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

Nosedive & Humanity: "The Most Human Human" Goes to...

For Brian Christian, “The Most Human Human” is a question of what it means to be human, not necessarily to be kind. He asks, “How, in fact, do we be the most human human we can be—not only under the constraints of the test, but in life?” (31). He uses the Turing test to analyze this, and modern day technology. However, Black Mirror offers a stranger analysis with “Nosedive” in its third season. For “Nosedive” too the technology allows a closer look at our human tendencies, both good and bad. “Nosedive” offers up a deceptively simple premise: what if social media determined your real world status? This pitch has been nagged to death in thinkpieces about millennials, however “Nosedive” portrays not the young teen desperate for attention, but the adult desperate for success.  

  

Lacie, the main character, begins as a slightly above average ranking out of 5, at a 4.2/4.3. She is constantly rating those in the service industry as a five in hopes for reciprocal ratings, taking carefully staged pictures for a platform like Instagram, in her pastel world and her pastel clothes. She is living in some satisfaction, but she obviously longs for more—told she could afford an apartment in a better neighborhood (with holographic marketing placing a husband cooking for her at the counter) if only her rating was higher. Then she begins to spiral into a desperation and anxiety as she is asked to be a maid of honor for her ex- friend turned star, one event after another cracking her perfect life into shards, until everything, as the title suggests, absolutely crashes. 

  

To follow her allows for a critical eye of humanity where any good thing is done must be done for a selfish reason, ie Lacie ranking service industry folks and smiling unflinchingly until they rate her back. She screams, yells, cries, goes through a rollercoaster from unlikeable at the beginning to almost likeable by the end for the audience. To be ranked makes every aspect of you public, and therefore any success is scraped out, individuality suppressed, and any bad emotions traded for a cute smile in a selfie. 



credit



 



Though this could easily have become yet another article criticizing technology, the technology is barely a backdrop for the human drama. Everyone in “Nosedive” is competing for the prize “most human human” as Christian does. However, they do so desperately, clawing for any measure of success, ironically forfeiting their true humanity. In pursuit of an ideal, a certain kind of success, humans have lost the means to do so—honest emotion, honest human kindness. Any kindness is for gain, any smile is for popularity, every individual seeks individuality yet becomes practically anonymous among the mass. The consequence of a simple click becomes real, a breakup keeping a fellow coworker from even entering the building as everyone had ranked him badly. Mob mentality becomes the rampant, snarling normality of cruelty behind the smile. 

  

This stark parallel between Brian Christian’s work and “Nosedive” offers a fascinating look at the phrase “most human human” and what kind of title that is to have or pursue. Can there be a middle ground between philosophical pursuit or desperate ambition? Is there a different possible meaning for the ranking of "most human human?" 

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?

Final: The Most Human Human

          Brian Christian in his book "The Most Human Human," discusses computers, humans, and overall what it means to be human. What started his personal journey to seek out what makes humans humans was that he was asked to participate in the renowned Turing test competition. He would be taking part in it as one of the human participants to see if he could win the Most Human Human award. This puzzling name of the award makes him think what exactly does that award entail. So he spends time before the contest doing research and asking several professionals in different fields of human relationships to understand. He went to psychologists, lawyers, philosophers, and others to get the full spectrum in a sense. And the end result of his findings during this book was this book "The Most Human Human." He describes this book as a book that is about "living life," and hopes to show what the "Turing test can teach us about ourselves (14,15)."
          Christian boils down the Turing test to being about communication in its basest sense. The results that come about from these tests can be profound and can beg many different questions about people and machines as well as great philosophical ideas. One of these being that if machines ever do prevail consistently and with ease in the Turing test, Christian writes that it is not because of great advancement of the machines, but in fact the devolvement of human beings' ability to be human. That people have become so stock, and act more and more programmed as time goes on. It is as if that the more we plug into technology, the more programmed we become. He uses the predictive keyboard that smart phones have as proof of this. All smart phones now can predict what word you are going to type next and have an option displayed to choose that word. The phone performing this little action counts as a small Turing test even. Our conversations today can be so scripted and base. For example, think about how many times per day you are asked how you are.

"Hey! How are you doing?"
"I'm good! How about you?"
"Oh I'm great! Well it was nice to see you!"
"Yep! Catch you later!"

