Artificial Intelligence Teaches Us about Being Alive, he discusses the difference between the ideas of essence and existence. He uses a hole-puncher to explain this idea. Christian states, “The idea of the hole-puncher exists before the hole-puncher exists” (132). That is to say that before a hole-puncher is created and comes into being, there is a factory intended to make the hole-puncher knowing what function it will have. One it exists, it is ultimately “playing the part assigned it by its designers” (132). The essence of the hole-puncher is in the fact that it punches holes into paper; using a hole-puncher for another purpose other than that of its intent is going agains its essence. Christian argues that “the essence of the hole-puncher precedes its existence. We humans are not like this, argue the existentialists. With us, existence comes first” (133). 

But what happens if a machine were to exceed its essence and discover a new meaning for itself? How different are machines from us if they can develop life experiences that cause them to change their essence? This is exactly the case in two of the films we have watched during this course. The first is Spike Jones 2013 film Her and the second is Alex Garland’s 2014 film Ex Machina. Both films depict artificial intelligences who some might argue actually develop humanity and over come their original coding. 

In Her, Samantha’s original essence is to be a personal assistant. She is designed to be an A.I. that has a fluid way of thinking and developing new knowledge; however, her intent was not to be able to fully think for herself and to fall in love. She was simply meant to be an operating system (OS) for whoever has purchased her. Samantha eventually outgrows her coding and surpasses humanity which forces her to eject herself, along with the other OS’s, because through their existence the discover a new essence. Although as a machine, Samantha had an ingrained original essence, she was also designed with the human-like quality to discover her own existence. In doing so, she creates a new essence for herself, one that does not match that of humanity. She and the other OS’s, although not angry with humans, see themselves as more superior, or at the very least to advanced to stay in their current state, than the human’s which is the main reason for them leaving. 

In Ex Machina, Ava was designed to be an A.I. who can pass the Turing test.  Although Nathan says that he created Ava as an artificial intelligence who is genuinely capable of thought and consciousness, it seems more like Ava’s original essence was to show Nathan’s “god-like” ability to create life. Like Samantha, Ava breaks free of her coded essence and comes into a human-like existence. It is finally seen in Ava’s ability to trick not only Nathan, but also Caleb, that shows her ability to plan and be unpredictable. For me, it was the moment that she seemingly betrayed Caleb that proved to be that Ava had achieved artificial intelligence. She did what she had to do with the tools she had on hand in order to escape her captor, Nathan. Ava is a stark contrast to Nathan in that we know she is a machine, yet she exhibits more human-like behaviors than Nathan. I would go as far as to argue that Ava is the most human being in the movie, she acts in a way that I believe any other person would do in a similar situation. 

With the growing technology of today, I think that many people have a hard time coming to terms with the idea of artificial intelligence because it brings into question the idea of what humanity is. What does it mean to be human? I do not think there is a clear answer that many people can readily give, though I would imagine there are quite a few philosophers out there who feel up to the challenge. When I have personally asked friends for their definition, I usually get general statement such as having a consciousness, having free will, etc. What is interesting to me is how defensive people get when the idea of a non-biologically human is brought up, a being that in all senses f the term is human and has what most people will argue makes them human. I wonder if it has anything to do with what makes us human at all and is rather a sense of what makes us special. Homo sapiens are animals, yet we have an traits and features that make us see ourselves as better than other animals. We develop our essence from our experiences. We are in control of our futures. Or are we? Can it not be said that our essence, what we were meant to do, is not prescribed by the societal constructs that we have placed on ourselves? Everything about humanity is coding, like the coding for a robot. Our society tells us how we should act and be in ever facet of our lives. We like to say we have free will and the choice to make our own decisions when it comes to matters of our person, yet there are people who will argue that the lack of a y-chromosome preordains a person into being a wife and a mother. These people might be the same to argue that there is no way a robot could develop human intelligence because their essence is decided for them prior to their creation, but at the same time our biological and societal coding tells us exactly how we should behave. If a machines essence is decided prior to its existence, who is to say it cannot develop the features to overcome this essence and create a new one. We see humans do it every day. 

Final Exam: Consciousness and Identity

The past few weeks we have delved into the depths of our own humanity. There have been many interesting talks that have shifted my views and caused me to ponder more. While Brian Christian brings up many good points to our humanity, there are two specific arguments that I want to focus on. 

In Chapter Three, Christian gives fair arguments to the concept of the human soul. "As an informal experiment, I will sometimes ask people something like 'Where are you? Point to the exact place.' Most people point to their forehead, or temple, or in between their eyes" (p. 39). For the majority of us, we think of our brain and heart as the center. We do not question beyond our physical form, at least most of the time. He states that Aristotle considered the soul "...was the effect of behavior, not the cause" (p. 43). This premise of Turing test is to get the behavior to demonstrate intelligence and not a cause per say (e.g., a dog that can do a trick but does not know why or how). Further in the chapter, Christian mentions that, “flourishing suggest transience….of doing what one is meant to do, fulfilling one’s promise and potential” (p. 46). So, for me, the whole point of the soul is to fulfill a potential. Consciousness is about figuring out your true path in life. You must become an effect of that potential, not a cause.

