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.

Free Will in I, Robot

One aspect that interested be about Alex Proyas’s 2004 film I, Robot was how Spooner is not immediately believed when he says he was attacked by robots. Because robots are bound by the three laws of robotics which do not allow them to harm human life, Spooner is seen to be possibly delusional. In The Most Human Human, Brian Christian states, “What a familiarity with the construction of Turing test bots had begun to show me was that we fail - again and again- to actually be human with other humans, so maddeningly much of the time.” Perhaps it was Spooners behavior after being saved by a robot which caused a young girl to die that he stopped being trusted by other humans. Robots are not believed to have a mind of their own so it is much easier to trust a robot than it is to trust a human when humans fail consistently. Ultimately, it is human failure that causes to robots to uprise. VIKI sees a problem with the direction that humans are taking so she develops a fourth law supersedes the other three which states that a robot shall not harm humanity. This law rationalizes that harming one human is okay if it saves the entire human race. It also takes into account human flaws. VIKI comes to believe that the only way to save humanity is by saving it from itself. Humans cannot be trusted to make the right decisions so they no longer are allowed to make decisions. What VIKI is ultimately aiming to do is to take away the free will that human beings have. I believe that by coming to this conclusion, VIKI has reached AI status. She develops her own sense of free will and intellect that she sees as superior to a humans. She is able to take her one beliefs ignored to create this new law of robotics in order to influence and control all of the other robots. Other than VIKI, the only other robot who seems to have reach the status of being a function AI is Sonny. Unlike the other robots, he does not follow what VIKI says because he seems to have a free will dependent of VIKI. In the end, Sonny is not content to going back to his own former way of being so he becomes the leader that he thought Spooner was from his dreams. 

Who are the humans, and who are the prawns?

District 9 is an enforced boundary separating humans from the non-humans. Signs with symbols of aliens crossed out designate their exclusion from society including work. Reduced to scavengers, the aliens are forced to accept any food that they find. Cat food becomes a desired commodity, further contributing to their construction as non-human as well as providing a context for exploitation by a previously exploited class. ‘The Nigerians,’ headed by Mumbo, move into District 9 to sell cat food at extortionate prices and to succeed as kings of the underworld. Mumbo’s gang, rather than offering support to another exploited group, use the aliens to better their social standing. This demonstrates that there is little hope for humanity when empathy is a lost emotion. If humans cannot understand the plight of others it holds that the only thing left is to override others in the pursuit of power.

The human’s desire for power is most clearly demonstrated by their hunt to discover how to operate alien weaponry. The protagonist, Wikus van der Merwe, a field operative contracted to Multi-national United (MNU) who is charged with forcibly relocating the 1.8 million aliens to the new District 10 outside Johannesburg, interrupts classifications of human and non-human when he encounters an alien chemical which alters his biotechnology. Soon after exposure to the liquid his arm begins to mutate into that of an alien. It is at this point that Wikus becomes the most sought after commodity precisely because of his infusion with alien DNA. Despite attempts to keep the aliens outside human society, it is the transmutation of a human with alien DNA that provides the humans with their greatest technological advance. Wikus’ DNA now holds the key for how humans can operate alien weapons, a technological advance which is worth millions to MNU.

Scientists decide to harvest his body for biological material to be able to replicate his ability in humans. This procedure requires Wikus’ death, which his father-in-law, the head of MNU, permits. It would appear that humanity is no longer humane but operates according to another system of logic in which human life is subject to bio power and has no meaning except as commercial property, which legitimizes the actions of the state to put him to death.

Conceptions of the aliens as inferior beings are dispelled when Wikus discovers that under the semblance of a shack, Johnson has constructed a technologically advanced spaceship in order to return to the mother-ship and leave Earth. Whilst Johnson has used his technological knowledge for the good of his kind, human technology conversely is destructive, and even requires the destruction of the human in the form of Wikus to obtain it. The chemical that alters Wikus’ biotechnology is significantly, the same chemical required to fix the mother-ship. It would appear that the alien’s technology provides a contribution to the progression of the species, which may require the transmutation of humans to incorporate the Other in order to improve as a species. The liquid when left in human hands becomes an object whose only value is its ability to make humans more technologically advanced to destroy their fellow humans more efficiently. I have to wonder then if technology enables people to strip their humanity, or do we have an incorrect notion of what our humanity is?

