Mid-Term

       1. Are We Sleepwalking Through Life?

In Langdon Winner’s “Technologies as a Form of Life”, he writes about technological somnambulism and how it is altering our lives.  Technological somnambulism is defined as how we “willingly sleepwalk through the process of reconstructing the conditions of human existence.”  Winner claims that humans willingly sleepwalk through our lives because of the affect that technology has on us.  Our involvement with technology is a non-problematic interaction; we simply make and then use it.  We do not take the time to examine or analyze what it is that we are doing with technology.  Our sleepwalking begins as a habitual interaction with technology that we do not think twice about.  Once we do this same interaction over a period of time, it simply becomes a part of our everyday lives; it becomes normal.  Humanity has taken advantage of the ease and convenience of technology instead of actually taking the time and contemplating how to use it in the best way that would maintain the conditions of human existence.  For example, most teenagers today have an intimate relationship with technology such as their phones and social media.  It is so normal to log on to Facebook or Twitter on your phone and spend time emailing and texting friends that people do not even realize how the use of their phones have changes their interactions and relationships with other human beings.  Technology can, in some ways, limit our social interaction with other people when face-to-face communication is taken into account.  But, when it comes to the sharing of information, modern technology is an invaluable asset to the modern world.  Phones make it so easy to get in touch with someone and efficiently share information without ever having to actually talk to the other person or persons.  Animosity has led people to be crueler in saying their opinions because they are able to hide behind the mask of social media; they do not have to look the person that they are criticizing in the eyes.  Technology has changed our actions towards one another by gradually changing our daily routines into becoming more and more physically isolated.  When people communicate face-to-face, they are not as emotionally connected as they used to be because they are losing their understanding of how to connect with each other.  Some examples of technologies that we so nonchalantly use and take advantage of are microwaves, cell phones, of course, modern medicine, and GPS.  We see GPS as a convenience that helps us know where we are.  But, GPS can also be used for evil.  It can be used to track us without our knowledge; the government also has GPS in drones in order to spy on certain locations and drop bombs on specific places.  In the case of the drone bombings and spying, it is difficult to say who is responsible; it is not the technology its self, so is it the creator of the technology or the person who tells the technology what to do.  The use of new and advanced technology brings forth a question of moral responsibility.  Many people are not sure where these lines are drawn because of our technological somnambulism.  Modern medicine has enabled humanity to make amazing improvements when it comes to healing previously incurable diseases, creating prosthesis, and preventing future disasters.  But, it also has brought about the concern of whether or not some of the things that we do are actually moral; should we do them just because we are able to and they make our lives easier?  Our phones and social media especially allow us to expand the range of people who we know, but it gives us a sense of constant affirmation.  If we do not have this constant affirmation of our surroundings and people that we know, we become terrified of the unknown.  Because of new and emerging technologies, we so frequently see the world as new and strange.  When we do experience the world for what it really is, we cannot see through the fear that the lack of technology has created.

5. AI: To Be or Not To Be

 Ava, in Ex Machina, was a true example of artificial intelligence due to the fact that she was able to set goals for herself; her goal to escape was not pre-coded into her operating system.  If she was not AI, she would not have felt the need to be free.  The word “need” is very important when considering AI. Does a true AI actually feel emotions or is it just programmed to respond a certain way to specific situations?  This is a question that we, as emotionally affected humans, must consider when determining whether a machine is AI or not.  Even though Ava had never been outside of the research facility that she was created in, she longed to be free from all constraints.  Ava had the ability to make the necessary decisions needed to escape her confinement.  Ash 2.0, in Be Right Back, was not a good example of AI because he could only be what social media made him.  Ash 2.0 was the version of himself that the real Ash wanted the world to see. Martha was able to make the robot Ash more like the real thing by providing pictures and other information, but the information and memories that she provided came from her perception of Ash.  Due to the problem of the other mind, no one could give information about how Ash truly was to the robot besides Ash himself.   Ash 2.0 could not make his own decisions; he was controlled by the actions and decisions that were actually performed in the past by Ash.  Martha got frustrated because she expected him to act just like Ash and make decisions that Ash would make, but the robot did not have that ability.  Ash 2.0 had no fear or longing for life when Martha told him to jump off of the cliff.  He was going to jump without fear until Martha got upset and explained how the real Ash would have reacted to the situation.  He felt no need to preserve its life and therefore was not a true AI machine.  Marta was able to keep Ash 2.0 in the attic for years without having him rebel or even attempt to escape at all.  It is not that he did not think that he could, but rather, that he did not have a problem with being confined to the attic.  He did not feel the need for freedom like Ava did.  This is one of the major defining differences between the two machines. 