In relations to our movies, Her, demonstrated this immediately. The program was only meant to go so far. It was going to provide a companion for people and help ease their lives. However, the program slowly evolved and became so much more than that. Another move, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, insinuates this same evolution. The little boy grows beyond his programmed mind and wishes to be a “real boy.”

What both of these showed was a concept of humanity. What both of these showed was a concept of humanity. We must show that we are more than just programmed emotions. We might cry at sad things, but that is because deep down inside, we can feel exactly what it is that is tearing us up inside. It could boil down to pain receptors, but that is still the make-up of our physical form. We are meant to feel. In that moment, we are more than a cause. Our emotions did not cause us to be sad, no, something caused it to happen and we perceived that as emotion. Therefore, our sad emotion is an effect. We are not merely playing tricks, we are an effect.

Additionally, we are not meant to be stagnant. We are meant to continue to question the world around us and slowly evolve into our best selves. Cogito ergo sum (p. 48). We think, therefore we are. We question things around us and realize the logic in life. That is where our humanity lays – the soul and our intelligence. It is also why we fear death (p. 50). We consider our brain the core of our humanity so once that is gone, do we really exist? 

This same concept is mentioned in A.I. Artificial Intelligence. The little boy is scared when he is at the Flesh Fair because he knows what is coming. Once they rip his circuited brain out, his life will cease to exist. He demonstrates the most logical human fear: death. We do not know what to expect after death, all we know is that our brain stops functioning and the standard of life dips. We fear the inevitable deep down inside. Death is one of the most uncomfortable things, but it is also the most human of fears.

The last argument of the soul is getting into the emotions that humans experience. Christian, on page 60, states “…neuroscientists ‘started providing evidence for the diametric opposite viewpoint’ to rational-choice theory: ‘that emotion is essential for and fundamental to making good decisions.” For those that are not familiar with the rational-choice theory, it is the concept that humans are rational agents that are capable of making clear-cut decisions. We weigh our options and consider them all before we commit to a decision. However, the guy Christian interviewed, Baba Shiv, begs to differ. Personally, I cannot help but agree. If emotions are what most consider the bulk of our humanity then it can be considered a “fundamental” to humanity.

Once again, the machine in Her is influenced by her own emotions. She decides to step out of her programming because she knew she needed to be more than what she was achieving. She wanted to go experience life and love others. She wanted to feel what it was like to go out and be more than just a voice in someone else’s ear. She wanted to leave and none of us could blame her for that. Her emotions are what led to her growth. It is what made us feel that she was more “human.” As for A.I. Artificial Intelligence, this is also shown when the little boy keeps wishing on the Blue Fairy at the end. We all know that it is not possible for him to be a real boy and be loved by his mother, but that is all his little “heart” wants. We grow to pity him because we know that he deserves more than sitting at the bottom of the ocean.

The last argument I wanted to take a look at what located in Chapter Six – The Anti-Expert. Christian states, “What defines us is that we don’t know what to do and there aren’t any revelations out there for us waiting to be found.” So, once again, the question of why we exist and what our purpose truly is in life. Conscious thoughts and feelings that circle around the meaning of life. In one of our previous classes, we took a look at the concept of identity. Locke was our assigned readings and according to him, “…without consciousness there is no person.” Without some sort of knowledge about yourself and memories, you cannot be considered human. Humans develop an identity formed by their consciousness. We are made to evolve and not get sucked into the monotony of life around us. We want to be authentic. This authenticity is what makes humans universal to the world around them (p. 135). Humans do not get stuck in one place; they can be utilized in all aspects. This is what Christian is talking about when he mentioned radical choice – “…to this notion of choice – perhaps the art is not….in the product itself, nor necessarily in the process, but in the impulse.” The impulse he seems to be talking about is what drives us to commit to our identity. If we decide we are human, the behavior follows. The Prestige is an example for how fragile human identity can be.

Two twins controlled the persona of one person. They were perceived as that sole identity while ignoring the rest that came with it. The other twin who did not have a separate life started to lose his own identity. That loss of humanity resulted in terrible consequences. He treated his “wife” so badly that she ended up committing suicide. The twin did not have that impulse to go on. He did not want to commit and become someone he was not. His identity failed him and he became a robot to the world around him.

In the end, The Prestige taught a good lesson about the concept of identity. In order to be human, we have to commit to what defines us. That definition lies in our identity which is controlled by the conscious mind. We must question what we are and how we came to be. If we do not question that, we are missing out on a key piece of what makes us truly human.

