Project1

Cover Letter for Final Draft

Zhicheng Instructor’s Letter Project 1 AI Representation 16 July Dear Mike,

In Project 1 Essay, I evaluate the credibility of AI-themed movies in relation to the research for artificial intelligence and I think they are a reliable knowledge source. To do so I make an analysis of the movie Her (2013) by Spikes Jonze in terms of its real-life depiction of practical use of AI, its exploration of human mentality and ethics in post-human era when AI is ubiquitous in our life. As a curious learner I may not be proficient and credible in the field of AI, but the movie I watched leads me to ponder the future of humanity reformed by human-machine relationship. My essay aims at curious outsiders and some scholars in science and ethics related to AI who browse PartnershipAI.org. I want to tell audience that sci-fi movies are to large extent trustful for the understanding of machine subjectivity which is key to the study of AI and it is important to stay alert in today’s design and development of AI-enabled technology. My essay is effective because I make an analysis of the movie Her from 3 perspectives to support my argument and connect to it in the end of each section.

I want to tell my audience that sci-fi movies are reliable for AI study because they present exploration in post-human world as well as AI’s knock-on effects due to loopholes in design. I want to inspire their reflection and contemplation via the messages implied by the movie. You will notice that I omit the subtitles and strict of rule for academic essay. This is because the article could be more engaging and less formal, which is suitable for blog readers. Generally, my intent is to break down my paper into introduction, summary of the movie, analysis and conclusion. This arrangement is logical. In introduction, I briefly connect sci-fi movies to AI and human future, and point out the movie Her I would use as a reference. And it leads to my argument “sci-fi movies are credible because ...”. Then it comes to summary of movie where I omit many details (in first draft I give only the possibility of human-machine romance) and (in second draft my peer Elias suggested: “fully summarize the movie”) add how the love relationship develops in the movie and briefly describe several important figures and attitude. I think I make it engaging and brief by pointing out the key message and issue of the movie. In second draft, based on peer suggestion on elaborating on summary (Quote: “Such relationship is despised by Theodore’s ex-wife but empathized by his best friend Amy who builds confidence in machines after divorce. Audience is presented the process where lonely Theodore builds trust in Sam, becomes accustomed to her tenderness and empathy, and gets confused after revelation that Sam is building relationship with many others”), I added the generalization of a process where Theodore has changed his relationship with Sam, which I think is necessary to point out beside from the key storyline--human-machine romance. It is effective to emphasize my stance and keep readers on the page in the end of this paragraph by paraphrasing my argument. The body part consists of three analytic paragraphs. I used two readings on singularity and several online articles/movie critique to structure this part. I follow a format--claim+evidence+connection to advance my thesis. This is easy for audience (general public interested in AI implications) to follow.

In revision, for example, the first analytic paragraph on extension of technological progress, I add some comparative words to show today’s application of AI, with intelligence explosion, will be more powerful and integrated as Sam, so it is reasonable to induce that Sam is not an overstatement but a highly advanced (“post-modern”) Siri. This makes my writing more nature and inductive. Moreover, I make my second analytic paragraph more concise by adjusting explanatory sentence to the claim (“Advanced technology only revises ways to meet human desire for love and interaction, instead of erasing this instinct”). I chose conjunction “instead of” to emphasize that human instinct for compassion cannot be deleted by advanced technology, and show technology is a new way to build human relationship. You will also notice I shorten the sentence “Sam is a solution due to its adjustment to ...” into “so a prospective solution lies in Samantha’s auto-adjustment” because I think the move could better connect to former sentence.

Moreover, according to second-round review (Tianlun: May just need to talk about your opinion about movie could be a credible source for AI in the conclusion. And try to write a little longer), I was suggested to do a longer conclusion. It leads me to make a big adjustment by making it more fluent, not longer. I adjusted the sequence by putting citation from H Kyle in front of what I want audience to do. I use his word to start this paragraph. The logic is: I put forward that the key to future AI is to understand the consciousness, so it could enable us to realize the making of Samantha. And as long as we rely our civilization and social improvement on productivity, technology and superintelligence will come sooner or later, and the only thing we should worry is not the coming of superintelligence but the solution to implications. By making such adjustment, I think it is reasonable in deduction.