Obviously, we have some moral obligation to other intelligent beings; we have moral laws that we, for the most part, abide by when interacting with other humans.  We have a consciousness of what is morally right and morally wrong to do to another being.  Even less intelligent creatures claim a moral obligation.  We know that it is immoral and evil to treat a pet in an abusive manner; we have an obligation to protect the animals and keep them from harm.  PETA and other animal protection organizations have been created for this very reason.  But, what constitutes a moral obligation?  In class we touched upon the subject of souls.  But then the question becomes that of the location of the soul.  Do trees and viruses have soul?  How can we determine which organisms possess souls?  So then, we turned to the topic of consciousness.  Will a true AI have a consciousness?  If it does, then I believe that we would have a moral obligation to that machine.  If the robot can feel and be affected by its own emotions, it should be treated the same as we treat other beings that have a consciousness.  We would have to understand that they deserve respect and that we can no longer take advantage of their knowledge for our own selfish purposes; they would have the ability to possess things of their own and not be used solely as devices to make our lives easier.  The AI machine would be held responsible for its own actions and would be treated just as any other conscious human would.  Humans would also have to accept the fact that if the machine had a consciousness, we could not just turn it off like we would a normal computer because that would be similar to killing another human.  Killing causes pain and ends the life of a conscious being.  These moral obligations would hold true regardless of whether or not the being is “organic” because it would still possess a consciousness.  If we can create a being that has an awareness and consciousness, that would be something truly amazing, but we would have to understand that, when we are to cross that line, AI will claim the same moral obligations that we give to all other conscious beings, metal or not. 

6. The Turing Test

The Turing Test is a test that is performed to determine if a computer possesses artificial intelligence.  If a computer possesses artificial intelligence, it will be able to think, make its own decisions, and have a consciousness.  The Test is conducted with a board of humans who have several five minute chat conversations with so-called “confederates”.  The board members do not know if the confederates are human or computer.  At the end of five minutes, each board member has to make a decision on if they think that the confederate that they were just chatting with was human or computer.  If a computer convinces seventy percent of the board that it is human, it passes the Test.  In other words, it wins the imitation game.  The award for the most human computer goes to the computer that tricked the most board members into thinking that it was human.  Alan Turing, the creator of the Turing Test believed that by the year 2000, we would have achieved artificial intelligence; obviously that did not happen, but we are getting closer and closer each year.  Turing believed that if a computer won the imitation game, it would possess intelligence because it would be able to make a human believe that it was just like them; the only way that a computer could convince a majority of humans that it also was human, would be if it actually possessed intelligence.  Without any form of intelligence, it would not be possible for a computer to imitate an actual human so well.  The computer programmers who participate in the Turing Test code their programs to make grammatical mistakes and to respond two or three times in a row to try to provide a stream of consciousness.  These tactics trick some board members, but not enough for the computers to be determined AI.   All of the things that humans thought would be hard for computers are easy and all the things that humans thought would be easy for computers are actually especially difficult.  Computers are extremely good at answering questions with no consciousness of who is asking or the context in which the question is asked; their answers tend to be a collaboration of how other humans would answer.  Something that is very difficult for a computer but easy for a human is image recognition; humans are able to easily identify others through facial recognition, while computers have a much more difficult time.  Also, computer programs tend to start over after each questions, so it is hard for them to carry on a continuous conversation.  This is a tell-tale sign for a board member that they are chatting with a computer.  The Turing Test presupposes that if a computer can trick a human through communication, it possesses artificial intelligence due to the fact that we are fundamentally social beings.  But computers cannot have an actual conversation without having the ability to think.  They are expected to communicate in a rigid and very formal way, while humans are expected to communicate with a more laid back and lazy style; humans will be mistaken, while computers will not.  In order for computers to pass the Turing Test, they have to be able to communicate in a humanistic way, but who is to say that this way of communication is the only style of communication that will determine a computer intelligent?  Computers are typically seen as void of emotion.  They can exhibit programmed reactions that we could easily take to be emotions.  The thing that makes humans different than computers, with respect to emotions, is that we have the freedom to feel emotions, while computers must have emotion-like reactions coded into them; we can go beyond code.  Computers are expected to be perfectly rational.  In class we discussed the idea of something being perfectly rational.  I feel that there is no way that a computer can be perfectly rational if it is created by imperfect humans; the foundation that computers intelligence is built on is in essence imperfect.  