If we had a dollar for every time we  had these type of conversations we would all be rich.
          In the age of texting and digital talk, people are losing the ability to effectively communicate. Especially now with the use of GIFS and emojis as forms of communication, the use of words in their fullest effect is being lost. We can now get through entire days with dealing with people with some key phrases and nodding our heads. Christian talks about one of his experiences as a tourist in France where he felt like a robot. He just said some key phrases, changed his facial expression, and nodded until it ended. He did not fully comprehend the entirety of what people were saying, just the gist of it. Christian states he would try to avoid interactions that required in depth listening and two-way conversations. He compares this to a Turing test by saying that he would say whatever needed to get by and put on a face, but was not focused on the actual conversation being had. This specific example applies to many of us, because in today's world many people just say whatever needs to be said to get through the conversation as opposed employing intentional listening. You see more and more people are scared to talk to others because they are not used to human interaction.
          This can be seen in movies, as well, such as I, Robot. The robots in that movie have become so advanced that they have become a large part of society. Even to the point of becoming a very large crutch to people. They cook, clean, transport, and overall play a large role in people's lives. So when the new model came out everyone jumped at the chance to get it. But all the while people were devolving because everything was being done for them. Robots have become so prevalent that you almost see more robots walking about in public than actual people. This applies to todays world in the sense of human interaction. Our communication skills are being degraded due to most of our interactions occurring over the phone or by email. It is not the fact that we cannot have conversations. There is no problem with our ability to respond, but there is a problem of the meaning behind our responses. Communication technology, just like the robots, is evolving but the inverse of that is that something devolves simultaneously and in this case it is our lack of meaningful conversations.
          One reason that humans are becoming more and more plugged in can be seen in the movie The Matrix. It is perfectly believable to see why some people chose to go into the Matrix. Life in there is so much easier, and they did not have to deal with the harsh realities of the real world. I mean I can not honestly say I would have chosen any different considering the state that the real world was in. in today's society it is so much simpler to live via social media and communicate through texting and Snapchat. You do not have to do anything or see anything if you do not want to. You can literally control what you see and who you talk to (which can be a blessing sometimes), something you can not get out in the real world. But there is a tradeoff in that you are living in a lie in a sense, as well as the fact that you are losing the thing that can unify complete strangers: empathy. This single concept is what can make conversations so worthwhile. The idea that there is someone who knows what you are talking about and completely understands can give us a feeling like no other. Empathy and understanding are what make conversations as important as they are and when we have most of our daily interactions on the internet we lose that connection we have with the person we have that conversation with. Now this is not to say we cannot have meaningful conversations online, but the majority that we do have are not and feel scripted. Because one thing that we cannot get with online conversations is facial expressions or touch, two things that are almost as important as the words themselves. The visual cues that someone is paying attention and understanding are just as vital as the verbal ones.
          Christian's view that if computers completely surpass the Turing test, that it is because of humans becoming more machinelike than computers becoming more human is completely correct. We can even see examples of it today with the majority of our interactions being online. Our feeling of unity with other people is being lost slowly, but on the bright side, it is something that is not lost forever. Being human is not static and the definition evolves as much as we do. Just because the day may come where computers finally beat the Turing test, according to Christian, the story does not end there. He believes it would be a wakeup call for us and make us want to be more human. This breakdown of human interaction and our flocking towards computers is what is making everything sounds so robotic and scripted. But if we come together, make each other feel like we are important, and bring empathy and understanding important again there is no way an A.I. can pass the Turing test.

Hacktivism

Hacktivism has become one of those words that everyone has heard but might not realize what is actually going on. Honestly, before watching We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists, I wasn't even aware of how involved Anonymous truly was. It's one of those things that you don't necessarily hear about in the media because they're constantly painted as the "bad guys." However, after watching, I now stand actively behind the hacktivists.

Anonymous is a network of people floored to engage in political hacking. They have taken on fairly minor issues, like with the Church of Scientology, up to larger issues like the conflict in Egypt. If you want to take a look at the evolution of Anonymous, I highly recommend watching the documentary. They take the covered up truth and bring it public - just like Aaron Swartz. They believe that information and technology are free to the public and should not be censored. Honestly, with this whole net neutrality stuff going on, it's not hard to already anticipate an Anonymous attack.