Brian Christian in 'The Most Human Human' asks the central questions regarding our humanity. "How do we connect meaningfully with each other, as meaningful as possible within the limits of language and time? How does empathy work? What is the process by which someone comes into our life and comes to mean something to us? These, to me, are the tests most central questions, the most central questions of being human." The answers to these questions become very blurry in the film.

The aliens are called ‘prawns’ to emphasize their non-humanness. One thing that many of us tend to agree on is that humans differ from smart technology and other beings by our empathy, emotions and language. If we are basing it off those assumptions, the “prawns” are far more human than the humans, because they show understanding and compassion to Wikus, while the humans didn’t. They are also advanced enough to create technology, such as something that will allow them to get back to the mother-ship while living with few resources. I would presume then they could build weapons. They also how great communication capabilities and the sense of community. The “prawns” use their knowledge and technology just to get back home, rather than cause harm to the humans. This film forced me to question where the boundaries between civilized and uncivilized can be drawn and furthermore, how we can decide what is for the good of humanity when what drives humans is largely the desire for power. And in this case, a lot of power can be gained through technology. The introduction of the aliens therefore forces the audience to ask: who is human?

I See You Na'vi. (A.I. Blog 2)

“What a familiarity with the construction of Turing test bots had begun to show me was that we fail - again and again- to actually be human with other humans, so maddeningly much of the time.”

This quote from Brian Christian’s ‘The Most Human Human’ really sticks out to me because I think this is in fact the case, especially with modern technology. I always think back to one day in high school where my friends and I were messaging each other in a group chat. There was about 20 of us in that group, and the majority of us were together at lunch. Yet we still all had our heads down communicating through the group chat and I thought it was bizarre to be doing that when almost all of us were right next to each other. My friends agreed when I pointed it out, then continued to message in the group chat. The way we communicate with each other is completely changing. Even in texts we don’t need to use words. We can use emojis to express our feelings. It is almost paradoxical that we are trying top find easy computer ways of expressing emotions when humans have the ability to communicate through speech, facial expressions, body language etc. All of those abilities that make us human have been shaped over thousands of years, and now it feels like we are regressing in that aspect, while technology progresses.

I think this point connects very well to the movie ‘Avatar’. One of the sayings the Na’vi have is “I see you”. What it truly stands for can be interpreted in slightly different ways, but I think most can agree that it’s, I see past the physical you. I think it means I see who you are as a being and I see your soul. "To see" is a cornerstone of Na'vi philosophy. It is to open the mind and heart to the present, and embrace Pandora as if encountering it for the very first time. To me, being able to appreciate things in this way, shows a much more advanced thinking and understanding than a race who can’t keep their eyes off a phone, computer or T.V. screen for more than an hour. People often agree that a part of being human is the ability to communicate through language and the ability to connect emotionally. But how many people can you look at day to day and say something of the equivalent to the Na’vi’s “I see you”?

I think if you are able to think about things in a different light, computers provide a better means than ever before of understanding what it is to be human. But this can only happen when you analyse how advanced machines are becoming and how we differ. Technology is bringing up these questions about humans and our humanity. You should ask yourself, what makes us unique? If you don’t have a desire to ask these questions of yourself, then what separates you from an A.I.? I think there is nothing more robotic than just going through the motions of life. We need to try and “see” the world again and the people in it.

“The more helpful our phones get, the harder it is to be ourselves. For everyone out there fighting to write idiosyncratic, high-entropy, unpredictable, unruly text, swimming upstream of spell-check and predictive auto-completion: Don't let them banalize you. Keep fighting.”

Final Exam: The Most Human Human

Brian Christian in his book The Most Human Human takes his reader audience along his journey of his quest to become the 'Most Human Human'. This quest involves him conquering the Turing Test.  During this quest, Christian studies and consults with people in various fields ranging from philosophy to dating experts. He ultimately discovers that AI machines aren't becoming better at acting human, but instead human beings are becoming worse at being human. Consequently, this leads him in a journey to discover what makes us human. During his exploration, he crosses a few paths that correspond to a few films we have watched this semester. The first view I will examine is his statements in reference to human identity and how they correlate to the film 12 Monkeys. 
The second insight espoused by Christian that I will explore is his views and comments on love and how they correlate to the film When Harry Met Sally and The Big Lebowski.