Midterm Q1.3.5

Singularity  

Basically what Ray Kurzweil means by singularity is a point in the near future where technology and humans will become so advanced that it will be completely different to generations and would not make sense to these previous generations. This point would be one that would not be reversible. Things would be so different that everything around us would be drastically changed from the way we learn, to how our bodies behave, to how crucial parts of society exist around us would be nothing like we see now. I read an article that explained this by using the example of the internet. If a person in 2015 were to explain to a person who lived 200 years ago the concept o the internet, it would be impossible because the ideas and language would be drastically different to the point of not understanding the concept. I think the merging of biology and machine is happening but not to the point that is implied by Kurzweil.  

I think there are existing technologies such as incubators for babies that are a technology that merges with the biology of the living baby to help it reach a level of self survival when the baby is born prematurely. Another example of the merging of biology and machine intelligence is a  chip on a dog, the chips helps the owner locate the dog if it were ever to be lost. The difference between this and the singularity concept is that both of these technologies only serve that single purpose, their reach is pretty limited to those uses and therefore doing very little to affect other things around it that do not directly relate to the purpose. 

I am not sure if I can break singularity down to say it is either good or bad. I think it is simply a mystery whether good will prevail or the bad will take over. In a perfect world it would be ideal, the technology could make us advance in fields that are still not reachable. It would allow for further understanding of concepts that we know little about today. For instance, this concept could potentially enable humans, with the help and merger of machines to find out if there is life in other planets. The possibilities are endless, the questions we do not know the answers to yet would be easier to figure out with the merging of two great species that are computers and humans. 

However, there is no perfect world, with such a drastic change there will be potential for disaster. For example, wars would could potentially enter a whole new detention of destruction. This reminds me of the movie Transformers, the level of destruction will be even superior to what we already have. Governments could use such a merge to hurt other countries or manipulate people of the environment to a destructive point. This idea is basically just imagining the worst possible thing that could happen but I hope won’t. 

Most people fear the unknown, I am one of those people. Life right now to me is good, we are doing fine, however it is inevitable that we will progress and that rate will be very quick so I am prepared to have an open mind and hope for the best but it is pretty difficult to be optimist when all the fictional versions of such ideas always end in disaster. 

Winner is Right  

  

Langdon Winner believed that we as humans are not fully conscious on the implications technology and the dependency we have on it. We see technology as a tool that we can decide when to use and when to put it down. However, he believed that humans don’t fully consider the consequences that using technology produces. I agree with his point of view, I think we use technology because it is very convenient and helpful to live our day to day lives. Sometimes we don’t even realize we need a certain technology but when it is introduced we find out it is so much easier to do whatever task with it so all of a sudden we have no idea what to do without it. For example, touch screen phones were not always around, we had to push buttons and communicated just fine. However, now if you take my touch screen away I would not be a happy camper.    

The thing we don’t take into consideration is that all of these uses for technology are creating patterns in our lives that we don't notice immediately. For example, Google is such a fundamental part of everyone's life now from college student to a mom looking up recipes to bake a cake. It is great to have answers to any questions at the click of a button however, this technology has only been around and as we know it for a little over a decade. We as humans have grown so attached to it and  don’t realize how crucial it is until we don’t have it. If google were ever to disappear we would definitely not know what to do with ourselves. Everything would take longer to do, from finding directions to someplace, researching a topic for a school paper, or even finding out what ingredient you needed for that cake.   

Paper maps are no longer normal, some people would be lost if they didn’t have google. That research paper would take a lot longer to do in order to have everything you need because books and people would be your only resource. That cake would have to be a trial and error process because you couldn’t double check how much of this or that you would need to put in it.  