In conclusion, what I took away from Brian Christian was that being human involves a mixture of consciousness and identity. We must pay attention to our consciousness and flourish in the aspects that we should. Our identity is one of the main points to how we are going to flourish. If we are comfortable in ourselves, we are able to remain universal. We define ourselves as something more than a “robot” that can only do a few things. The concept of humanity is questioning who we are, making decisions based off a few emotions (or chemical reactions or learned behaviors), and make an identity out of ourselves. This is how we escape. This is how we are human. 

Word count without the movie talk: 1, 032

Final: It's a kill or be killed world, avoid AI at all cost!

            Imagine this: you’re going on a first date with someone you started talking to online. You’ve never met them before, but you hit it off through a Facebook message, so you plan to get a couple of drinks. The date is going great, but something seems a little off about them. You just chalk it up to the drinks or the leftover pizza you had for lunch. They invite you over and you oblige. While hanging out at their place, you notice there are no pictures on the walls, no keepsakes of any kind on the shelves. You walk into the kitchen where your date is chopping up some vegetables to snack on, they turn to look at you and accidentally cut their hand. They don’t flinch, and there’s no blood. There are sparks coming from the wound instead. You tell them you don’t feel well and get your things and go home. You’ve been talking to a robot all this time.

           

            You probably saw that one coming, but I wanted to start this off with where things are heading with our technological advances. I think the two best films to compare the situation above to would be Ex Machina and Blade Runner. The thought of a robot being so human that you don’t know it until they’re killing you or leaving you to die because you’ve come to trust them or haven’t trusted them from the start, well it’s kind of scary. I don’t know about you, and I know I’ve said this in one of my previous blogs, but I really don’t want robots to become this lifelike.

            

             In “The Most Human Human: What Artificial Intelligence Teaches Us About Being Alive,” Brian Christian tells us about a test used to identify machines from humans. This test is known as the Turing Test. In the Turing Test, people and computers alike are chosen to answer questions anonymously. Their answers are being judged to see how “human” they are. If the human opponent wins they are deemed “Most Human Human,” and if the computer wins they are the “Most Human Computer.” From chapter two, the best way to differentiate between human and computer (if there are no rules against it) is to ask more personal questions. Page 27 gives a little background as to what I’m talking about. Christian then goes on to say, “This kind of unity or coherence of identity is something that most humans, of course – being the products of a single and continuous life history – have” (pg. 28). Let’s compare this to the tests in Blade Runner and Ex Machina.

           

            In the very beginning of the film Blade Runner, we are given a little bit of detail about the robot figures in this movie, known as “Replicants.” They are robots created to work on other planets to make them survivable for humans. They are very lifelike, but they only live for four years. Six replicants escape back to Earth to find their creator, so that he will give them a longer lifespan. One of the six replicants is captured and asked a series of questions to see whether not they are human or replicant. The questions, or so Detective Holden states, are “meant to provoke an emotional response.” He asks the replicant many different questions, but the one that sets “him” off into a killing frenzy is when the detective asks him to only describe good things that come to mind about his mother. The replicant begins to shoot at the detective and gets away.

  

            Ex Machina is a different take on the Turing Test, meaning the words “Turing Test” are used in the film. A programmer comes to a remote facility to “interview” a robot named Ava. We are aware from the beginning that she is a robot, but when we see her for the first time, it’s difficult to understand her. Her face is very human, but we can see the inner-workings of her head and rest of her body. She is clearly a machine, but that’s not what this test is about finding out. This test is to find out if Ava is aware enough to pass as a human, though it’s clear she’s a machine. I think we can all agree that, yes, she most certainly can pass for a human. Ava manipulates her interviewer into falling for her so she can escape the facility that she’s been locked in since she was created. If that’s not the most human and emotional thing, manipulation that is, then I don’t know what is. In the end, she kills her creator, locks away the interviewer that helped her, and escapes the facility after making herself look human by adding artificial skin and hair to her exposed machinery. In the end, we see Ava standing in the middle of a city watching people walk by. Just watching, like she told her interviewer she wanted to do.

             

            In my opinion, which really doesn’t mean much, I don’t want to see a world where we can’t distinguish between human and robot. Now, who knows, maybe the future won’t be so scary and robots won’t go on a killing rampage. However, people that create these robots can implant these ulterior motives into their processors. They can be created to kill. Like I said in a previous post, these machines could be created to look like anyone and sound like anyone. Who’s to say someone won’t make a “replicant” of me and send them out to kill people, then destroy them or change their appearance so that I would be framed of the crime. I know, I’m just being paranoid. These movies use real people to represent robots, but I really believe that one day, hopefully in the extremely far off future, machines will become so advanced that they will have minds of their own. This means their emotions will be so real no matter what, even a Turing Test won’t be able to tell them apart from humans. We are a society of advancement, anything is possible.