In terms of our book, it's easy to see the humanity in hacktivism. Christian mentions in one chapter about how actors are able to keep playing a continuous character. He states on page 97 that, "It's be tempting to think that you spend a certain amount of time learning what to do, and the rest of the time knowing what you're doing, and simply doing it. The good actor will refuse to let this happen to him. The moment it does, he dies. A robot takes his place." In a sense, the government socializes us. We are shuffled into education, by law, and taught certain curriculums that the government could actually control (e.g., public schools). The government instills certain norms into our brain, like how stealing is bad and you'll go to jail or how we are supposed to sit back and let the government do their job. One could easily argue that we are merely actors just doing what the government has taught us to do. Hacktivists, on the other hand, throw that dynamic into a loop.

They specifically take what the government thinks and shoves it away. They dig up confidential documents and post them to Wikileaks. They encourage internet rebellion and protests at certain places that have wronged the citizens. If they even remotely think the government is interfering with their internet, they take to their computers, and turn the issue on its back for mere fun. They refuse to become robots because they are tired of just "doing." That's why activism of all kinds is part of our humanity. We can take to the streets to show how unhappy we are and attempt to change it. It might take years, but the end result will benefit us as a society. Anonymous is only trying to facilitate that process.

Furthermore, Christian also mentions the importance of reacting locally as being part of humanity. He writes on page 84, "You're not just doing something; you're doing the very human thing of simultaneously stepping back and considering the process itself." While it was mainly talking about continuous improvement for big companies, I think that it's a fair fit for Anonymous, too. If you think of it as similar to a company, they're effective because they don't just look for ideas, they actually act on them. Once the group catches wind of a situation, they take a step back and decide how to continue. If they threat is big enough, they will act on it, and incite internet protests. If it's deemed just an annoyance, they go about their business. They're effective because they act and don't stand aside.

Overall, I have developed a huge respect for the hacking world and glad that I was able to see past the faux "bad guy" image the media gives them!

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.”

Humanity Takes a "Nosedive"

In typical Black Mirror fashion, “Nosedive”, season three episode 1, presents a reality that is conceivable of a not too distant future, that is extremely different from now but at the same time reasonable with the direction our society is moving. In this episode, technology and social media have been taken to such an extreme that a persons standing in life, in all facets not simply social, is based on their score out of a possible five points. Constantly people are judging and rating each other and one wrong move can take someone from a comfortable 4.2 into the average 3’s or to devastating 2’s or 1’s. 

In Brian Christian’s book The Most Human Human, he states, “Existence without essence is very stressful.” Although “Nosedive” is not about A.I. technology, this quotation really gets to one of the heart of the story. The essence of a person is the intrinsic, abstract nature of what makes a human, human. In this episode, people have lost their essence and are simply existing in this alternate reality of social media. Although everyone knows what having a low score can do to a person, down voting is seen as a way to publicly punish someone you don’t agree with. The main character Lacey must come to the realization that her social media life is a complete farce. The only real human interactions she has in the entire story are with her brother, the truck driver, and the man in jail at the end. When it comes to what her brother has to say, Lacey is in complete denial about her situation. She will do whatever it takes to raise her number, not just for the reason that she gives about buying the house, but also because her social media presence has become her sense of self. Nobody is real online, and people can even go as far as hiring consultants to get their scores up. 

Christian also states that “Like most conversations and most chess games, we all start off the same and we all end the same, with a brief moment of difference in between. Fertilization to fertilizer. Ashes to ashes. And we spark across the gap.” Everyone starts out the same and a person’s score means nothing after death, yet everyone still plays into this society that pits people against each other. People do not always give each other perfect scores because they everyone would be the same. In a society with no essence, the only way to feel good about yourself is to make someone else feel bad about themselves.  

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.

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."

How Do You Feel?

The idea that we characterize intimate and deep emotions as “human emotions” is something that I’ve thought more about this week than I ever thought I would. My initial reaction to our in-class viewing of Her (2013) was a little shocking and off-putting, and I’m still trying to understand exactly.

Despite the appearance of the main character, the emotional weight of the film leads more into a deeper conversation about human emotion and how we act upon it. Most people agree that our deepest, and most true emotions come from our soul, the most intimate part of ourselves, that make us ourselves. Brian Christian writes about the loose definition we have put onto our souls, and how we imply this importance onto them. But he states that most of our definition that we call ourselves has shifted to physical organs, our “meaning of being human”. He follows this with “that core, that essence, that meaning, seems to have migrated […] from the whole body of organs to the sole one in our heads” (51).