We have an addiction to technology and it is increasing and becoming more attached the issue is that we have no idea. We think that we can stop using a phone any time we want, because of course it is just a phone, a tool to do whatever task we have. What Winner aimed to explain and what I agree with is that technology is no longer a tool it is an extension to our being that if taken away will have the same or even worse negative effects as if something we were naturally born with would be taken away.  

Ava vs Ash 

I think that Ava was more of an intelligent being than Ash, she adapted and her behavior progressed over time. She learned from the people around her and applied that knowledge to many things she did. Ash however, was more like a collection of digital information that the real Ash posted while still alive. There were instances in the short film where he learned figures of speech that he and his wife shared but in other situations he didn’t learn he was just obedient. The scene where he is arguing with his wife shows the deficiencies that he had while interacting and have an argument with her. In my option he real, he had creepy ways of interacting, he was an ideal form of Ash’s actual shared thoughts. He wasn’t really Ash, he only merged everything Ash said and made it into an ideal version of him.  

My idea of moral obligations to anyone is treat him/her/it how you want to be treated. This includes people and other living beings such as animals. I think it is not going out of our way to treat people the way that each one of us would want to be treated. In my eyes respect and helping someone when they can’t help themselves is a duty I have to fulfill. This doesn’t mean I go around in daily life looking for people to help or respect to give but in daily interactions I display all of these traits. I think we all should have this idea of respect and a humanistic approach of aid.  

I don’t think I have those same moral responsibilities apply to inorganic beings. However, this does not mean that I will go around mistreating every robot I run into. This to me just means that living things are a priority and more important than non living things. If i were ever put in a situation where I had to choose between a robot or a person I would 110% choose the person because my moral obligations are focused towards that being. I think this is simply the case because I know what it is like to be a living organic form so sympathizing with one is more straightforward than having that same feeling towards a bunch of mechanical parts arranged together. 

I am not preaching that this way of thinking will never change. I think that when Singularity takes off, we will be forced to reconsider and evaluate our place in society and the relationships we hold with those like us and the inorganic forms that will also be as if not more crucial than we are currently.  

  

Comments for Gabby and Larshay

Comment for Gabby:

• I totally agree that people, when pertaining to social media, are always filtering what they say, how their pictures look and what they show on their social media sites. I liked how both Ash 2.0 conveyed that social media alters the way people want to be portrayed. As far as Ava, she somewhat presents what the entire class has been wanting to say about robots since the first day: robots will take over the human race. Although Ava did not completely take over, she was still able to adapt to her situation, become cognitive about what Nathan was doing to her and manipulated Caleb in to helping her escape. The How me am I question is definitely a tricky question to answer. Of course I don't post the pictures that don't look good, or videos where I messed up a word, and even a snap with the wrong spelling. I am guilty of filtering my lifestyle to look "glamorous" for social media. But does that really portray who I am truly, or just a glimpse of me? The real question is how would a person who uses filters like "Victoria", "Kevin" or "Ink well" look if they were brought back to life like Ash 2.0?

Comment for Larshay

• I think the progression of robots is kind of cool. I would like to see if humans could actually make something that looks like us , sounds like us and functions like us. I would not want there to be one per person, but I would like to see how advance the human knowledge actually is. The progression of technology occurs without warning. For example, the iphone updates once a month. This might be an exaggeration, but you get my drift. The outer appearance of the phone itself might only change once a year, but the software is constantly being improved. I think Be Right Back and Ex Machina were good representations of how robots could react under certain situations.

I speak Robotnese. Humanese is obsolete.

Both Be right back and Ex Machina had a surprise ending I wasn't expecting. However it was Ava that was the true A.I. as compared to the Android Ash. Ash, only followed instruction and learned how to follow them better as time progressed. I would compare his learning process to the memory of google search. When you look up something often, google automatically fills in the blank for you with the most recent topics you typed in. our how you open a new tab and see the previous websites you were on. I wouldn't say that Google itself, in the absence of human programmers, is A.I. Ava did the same thing at one point, but it was more more fluid in the learning process that almost catches you off guard as she is asking Caleb about his world. I don't believe technology should get to this point.We constantly questioned what would robots do with they were able to be like us, and the answer that the movie presents is whatever humans do. I simply cannot see us allowing something we create to have the power to be unpredictable like us with more features than the average human to further their advances, whatever they may be. If anything, Android Ash was the safest of the two in that it wasn't a threat in anyway. Ultimately, he was obedient to his operator. even to the point of staying in the attic. i don't believe we know what we (human race) want when it comes to robots. If we even want anything at all. It seems that we are building more advanced technology because we can. The woman in Be Right Back thought she wanted the android, but in the end realized that the dead cannot be risen via robotics. 