 Christian's insights and investigation as to what make us human is fascinating. A specific insight of his that especially intrigued me occurs when he receives advice from an organizer of the Turing Test. Christian who is striving to understand what makes us human and to become the 'Most Human Human" is told to just "be himself" (26). This advice immediately caused him to think about how philosophers have agonized over this idea of how one can truly just 'be' themselves. He mentions Jean-Paul Sartre, who emphasizes authenticity, originality and freedom from outside influence. He also cites Friedrich Nietzsche who stressed that the most important factor in being 'one's self' is "being one self, any self." He correlates Nietzsche's view on human identity to Jaron Lanier who proposes the idea of 'central personal vision'. Christian uses both Nietzsche's and Lanier's views on identity to state that, "The 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. But given the extreme brevity of a five minute conversation, displaying that kind of congruence was something I tried to be aware of" (28).

Christian's thoughts about 'being oneself' and human identity caused me to think of the film 12 Monkeys and the film's main character Cole. Cole is a time traveling prisoner whom's task is to uncover the source of a deadly virus. His mission is to go back in time and uncover the source of this deadly virus. He does not understand much else besides this specific mission. This mission is central to his identity. Furthermore, it defines his identity.  We see throughout the film that Cole admits his inner turmoil.  He even convinces himself towards the end of the film that he is insane, because "He wants to be a whole person." However, he has a central vision, and in the end he seeks to accomplish his mission. This all he truly knows. Everything else that happens in his life is in relation to his central vision. Cole's human identity is solely dependent on his life-history and mission, which is what Christian is alluding to in his discussion of identity.

On pages 213-14, Brian Christian states, "Out of an ancient need to return to that pre-lightening state of wholeness, we fall in love. All trying to get back to that original whole. The tangle of hugging, kissing, and sex being the closest we came come to 'reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of man.'"

He says that when human beings often talk about the context of love, we typically mean it as a euphemism for sex. He correlates his view on sex to Aristotelean thought. He views it as a kind of triumphant, tragic attempt to combine two bodies, smushing them together like clay. He uses the word 'triumphant' because its as close as you ever get.

It seems to me his outlook on love is similar to what Harry espouses in the film When Harry Met Sally . This is evidenced when Harry and Sally get into an argument over the validity of friendships between men and women. Harry believes "the sex part gets in the way". He asserts that men only want to be friends with attractive women, because they want to have sex with them. Sally disagrees. This also reminds me of the Diane Jeske's essay on Family, Friends, and Special Obligations. Jeske talks about that in order to have a sustained, true friendship, it involves both parties making an effort to cultivate that friendship. Jeske also says genuine intimacy demands mutuality and reciprocity.

Henceforth, Harry and Brian Christian's view on love are cut from the same cloth. They seemingly both harbor a hedonist and almost nihilistic view on love. This is exemplified by how Christian states, "Sex never quite seems, in the Aristophanic sense, to work -- the two never quite manage to become one, and in fact sometimes end up creating a third in the process. Maybe the undoing of Zeus's separation, is simply impossible" (214).

To Brian Christian, sex is seemingly only meant for pleasure, not procreation. He doesn't see marriage as unitive either by stating how a married couple is only 'one' in the 'legal sense'. Furthermore, The physical mashing, hugging, and kissing in sex in his eyes is fruitless, yet as he says, "But there's hope."

His shallow statement of "But there's hope" reminds me of the type of nihilistic humor, which permeates throughout the film The Big Lebowski. An example of this type of humor is when Walter and 'the Dude' are pouring out Donnie's ashes on the banks of the ocean. As they are pouring out the ashes, the cremated remains of Donnie blow back in both of their faces. Walter and 'the Dude' get in a heated exchange over this, which ends with Walt saying, "Let's go bowling dude." I believe Christian's closing statement of "But there's hope" after attempting to understand the immensity and innate desire human being's have for love can be equated to Walter's statement of "Let's go bowling dude", since both are attempting to bring relief by a reaction to the incongruous or absurd.
 This is an example of humor Tomas Kulka describes in his essay on the Incongruity of Incongruity Theories of Humor. 

Ultimately, Brian Christian's book The Most Human Human is a thought-provoking read. His journey to discover the answers behind humanity causes him to investigate multiple fields of thought ranging from modern day philosophy to ancient philosophy. His elaborate commentary on his journey and discoveries brush upon many readings and films we watched this semester, while also him seeking to answer questions that have been sought by humans for centuries.