Christian most notably references the Greek philosophers Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, and their interpretation on human soul. But their interpretations seem to only translate (both literally and figuratively) the soul as broken bits like; “fulfillment of purpose” and “I think”.

These loose understandings of a human’s soul and emotional existence made me intrigued to re-watch the movie “A.I. Artificial Intelligence”, a movie about a robotic A.I. “child”. This movie presents countless examples of Christian’s text, upon how one sees and acts upon emotional relations with others. Notably, how the characters of this futuristic society react to an emotion-capable robotic child. As the child, David, is introduced, he is prided to be an “emotional-loving” robot, but distinctively not a “physical-loving” robot. Thought the movie, the mother character must interact with the robotic child while her our biological child is sick and in the hospital. Despite David’s programming to be capable of forming an emotional bond with the mother, Monica, she bonds with him but ends up abandoning him in a forest once her biological child can return to her.  

Along with the off-putting movie Her, this film, and Christian’s work, the world is slowly starting to question itself in the wake of technological advancement. People are really learning what artificial intelligence is teaching us about being human.

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.  

Most Human Aliens

In District 9 and the Most Human Human, we take a look into questions that have abounded for years. Questions which have been debated for centuries. These questions center around our humanity.  Questions like: What defines human beings? Are we no different from animals? What are human rights? Both the film and the book generate ideas off of these type of questions.

In District 9, we see a group of aliens, who are oppressed. They are outcasts, confined to live in a certain area, and are poor. They have little to no rights, and they are viewed as sub-human or inferior. Furthermore, they are foreign-beings or aliens. Consequently, this causes them to be viewed at from a suspicious, condescending, and fearful perspective from the government and a lot of the local community. This also leads to a number of moral and philosophical questions surrounding these aliens. These aliens are shown to be sentient creatures. They are rather similar to humans. They even have human like emotions as shown later in the film. Yet, these sentient creatures are being oppressed by humans and forced to live in sub-human conditions. Therefore, questions arise such as: Are they in need of human rights? What separates us humans from these aliens?

These questions become more complicated and intriguing as one of the main characters named Wikus  is splashed with alien fluid. This fluid ultimately causes Wikus to slowly morph into an alien creature.   As evidenced in the film, the government and local community view Wikus as sub-human, despite only one of his arms having alien features. Furthermore, it is shown at the end of the film (after Wikus is fully transformed into an alien creature) that Wikus still remembers his 'humanity. This is evidenced by him making metal flowers out of scrap for his wife. So besides Wikus morphing into an alien, what separates him from us? Yes, he looks different, but he still has emotions and is an intelligent, sentient creature.

These type of questions are the type that Brian Christian somewhat plays with in his book. He seeks to answer what makes a human 'human'.  He strives to investigate the intricate differences between artificial intelligence and human intelligence. In his journey in discovering what makes us human, he learns that 'being yourself' is central in defining our identities as humans. Yet, this perplexes him and causes him to wonder how can he be himself MORE. Ultimately, this leads to him diving into ancient and modern philosophy to answer these questions.

Ultimately District 9 and the Most Human Human serve as instruments in which we all can use to discuss questions regarding humanity. They cause us to search deep within ourselves and others.

The Most Human Robot

          One of the bigger questions that is beginning to be more and more prevalent in today's world is how comfortable will mankind become with artificial intelligence. How far will we let computers into our lives? Will they be involved in every facet of our life ranging from our jobs to our transportation? Or even how we communicate with each other? As we advance as a society technology is going to get more and more complex, as well as get more involved with our life to the point where the human by itself will become obsolete. I believe we will get to a point where technology will become such a crutch that the base human will become more devolved. Why should we have to learn and know everything when a computer or A.I. can just do it for us? I think the key is to find a way to innovate technology to able to further society without crippling the everyday man. And I believe the best way to do that is set a sort of limit of how "smart" our technology can get to ensure that there will always be a pecking order. Human life should always trump the advancement of technology, regardless of how evolved the technology has become. 