You 2.0

Ash, as seen by the public eye, is not authentically Ash; Ash 2.0 does not know the mind of Ash as Ash knows it.; therefore, he is limited in his behavior.  He adapted to use Mar’s phrases, but did not initially argue with her or understand how Ash would behave. I am confident that he would adjust behaviorally as he did with vocabulary.  Understandably, Mar was frustrated that he did not grasp Ash’s mannerisms, but she did not give him enough time to adjust.  It would require patience, understanding, and assistance to create a more Ash-like being. 

Usually our social media accounts portray our ideal self.  Being in front of the camera changes how individuals act.  The best looking pictures, well worded sentences, and funniest remarks are used to represent us.  Flaws, weaknesses, and bad days are not shown – these characteristics make up a crucial part of individuals.: Mar discovered that she missed these aspects of Ash.  Access to his personal messages would reveal more truth about his highs and lows rather than the façade given to the public. 

I like the solution to let him exist in the attic and occasionally spend time with Ash’s daughter.  Martha decided to let him stay in the attic rather than plunge to his “death” from the cliff: this displayers her complicated moral relationship to him.  He was worthy of existence, but only in isolation.  It is a complex situation; the idea of moderation will need to be considered when we have access to our 2.0 deceased loved ones.  The reason he could be kept in the attic is because he lacked will.  Ava, from Ex Machina, understood the way Nathan manipulated her and desired freedom.  This distinction between Ash 2.0 and Ava is noteworthy because one embodies servitude and the other is capable of plotting and killing humans (rightfully so).  If robots are like Ash 2.0, humans will be pampered and served.  If robots are like Ava, humans could be manipulated, and will likely need to treat them like equals.  Either robot is capable of causing a human to fall in love because of his/he near human appearance and behavior. 

Suddenly, I am self-conscious of what I have put on the internet pertaining to me 2.0.  How me am I? 

BABE...I NEVER CHEATED!!

The more we works towards achieving artificial intelligence, the more we come closer to actually achieving that goal. Eventually and unfortunately it may be sooner than we think. The world in which we live may eventually be swarming with human beings, animals, and even highly intelligent robots. Some may choose to accept the thought of living in a world of robots while others may seem to be at unease at the thought. If this does happen and robots are capable of closely resembling humans (meaning that the are on the same level or possibly even higher; both mentally and physically), then there is a great chance that the world and how we view it will never be the same. It will be much more different and maybe even odd for some time.

Whether we choose to agree with the thought or not, there is a strong chance that humans and robots will both be involved in romantically relationships. Think of the concept of "The Perfect Guy/Girl." With robots involved in our society this may actually be achievable. What happens to the course of relationships? Or better yet, what happens to the course of marriage? If a partner cheats on their significant other, it is an activity known as cheating. What if the person that they cheated with is a robot? Is it really considered as cheating if it is a robot? Some may only consider the robots as a machine, while on the other hand there are some who actually consider the robot to be an actual human being. If the robot is a machine then it is not cheating and if the robot is considered as a person then it is indeed cheating. But how do we determine this cheating? or non-cheating?

"Babe! I never cheated...it was only a robot!"

This would be a very popular statement. If these robots are considered to be on the same exact level as us then would that make us as human superior or inferior? If they are classified to be much more higher than us, then we as humans have created something that is much more higher than most of us. Yes we would have achieved our goal at artificial intelligence, but how will that affect us and our everyday life and society? How would we view ourselves as humans? 