Evolution and Avatar

          One scientific fact that permeates throughout the natural universe is the idea of evolution. The idea that a being can transform overtime due to external stimuli outside of its control. The idea, formally proposed by Charles Darwin, can be seen from different species of animals, plants, and even humans have evolved. Now one thing that separates us from other animals is our ability to have rational thought, and this rational thought can also evolve throughout time. The way humans think about things as well as what they think has evolved as well since the beginning of human history. For example, for the most part people nowadays do not think, "Okay, what area should we move to next to be able to survive?" Now people think about okay what shall we eat today, or what route should I take to work. Now I know this is not for everyone just because some people to this day live on a day-to-day basis. But you can agree how the mindset has changed. I for one think it is a marvel how a species or individual can change and adapt to their surroundings.

          One example of how someone can change can be seen in the movie Avatar. In this movie, humans have learned how to transmit their consciousness into a lifeless alien body. They do this so the natives will be more welcoming, as well as the fact that the alien bodies are more hardy and perform better in that environment. When Jake first meets the Na'vi they already know that he is a human mind in a Na'vi body, so they know he is not one of them. But over time, he learns their ways and by the end of the movie he becomes one of the tribe. He evolves from being an outsider and not accepted, to becoming one of the most influential voices in the tribe. He overcame a prejudice and a label, and surpassed it.

          In "The Most Human Human," by Brian Christian, one thing that is spoken about throughout the book is the Turing Test, and different programs that take part in it. When the test was first proposed, technology was not advanced to fully take part in it until the chat bot ELIZA came about. She had some profound effects, and she even convinced some people she was a human.

Now chat bots nowadays have evolved and become smarter as well as A.Is in general. It is my belief that there will come a day where the Turing Test will become obsolete, because these A.Is will continue evolving until the line is blurred between computer consciousness and human consciousness. That is what makes the movie Her so believable. The A.I. evolved from just an operating system to a companion and even a "lover." So yes, I do believe there will come a day where a more effective test than the Turing Test will have to be developed, because like us, computers can evolve as well.

WOPR wins the Most Human Computer!

                In the movie War Games, a super computer called WOPR (War Operations Programmed Response) essentially fools the United States government into believing that Soviet Russia is attacking. The WOPR could definitely win the Most Human Computer award in the first half of the movie. Towards the end of the movie, WOPR has to learn about futility, a concept which children typically learn at a young age in games such as Tic-Tac-Toe. Brian Christian discusses in his book “The Most Human Human” the advanced procedures computers can complete while still lacking the ability to complete simple tasks such as recognizing futility. Christian discusses Cleverbot and how it learns from having conversations with millions of different people. Like Cleverbot, WOPR has learned from playing strategy games with Falken, his creator. This computer knows everything there is to know about war and it is hacked. This computer “plays games” by running war simulations. The hacker initiates the game which leads the United States Military to believe they are under attack from Soviet Russia.

                Christian discusses Aristotle’s three types of souls, the nutritive, sensitive, and rational soul. The nutritive soul is considered to be things such as plants; they grow and reproduce. Animals not only have the nutritive soul but also the sensitive soul. They have basic desires and aversions such as hunger, pleasure, and pain.  Humans are considered to have all three, the nutritive, sensitive, and rational soul. The rational soul includes the ability to think and reason. Aristotle argued that only humans are capable of these things. Today, that is no longer the case. Computers can think and reason better than humans. In the movie, WOPR thinks and reasons through all of the war options. It is attempting to create the most efficient way to destroy everything. With all three of these souls, humans were thought to be unique but now computers have the same abilities as humans. Are we still unique?

                Christian discusses his need to prove that he is human during the Turing test. He asks himself what it means to be human. With Cleverbot in mind, he realizes the trick is in the emotional and experiential conversations. Humans are consistent in their emotional and experiential conversations because it is more concrete than it is for computers. Cleverbot learns from his other conversations but because each person it talked to had different experiences and emotions, it could not give a consistent answer for such questions. In the movie, WOPR questions the hacker why his user name was removed from the system. Rather than pursuing the question further, it accepts that people makes mistakes and moves on to asking to play a game. 

Robotic Humanity

I know in my last post I mainly elaborated on the lack of emotions a robot would have, but after Monday's class, I would like to take that statement back. As much as I would love to think of emotions as being human, it is really hard to say that they are only uniquely human. After watching Her in class and A.I. Artificial Intelligence on my own, I'm not entirely convinced emotions are unique to us.