          One perfect example of this is in the movie I, Robot. In this futuristic society, robots have been made to help everyone in society to make people's lives easier. They also have been programmed to do no harm to humans, and are unable to do so. In general, life was good until an artificial intelligence evolved past her programming which in turn caused her to take control over the robots. The natural pecking had been disturbed and an artificial intelligence has taken over. Now she was beaten in the end, but that is besides the point. So many movies nowadays that deal with this subject, have all very similar plot lines. Humans make an A.I, the A.I surpasses the humans in intelligence, the A.I. tricks the humans and takes over, the A.I. is defeated by some Achilles Heel at the last second. What makes these plots and movies so good is the fact of how believable they are. It is not that far-out to think that something like this could happen.

          Another thing to look at is the comparison between humans and computers in the book "The Most Human Human," by Brian Christian. During one part of the book he discusses the soul and how it transcends the body. Even when the body dies, the idea of soul lives on. It is the common belief that humans alone have souls, and the proof of this is our ability have rational thought. The ability to separate ourselves from our body and base instincts sets us apart from every sentient being on Earth. That unlike other animals, our final goal is not survival and reproduction but a life of contemplation that produces happiness. But if you look at it objectively, aren't A.Is in their purest form solely rational thought? They do not have weakness that humans have, that is existing in form that has a preconceived time frame of being alive. So in my opinion, the best way to ensure that the pecking order is never disturbed is by putting a limit on how innovated A.Is can become. The moment we lose the title of being the only rational being on Earth, is the moment we are no longer on top.

Human Avatars?

Humanity is one of those things that no one quite thinks about. We all know the difference between us and something like a turtle, but what is it that truly makes us human? In Brian Christian's book, The Most Human Human, a few things that I agreed with the most in terms of our humanity. The first one is how well we understand the syntax and meaning behind a sentence. How do you program that into a robot? There are endless ways to form one sentence - including the stressing of certain words. Our language might not be unique, but I would like to think the ability to rearrange a sentence can be. Even in our own humanity, this still escapes us now. How many times have you talked to someone from a foreign country and been absolutely confused? It isn't because they aren't speaking the same language, but it's also about the slang or syntax. You can program language into a robot, but can you make it understand different accents and different sentence syntaxes depending on the country? I'm sure you could with a lot of hard work, but I would like to think this might cause a lot of problems.

Second, Brian Christian makes a point to include statelessness, which is defined as "each reply depends only on the current query, without any knowledge of the history of the conversation required to formulate the reply." Yet, not all of our conversations are like this. A.I. programmers would have to find a way to permanently store all conversations the robot has with a human. In theory, this sounds ridiculously easy to do, but think about how many daily interactions we all have. Not all of them are remarkable and need to be remembered, but that's expected of us. If someone is asked, "how are you doing" and they respond "stressed out about my test," the next time you see them, it is courteous to ask how it went and if the stress calmed down. Like I said, it sounds easy, but I am also thinking in terms of computers. I'm no computer science major, and I'm not going to act like it, but I do own a laptop. If I save too much on it, it starts to throw a fit and refuses to run properly. I think this is a huge flaw for potential A.I.s.

Lastly, I want to talk about the human ability to empathize. In The Most Human Human, there is a specific subtitle called, "Scaling Therapy." We think about therapy as personal, but apparently Richard Bandler used a different type. He never once got intimate with patients, but his patients were successful anyways. While I like to think that is just a fluke, I could definitely see how it works for some people. Not everyone wants to sit in an office and have something give them advice. It's pointless, especially if they know what they want to do in their hearts. However, I wanted to point out that this isn't for everyone. We can't say one therapeutic technique is conclusive. It brings up an interesting question, but I would like to argue that this intimacy is what makes us unique. We go to therapy offices sometimes to feel that connection. We put all our secrets out on the table for someone to look at us and say, "I understand." It's not an intimate saying, but it's enough to make us feel valid and calm down. How do you program that into a robot? Can you teach it to love someone unconditionally beyond knowing what words to say and how to say them?

Eventually maybe, but until that happens, I'm sticking with the argument that syntax, statelessness, and empathy are some of our unique traits for humanity.

Now I want to briefly talk about Avatar. I would like to think that they are real people. They are able to think, feel, and understand syntax of things. They might be strange creatures, but I refuse to believe the military guy when he asks, "What does it feel like to betray your humanity?" Because in my eyes, he didn't. The Avatar people had all the makings of a human, but they were just stuck in a different-looking body. Also, if you haven't seen this movie, it's definitely worth the 3 hours you spend on it!