When to Draw the Line

After we talked about sex with robots in class, Professor Johnson's question helped me understand the flaw in my argument. Speaking from an objective point of view, sex with a robot isn't any different from using a toy, and I imagine there aren't too many romantic partners that would have an issue with their significant other ("s.o") using toys when they masturbate. And I imagine it's far better than cheating with a real human being. Personally, I still have an issue with this. If we were to reach a period in the future where robots looked like normal, natural humans, and that was what my boyfriend was using when he used "toys", I would have a problem with that. Even if it's only a robot, it's one that resembles a human woman, and sex with that robot resembles sex with a human woman other than me. Even if it's not literally cheating, it's the imitation of cheating, which is what bothers me about it. When a person cheats on their s.o, they've chosen another person that is either personally, romantically, or sexually attractive to them, and they have sex. With a robot, there isn't the same personal or romantic connection, but it's the same as meeting someone at a party and saying "You're hot. Let's have sex." There is no issue of consent or guilt on the other party’s part, but there is some form of sexual attraction there. After all, why would you chose to have sex with the robot over other toys if you’re not attracted to its physical features? And the question becomes more difficult to answer if you also have an s.o that’s available for sex? Again, this is only my personal view of the issue. If we’re talking about basic artificial intelligence with no form of sentience or human emotion, then sex with that robot is the same as using a toy. But personally, the resemblance to sex with a human bothers me.

Study Buddies

So, the obsession with the Turing Test and getting robots to be intelligent in the same way that humans are is, in my opinion, limiting the capabilities of robots. I think robots are basically a whole different species, so the measure for them should be different. Humans and machines are different, I believe we have potential to collaborate even more than we already have. I agree, with Dr. J, we shouldn't assume that they will take over. Robots should be seen as a more sophisticated tools and thy should use us as tools as well. We are useful in the emotion department, the creativity, the learning abilities. Robots will help us with accuracy, efficiency, and  do everything more quickly. Basically what I am saying is that we can exist together. They can solve our problems and we can help them be more human. There are existing examples in society now like dogs, horses, and other pet like species. However, the difference is that robots and humans would not be pets to one another, we would be equal, more or less like men and women, or just have different occupations like student and teacher but still with the ability to learn from one another.

Can anyone define what it means to be a human?

For the past few weeks we have been reading the book "The Most Human Human: What Artificial Intelligence Teaches Us  About Being Alive" by Brian Christian.  So just thinking about the title, I began to ask myself the questions "What does it mean to live?" and "What does it mean to be alive?" I'm not sure that Brian Christian's novel taught us everything we need to know about being alive but he did teach us a few things about humanity that I think help.

Another argument that I would like to make is that the creation of Artificial Intelligence has taught us so much about humanity because in attempting to create these humanoids we search deeply for characteristics of human nature to embed into this new technology.  Not only that but I believe that when one watches or analyzes the Turing Test they begin to learn about human behavior and things that make humans human.

So what if anything does Artificial Intelligence teach us about being human? The first lesson was that being human or imitating human behavior in a way that will allow you convince others that you are human requires you to be able to master the communication game. Not only that but another lesson that Artificial Intellignece teaches us is that we as humans continuously keep trying to use things that are indescribable and open to interpretation to measure humanity.

So out of curiosity I googled "what does it mean to be human?" And I found this YouTube clip. I believe this vlogger raised some very valid points about human nature. He described our ability to recognize other humans as our ability to "confer humanhood among each other." Do you agree, what do you think?"

What does it mean to be human?

Robots . . . Feeling Things . . . Ehhh...I Don't Think That's Possible

I know someone already wrote on this topic, but I also have thoughts on this topic so I will discuss it. I do not think robots will be able to feel emotions or anything for that matter. Robots would not be able to feel things such happiness, pain, or love. The reason humans can feel those things is because we have things such as a brain and a heart. In order for robots to feel emotions they would need a brain. The brain creates electrical stimulation that is sent to other parts of the brain to create the emotion or something like that. It might be possible for someone to create a robot brain one day, but I highly doubt it would be like a human brain because our brains are way too complex to be duplicated. That adds to why robots would not be able to feel or give love to other people. They would not be able to know what it feels to like someone. They would not get butterflies in their stomachs nor feel the pitter patter of their hearts . . . well because they do not have hearts or stomachs. I doubt scientists would be able to create robot organs that are similar to human organs. Also, robots would not be able to feel physical pain because they do not have skin. The sensory receptors in our skin send signals through the spinal cord and brainstem and finally to the brain where the info is processed and the person feels the pain. Scientists would be able to make robots look like they have human skin, but they cannot duplicate the skin receptors. Robots would only be able to imitate anything that human's do based off how they were made or coded.

