811
A question asked by Benedict Cumberbatch in the movie Imitation Game
A question asked in numerous other movies/musicals/plays etc
Nevertheless, a question without an answer
A question asked in numerous other movies/musicals/plays etc
Nevertheless, a question without an answer
Drawing the line
Then why do people even bother trying to define what it is to be human?
The line isn’t only drawn between machines and humans but even between other living creatures/other humans
Two factors come to play here.
1. It is a method to justify discrimination 2. A mental trick to boost self-worth by imputing negative qualities on the other side
History serves the best examples.
When Europeans needed slavery to boost their economy the first step was to work on the intangibles — defining Africans as a inferior species, the kind that needed to be educated (by them)
When people needed to justify the ruthless slaughtering of animals, they claimed animals lack soul and emotion.
Some may take a step further and argue concepts such as soul and emotion is invented by the great minds like Descartes, in order to protect the sanity of the human race.
We use the word “machine” in the similar negative context: emotionless, inhumane, ruthless etc
Although it is seemingly insane to argue machines are like humans in this era, considering Africans as equal human beings may have been equally insane back in the 1800s.
Recent movies such as Her test the lines we drawn by providing examples of artificial intelligence that can feel and also evolve independently.
Imitation game, without starring any sophisticated AI, poses the same question.
Why are the negative qualities of machines emphasised over the positive ones (precision, reliable, etc)?
Can emotions also be a result of a complicated algorithms in our brains that reacts to a certain stimulus? If so, should we abandon people from making machines capable of feeling emotions to avoid a Matrix-like-scenario?
What really makes humans better than machines?