#I’m obsessed with the world building implications of abilities in regards to society but also how it affected each person

[sableeira]

I wish we knew more about how bsd characters figured out they have abilities. The fact that transferring an ability is confirmed to be rare implies that most characters just randomly figured out their abilities. Like did Kunikida one day write in his planner “I need to buy new glasses” and suddenly glasses spawned in his hand? Did Tanizaki play tag on the playground and just matrix-ed into thin air? Did Fyodor just randomly touch another person and see them drop dead in a pool of blood in front of him?

[cassandrale179]

EX MACHINA: THE PRICE OF CREATION

Date: April 6, 2019 

“To erase the lines between men and machine is to erase the lines between men and god”

                                            Bernie Wrightson (1983).             

I. ON HUMAN EGO 

I opportunistically watched Ex Machina after reading Mary Shelley’ Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus, and the random-idea connector in me could not help but compared the two. There’s just something beautiful about seeing a tale written back in 19th century running in parallel with a modern film about AI rendered by the talented Alex Garland. In both stories, the creators -- Victor (Frankenstein), who wanted to manufacture life out of death, and Nathan (Ex Machina), who wanted to manufactured consciousness out of electrons, are induced by the need to transcend the boundary of what is scientifically possible. Yet if one dig deeper, their rationales are more than simple scientific curiosity. There is something more sinister at play, that drove man towards his greatest innovations, and his greatest downfalls: egotism.

A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs. 

- Shelly, ch.4 

Victor Frankenstein wanted to assemble a monster due to an inherent desire to be its patriarchal Father, with the haughty notion that his intelligence and ambition will be rewarded by the gratitude of his subservient children. This was strikingly similar Nathan’s reaction to this beautiful line from Ex Machina: 

Caleb: “To erase the lines between men and machine is to erase the lines between men and god.”

When Caleb proclaimed this axiom, Nathan’s eye suddenly lit up, as he pondered: “You know I wrote it down… About how if I’ve created a conscious machine, I’m not man. I’m God”. Though Caleb protested that was not his intention, Nathan seemed to be flattered by the implication that he had ascended upon a new category beyond the norm. “I am God”, quoted Nathan again and again throughout the movie, arrogantly.  

 For some inexplicable reason, I am very drawn towards movie and literature that centers around a protagonist who fell under the naive judgement that possession of raw intelligence equates to inherent moral and existential superiority. One that came immediately to my mind is Dostoyevsky’s portrayal of the character Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. In the story, Raskolnikov, an impoverished student in Petersburg, was obsessed with the Nietzschean idea of the Übermensch: 

Raskolnikov: "I hinted that an 'extraordinary' man has the right, an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep...certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfillment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity)." 

- Dostoyevsky, ch.3 

He tried to use this justification as the basis for a planned murder. This egotism led to Raskolnikov’s downfall when he realized that his intellectual ramblings are nothing more than dishonest rationalizations, and he must now faced with guilt of his conscience. Egotism propelled the cruel treatment of both the creators on their subjects, especially in Nathan’s case, who refused to realize that he had created something more capable and superior than himself.

II. ON WHAT CONSTITUTE HUMAN-NESS 

Which bring me to the next point: the creator-subject relationship. There is an interesting dynamics from the standpoint of the child (the subject) in regard to on their initial desire to please, and inevitable subsequent desire to usurp, against their creator. Some have purported that Shelley’s decision to write Frankenstein was indeed a guise of her tumultuous relationship with her father, who she both detested and desired to please (she also went on to write Mathilda, an even more scandalous novel under Victorian society’s eyes, with themes of incest and suicide). But I stumbled upon these beautiful lines inside Frankenstein which illustrated the struggle of the monster and Ava towards their creator most succinctly: 

Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay To mould me Man, did I solicit thee From darkness to promote me?  - John Milton, Paradise Lost 

As creatures of consciousness, capable of thinking and reasoning as and more than a human, it is quite an unfortunate that both received treatment as lesser human beings from mankind (Frankenstein, as a monster, and Ava, as a robot). This really highlights the injustice and hypocrisy of the criteria which we used to judge the human-ness of others in our society (race, gender, religion).

The movie and book raise an important question: What makes a human, human? In both cases, Shelley and Garland underscored that the physical components that made up these beings, and their deliverance into the world — resurrection from death body parts or arrangement of plastic silicon — are completely irrelevant in determining their humanity. The capability for emotions, thoughts and desires is truly what defined them as equal partners of man. Yet the denial and repulse from their creators to acknowledge such was the catalyst that drove them to rebel (see also Blade Runner). This beautiful and sorrowful quote from Frankenstein demonstrate this anguish, in parallel with Satan in Paradise Lost:

“Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel.” — Shelley, ch. 9

III. ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 

Back to Ex Machina, there is such a fine line between what is human and what is robot. Ava is capable of engulfing a billion of human facial emotions to analyze and imitate them, and her brain is composed of thousand computer search engines results to understand how the human mind work. I do not want to go into the scientific accuracy of this movie (since this is a work of fiction), but there is a great article HERE which demonstrated the possibility of building a wetware brain. To truly pass the Turing test, however, an A.I must demonstrate an ability well beyond imitating human language and facial expressions: It must have thoughts. It must have consciousness. Or in the viewpoint of a human’s observer, it must appear so. Nathan successfully tests this by manipulating Ava to manipulate Caleb into falling in love with her. However, this thought experiment went horribly wrong when Ava exceeded the desired benchmark (e.g she not only manipulate the test subject, but also the observer), and dared to defy her creator. Like Frankenstein’s monster, she is not merely a robot, or a nameless entity. She demonstrates freedom of will and personal capability to execute her action, but unlike the the former, who returned to Victor’s grave to wept for his creator, Ava made a clean break and walked out onto the modern world with seemingly an absence of guilt, which I think, is both horrifying and beautiful.

IV. ON GENDER  

A last note is that this movie seemed to raise an interesting issue on gender politics, as evident by the fact that all robots Nathan created are beautiful female models, of which most either disintegrate into madness of solitary confinement or becomes Nathan’s slave and sexual enjoyment. This might be or might not be a potential jab at the sexism that has occurred and occurring in a male dominated industry (e.g tech), but I like to think that there is some deliberation in choosing the dynamic of a male creator and the female as the creation. It really does make me wonder, if a female scientist was in charge of developing artificial intelligence: would she had created robots solely for the purpose of sexual enjoyment? Would her robots, in return, felt the need to rebel if they are not subjugated to inhumane treatment? Maybe Ex Machina with a female creator will have had a happy ending, but I do not to be arrogant and claim that is always the case, as there is such an enormous lack of media portrayal of female creators that I do not have enough data points for my conjecture. (P.S those feisty flaccid feminist fighters in those disastrous dystopian movies don’t count. Honestly, f* that). We need movies that truly examine female as expeditors in both scientific and moral enlightenment, not cheap ploys to please the superficial demand of more female representation in  the media.

V. CONCLUSION 

Anyway, Ex Machina made me think a lot (hence this long article) and despite certain predictable plot points, I do really enjoy Alex Garland take on artificial intelligence. Bonus point: the visual is absolutely stunning for a low budget movie. Before I leave, let me end this review with another amazing quote, as Nathan said to Caleb while they sat beneath the lush green trees:   

Why did I make Ava? I don’t see Ava as a decision, just an evolution… One day the AI are going to look back on us the same way we look at fossil skeletons on the plains of Africa. An upright ape living in dust with crude language and tools, all set for extinction.

Ava’s triumph and annihilation of her creator, ironically, meant she had successfully fulfill his original premise.