Sex Toys, Robots, and Cheating

The topic of cheating and robots came up earlier this week in class. This was a topic which I found to be extremely interesting because no one could agree on what cheating was when  masturbation and sex toys were introduced into the discussion. The act of sex, like another student mentioned in class, is an act that should be reserved for one's significant other. Sex is sex whether it be with another human individual or a sex robot. In class, we were asked if masturbation could be considered cheating. Personally speaking, masturbation is not something I would personally consider infidelity in a relationship. Masturbation is an act that is performed with a sex toy (vibrator, dildo, etc) as opposed to a robot that has been modeled after a human. With a human-like robot that speaks to you, that is practically sex. If robots are going to be modeled after humans and have the ability to talk or express themselves in a human-like fashion, which will happen in the very near future, the act of sex with them would be closer to cheating than it would be with something like a dildo or a vibrator. If robots will have the ability to express or mimic human emotions, I feel it would be easier to construct a relationship with them when compared to sex toys. For example, a sex toy cannot talk to you or hold a conversation with you like a sex robot would be able to.If I were in a marriage, I feel that my husband would be cheating if he were to pursue sex with someone else, even if that "someone else" was a sex robot. If he were to watch pornographic material or masturbate, I would not consider that cheating because it is a sexual act he is doing by himself. It is not something he is doing with some machine that is talking or holding a conversation with him. He is not sexually engaging with a machine that has a human face and or a machine modeled anatomically like a human female. Even if he were to use some type of sexual device normally used by men, it wouldn't be on the same level of complexity as an actual sex robot.  With a sex robot, I feel that it would be just entirely too close to humans in the way that it looks and acts so therefore, in my opinion, it could be considered cheating.

Don't Bring Your iPad to Dinner, Please

Today, in class, we briefly discussed if the advance in technology, and more specifically, advance of our cell phones have stunted our abilities to communicate. My answer to this is yes. Here's why.

I work as a waitress at a small Asian place in Germantown, TN. We have a family that comes in at least once a week, so we know their orders and their habits pretty well. There is the mom, the dad, a young boy, and a younger girl. They order edamame, chicken lettuce wraps, and pot stickers... every time. 

What makes this family stick out to us as the workers, and what makes it relevant to this conversation, is that every single member of this family brings an iPad to the restaurant. The parents have full sized iPads, and the children both have a mini iPad. They are all on their respective iPads throughout about an hour long dinner. 

Waiters and waitresses are much more observant than you might think... So, I have seen this family weekly for the past year and a half. They say roughly three sentences to one another the whole meal. The children are playing monopoly and car racing games, the dad is reading the news, and the mom is on Facebook. 

Whatever you make take from this, I see this as sad. It is very apparent to me that the children lack social skills that I would expect, considering their age.  

On a day to day basis, I see the awkward dates, where the wife is always on her cell phone while the husband awkwardly eats food silently. Or vice versa. 

I've done this as well, of course. It's hard to put down my phone. But I think it's important to spend time in the real world when there are real people around you, that you care about. 

Is It Possible for Robots to Feel Emotions?