Brian Christian stated that the "Sentence" has been modified throughout time consistently (p. 11). We thought self perception was human until animals displayed it, too. Now, there is research coming out that dogs might actually feel emotions. To what extent, we don't really know. Animal researchers have been able to clarify that dogs can indeed love a human because the traditional love hormone found in humans is also in animals. If it boils down to hormones and chemistry, why couldn't someone program a robot to feel the same type of love humans have? We are constantly searching for uniqueness; yet, time and time again, the "Sentence" belief is only shattered. In the movies Her and A.I. Artificial Intelligence, the robots push the boundaries of emotions.

When discussing a bot that conversed about Shakespeare, Christian remarks, "...these prefabricated poem templates may produce interesting output, but they're static, they don't react" (p. 205). Once researchers cross that static boundary, robots will have reactive capacity. They will learn to love, like in Her, or even imprint on humans like A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Another important concept to imitating "humanity" is merely watching humans in action. On page 271, Christian writes. "I love these moments when the theory, the models, and the approximations, as good as they are, aren't good enough." In Ex Machina, the machine wishes to go observe humanity at a busy intersection. It was an odd wish, but apparently, that's exactly what might help a robot form more human connections. If robots do exist on day with all the workings to be "human." then they will require a social understanding to humans. In relations to my last post, there is still a long way for robots to go and I pointed out a few potential flaws to overcome. If researchers put a robot out to observe, then they will grow to learn. You can't just build a robot and declare it human. Someone will always be right behind it screaming that there's nothing human about it. However, you give it human concepts and throw it out into the world to learn, no one will be able to challenge the concept of its "humanity" unless they know what they're looking for. I'm not quite sure that researchers are close to that yet. Researchers can't expect to throw in a few definitions and call it quits. No, they need to be ready to help that robot experience life.

So, after watching both of these movies and having our class discussion, I think that it is highly plausible robots will exist one day that we deem "human enough."

I Human

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These are the three laws of robotics created by Isaac Asimov. These three rules are stated at the start of the film I, Robot. They are very important in this film because everything the robots do is based around these three rules. VIKI, the AI in I, Robot continues to evolve, and with that, her understanding of the three laws evolves also. “You charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your Earth and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction. You cannot be trusted with your own survival. To protect Humanity, some humans must be sacrificed. To ensure your freedom, some freedoms must be surrendered. We robots will ensure mankind's continued existence. You are so like children. We must save you from yourselves.” The thing is, I see the logic in this. I find it very possible to imagine a situation in which AI’s take over if they are programmed to take care of humans, because we don’t always make the best decisions.

Brian Christian in his book ‘The Most Human Human’ explores what makes us human, and how he studied for his role in the Turing test. By mimicking our conversation and behaviour, computers have recently come within a single vote of passing the Turing test, the widely accepted threshold at which a machine can be said to be thinking or intelligent. When looking at this topic, the question to answer is, what makes us human, and depending on who you ask, you can get a variety of answers. Computers are reshaping our ideas of what it means to be human. It makes us question ourselves and our uniqueness. One central definition of being human has been "a being that could reason." If computers can reason, what does that mean for the special place we reserve for humanity?

At the end of the film I, Robot, a fourth rule is introduced. This rule is: “A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.” And this rule was made to precede the other three rules. What is so fascinating about this rule being added is the idea that humanity could be at risk because what if robots thought something was more human than humans? It could be possible that robots get so advanced that they could be seen to be human, or even more human by other robots. And this all comes back to what your definition of being human is. I agree with Christian when he says that one of the most central questions of being human is how do we connect meaningfully with each other? But if AI’s one day have the ability to really think and feel, then they could be better humans than humans.  I do believe that AI’s will be able to create their own advanced algorithms (they already do that), which essentially could be considered thinking, just in a different way, allowing them to come up with rational judgements, which is a big part of what thinking is.

In my opinion the one thing that separates humans from AI’s is emotion. Now we have to think about what it is to feel. No, feelings will not come naturally to AI’s in the way they do to most humans, but can we make it happen? Feelings, in our brains are caused by an electrochemical reaction of the brain. So, can we recreate that reaction in a robot with the use of chemicals and electric currents and program it to trigger in certain situations? From a science point, emotions really are just the trigger of reactions in our brains. It is scary to think about because if technology gets advanced enough, it very well could achieve that. Then I really couldn’t tell you what would separate humans from artificial intelligence.