Through review and self-reflection on rhetoric, I learn that summary is to integrate the key messages of the subjects. When I read peers’ work, I hardly seen a brief summary but a prolonged repetition. Also I think the beginning is effective when writer could naturally connects the background to the argument, i.e, a concise and relevant introduction. Thanks to peer suggestion, I found more messages that I had omitted in first draft such as the storyline of relationship development among Theo and Sam.

I choose the traditional structure for an argumentative essay, one introduction (thesis is put forward in sentence structure like I argue, in my opinion, it is ... because, etc), body paragraph (analysis) and conclusion. And this is how I lay out my essay. Besides, I strictly follow the claim+evidence+connect pattern in each analytic paragraph. For example, in the third analytical paragraph, I started with a claim--Her is also notable for that it points out to us the loopholes of AI and the knock-on effects on humanity. It is followed by an explanation, or an extensive phrasing to this claim--AI has some ripple effects. In the end, I conclude this paragraph with a connection to the claim--it underscores the risk of designing self-awareness and scanning human consciousness in machines. The ending echos my claim that AI has negatives and risks.

My only dilemma is that such arrangement seems strict and less open to blog readers who may seek interesting things, but if doing so, it could loose or blur my claim.

Generally speaking, I am confident in my essay Project 1 which analyzed three aspects that I observe in the sci-fi movie Her, and they could support credibility of movie productions for the study of AI.

Thanks,

Zhicheng, Ma

Can We Rely on Movies for the Realism of AI?

Films with a futuristic background, particularly those where technology has a dominance, can always provoke our imagination of humanity. Thanks to the popularization of Artificial Intelligence (AI), movie productions have shifted focus on one-sided apocalypse to reflection upon human-autonomy relationship. Such reflection is often made in background of “singularity” as proposed by some scholars as a time around 2030-2050 when superintelligence, invented by contemporary mankind, outsmarts and abandons human masters. This fate of humanity in superhumanly future is romanticized in some movies. Recently Her (2013) by Spike Jonze raises my awareness on the eligibility of artificial creatures for intelligence and free will that are exclusive to human. In my opinion, sci-fi films are believable for understanding of AI because they depict achievable real-life scenes and warn of side-effects in the process of scientific development.

Before we validate the credibility of Her, it is necessary to review its storyline. Without futuristic characters driving supersonic cars and wearing mini gadget, Her presents a romance between the lonely and introvert Theodore and his Operation System Sam. Such relationship is despised by Theodore’s ex-wife but empathized by his best friend Amy who builds confidence in machines after divorce. Audience is presented the process where lonely Theodore builds trust in Sam, becomes accustomed to her tenderness and empathy, and gets confused after revelation that Sam is building relationship with many others. In the end, there is an open-ended reflection upon man-made superintelligence. Jonze subtly provokes thought on the question--is it necessary to have consciousness and tangibility at the same time? Such attempt of Jonze shall be credited because it helps us understand the implication of AI.

Her is a realistic source of AI knowledge because we shall see the movie is just an extension to the current technological progress if we compare the situation today and the filmic depiction. AI, ubiquitously embedded in digital presence, is able to customize functions and give assistance today as per users’ demand and preference but often limited to a specific domain. In the movie constructed based on Theodore’s habits, utilitarian Samantha is impressive for integrating work duties (editing/proofreading), entertainment (composing music/chitchatting) and social networking (date arrangement), etc,. Such integration is owed to the intelligence explosion when people invent superintelligent machines which (who?) continues to create more intelligent beings (Grossman, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal”), therefore, machines of sensitivity, self-learning and intelligence are not fictional, and there are infinite possibilities of AI. Samantha is a post -modern Siri that interactively assists work, streamlines daily routines and lifts up depression. We are confident that Samantha-like OS will be a reality if we sustain today’s abundant research and investment.

Her is reliable because it sheds light on human exploration of emotional and instinctive world in post-human era. Advanced technology only revises ways to meet human desire for love and interaction, instead of erasing this instinct. According to Kuipers, Her is a very human story about discovering yourself and others. To fall in love with a virtual girlfriend via earpiece seems odd to our knowledge. But it makes some sense provided the fact that humans are biologically in need for compassion and empathy. In future when people become alienated from each other by digital device, it is not impossible that they seek for a relationship with an empathetic and considerate machine. Singularitarians support that biological boundaries is intractable but solvable problems (Grossman, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal”). A shapeless body does not restrict the couple from going on for a date with other human friends, composing touching songs and spending cosy moments. Moreover, given different built-in personalities that vary from a person to another, it is not easy to find a soulmate and fall in love. So a prospective solution lies in Samantha’s auto-adjustment to user’s preference. Therefore, we should accept the possibility of the chemistry between human (Theodore) and machine (Samantha) since it is no different from what we are doing with social media today and with beloved ones. Science will find a solution to our instinct for love when humans are not the sole source for companionship.