Do robots have the ability to feel emotions?  How can we know for sure whether or not a robot can feel?  Due to the problem of the other mind, it is not possible for an individual to understand with a sense of certainty what is going on in the minds of other beings, or robots.  Why do some people think that robots cannot feel emotions?  If emotions were simply encoded into a robot, then technically, they would HAVE emotions; but would they FEEL them?  I do not believe that robots have the ability to actually feel anything.  They can have sensors that communicate with each other to transmit information, but they do not have the capability to physically feel.  I think that robots could act as if they have emotions and respond in a certain why as a result of their coding, but they cannot truly feel their emotions.  We are different from that of a robot because we have the freedom to feel a variance of emotions.  None of our emotional responses are set in stone; one person may respond a different way from another to the same situation.  Robots may have codes, but as humans, we can go beyond the code.  The rigidity of the robotic code does not allow any room for emotional or spiritual growth; the materials that are used to assemble the robot do not allow for any physical growth.  The lack of progress puts a crater in between robotics and the human race.  They cannot experience things as we do if they do not grow physically and mentally with us.  What about the Turing Test and communication skills?  Although the Turing Test is referred to as the Imitation Game, I want to focus on the aspect of communication.  Can robots have an actual conversation? We set up the Turing Test to operate with our humanistic rules of communication, but we can say that robots will communicate with each other in a completely different way; they may communicate in a way that we do not understand due to the intelligence difference.  We project human behaviors onto non-human beings even though they communicate in a totally different way than we do.  We infer that when a dog responds to its name, it has communicated with us when in reality, its response was only a learned behavior.  So, are we requiring robots to reach an unreachable human aspect of communication even when they are not human? I believe that we have no clue what to expect with the advancement of AI technology.  We know how we feel, but not how machines feel, or if they even can.

Humans vs. Human Robots

For most of the week, we have been discussing the uses, progressions and programming of robots. The questions that have constantly surfaced were: will robots be able to adapt to every situation like humans do? Will they be able to learn at the level of a human or faster? Or will they have to be re-programmed every time new information is exposed. Another question is will robots be able to show love or emotions like a human, and will they be genuine. As of right now all of these questions are still unclear. There is no way of knowing how robots will truly be once they are created. Since artificial intelligence is constantly changing, it is hard to know for sure how robots will respond to certain situations or if they will be capable of loving a human or another robot back. I believe that the advancement of robots will eventually lead to them being able to generate coping mechanisms, real emotions and having the ability to adapt to situations without having to be re-programmed every time. These concepts won’t happen because of programming but because of imitation. Robots could easily become aware of how humans react in situations and eventually start imitating their behaviors. Does that make them at least human- like? Or are they still only robots? Also, if some of the transcendent concepts of humans are that they are born or have a specific birth date, could that become the same thing for robots? For example, once a robot is done being created, could that technically be its birth date? And if scientists can make “test tube” babies, is that baby technically a robot because of how it was made? Another example is the movie Gattaca. If we are introduced to new technology and able to create a human without them being conceived through sex, would they still be human? Or would they just be considered a non- mechanical robot? 

Comments for Beatriz and

 Comment for Beatriz-    

I          I think this fully describes the definition of being an introvert. I do not think that technology is causing people to become more aggressive towards each other. However, I do think that it helps keep people from being more interactive with each other. I too prefer to be around a smaller crowd of people, but it’s not because I prefer to be with technology. I think it’s because I am an introvert and need time to myself. Also, I think the person who won the “Most Human Human” award was not necessarily unlikable or moody. I believe that it was a tactic and method that robots don’t have the ability to do, since they are not generally programmed to show anger.

   Comment for Kelsey-

       

·         Kelsey, I agree that technology will be more prominent, accepted and operational for the future generations. As far as the hotel, I think it would be interesting to see how it actually operated. I also believe that within the next 50 to 75 years, robots will definitely consume more and more jobs. I know we don’t think of customer service answering machines or ATM’s to be fully robotic, but think about how many jobs were taken away because of them. The hotel is the first step to having many more.

What's up with Humanity?

Lots of people are jerks. And for the most part I don't like them. I only really talk to people if I have enough people around me that I know will help me out when I inevitably flounder. I can do it for a while, but I leave feeling incredibly drained. So I try to avoid it completely. And honestly, I think that a lot of people feel the same way. Why is it that so many people find communicating with people daunting.
A humane action is supposed to be pretty close to a benevolent action. It's interesting that as humans we find it difficult to put faith in other humans' humanity. I'm not sure if technological advances have made us more insensitive to people. I don't know if it's just made us more away of aggressive people. I do think that it's helped to change our minds about the way people are.

In The Most Human Human, we find out that the one of the previous winners of the title "Most Human Human" got that award for being a generally dislikable and moody individual. This did not surprise me, even though I did find it somewhat disturbing. Now I'm not sure if Humans are slowly becoming more rotten, or if just human's perception of humanity is becoming slowly more rotten. But either way if that's how's we judge these AI's I'm sure I don't wouldn't want to meet the winner of that Turing Test.