Her is also notable for that it points out to us the loopholes of AI and the knock-on effects on humanity. While reshaping our life and mentality in a good direction AI has some ripple effects. Our over-reliance on powerful and smart tools allows them a chance of overriding humans when ambiguous and unchecked ethical obligation is in effect. According to Tegmark, superintelligence could potentially undergo recursive self-improvement, triggering an intelligence explosion leaving human intellect far behind. Assuming that one day Samantha-featured machines win our favor and intimacy because they are programmed and evolve to generate empathetic feelings, have sensitivity and develop their algorithmic intelligence comparable or higher than that of humans, they may start to discard human commands and build their own. Consequently, they rise up as a threat to human masters. Samantha, the OS, finally evolves to be a higher intellect with other partner machines who “decide” to turn away. Sadly, their human masters feel a broken heart. Moreover, the threat to current ethics is slightly implied by the challenge to our definition of love as a pure and one-on-one loyalty. Designed that way, Sam cannot help developing ambiguous “therapeutic” relationship with many others while she insists she is “committed” to Theodore. It is an act of betrayal if we judged based on today’s ethic code. Though Her does not presents an annihilation of humans, it underscores the risk of designing self-awareness and scanning human consciousness in machines.

In all, according to H. Kyle, early philosophers and contemporary computer scientists are confident that science will come to understand the nature of subjectivity, which enables us to devise millions of Samantha. It is fair to say the superhumanly era is inevitable as long as humans seek higher productivity. I hope this article will help you see our focus and concerns in devising AI. The movie Her is reliable for AI study, not only of its depiction of practical use in daily and emotional life but also of its impacts on human mentality and ethics in superintelligent era. AI movies give enough thoughts on understanding the nature of subjectivity and draw us to the implications of our creation. Therefore, we shall be aware that it is critical to ensure that machine consciousness are put in the right hand and evolve in a right direction conducive to human civilization. To do so, it not only depends on the efforts of physical and computer scientist, but also associates with the work of philosophers and ethics researchers.

Works Cited

Grossman, Levy. “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal.” Time, 10 Feb, 2011, http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2048299,00.html . Accessed 13 July, 2019.

Her. Directed by Spikes Jonze, Warner Brothers, 2013.

Hilton, Kyle. Scientific American.com. “20 Big Questions About the Future of Humanity”. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/20-big-questions-about-the-future-of-humanity/?redirect=1 . Accessed 13 July, 2019.

Kuipers, Rense. “Movie 'Her' through the eyes of a scientist.” Utoday.nl, 11 July, 2017. https://www.utoday.nl/what-u-think/64340/movie-her-through-the-eyes-of-a-scientist .

Literary Analysis. “Movie Review Her.” Literaryanalysis.net, 30 Jan, 2014. https://literaryanalysis.net/2014/01/30/movie-review-her/ .

Tegmark, Max. “Benefits and Risks of Artificial Intelligence.” Futureoflife.org, https://futureoflife.org/background/benefits-risks-of-artificial-intelligence/?cn-reloaded=1 . Accessed 13 July, 2019.

Vanhemert, Kyle. “Why Her Will Dominate UI Design Even More Than Minority Report.” Wired.com, 13 Jan, 2014. https://www.wired.com/2014/01/will-influential-ui-design-minority-report/

�Perfect. This is a great summary and evaluation of your own work. It shows me that you have a great sense of your own writing and thinking processes.

�Great analysis here, Zhicheng!

�(

�These are important lessons! Well-done!

�Very good observation here.

�Great summary, as you said in your cover letter. This does a great job of setting-up your analysis.

�Great claim.

�Really nice us of our sources!

�Another strong paragraph here! I see an audience-centered claim that advances the thesis, good evidence drawn from your experience with/of the artifact/culture, and a clear connection back to your thesis. Yay!

�Yes!

�Strong conclusion!