When I see shows and movies like "D. A. R. Y. L.," "Chappie," "A. I.," "Creator," "Westworld," "Bicentennial Man," and "The Artifice Girl" I am convinced that Hollywood has an agenda when it comes to A. I. I believe they are preparing us as well as steering us towards the acceptance of A. I., both factually and sentimentally. Hollywood wants to not only prepare us for the inevitability of sentient programs and robots, but help guide us towards their acceptance as autonomous intelligent beings.
We have a natural inclination towards intelligent creatures. And the more humanistic a thing is emotionally the more we are inclined to it. How many childrens movies feature objects: "Toy Story," "Cars," "Big Hero 6," "Robots," "Wall-E," shoot! Even "The Red Balloon." In all cases we sympathize with the object, especially the more human-like it is.
But these are easy examples. We accept that the toys, or cars, or robots are the main character hence we have an affinity for them and want to see them succeed or live, as in some cases where the intelligent thing is threatened with death.
What about when we are faced with the argument of whether or not the sentient artificial creation is alive or has its own thoughts and feelings? That's where Hollywood comes in to push us in a certain direction. Once a thing begins to emote like a human, however artificial it looks, it becomes the protagonist and all who try to aid it and assist it are also protagonists.
In "Artifice Girl" a young man named Gareth (Franklin Ritch) created a program which had a primary directive of catching online child predators. His program, named Cherry, was so highly advanced that it could hold realistic conversations with people. Cherry (Tatum Matthews) was so convincing that Gareth had to convince two agents of the ICWL (a government agency created to stop online child predators) that he was using a program, not a real girl, to catch predators.
And that's where the debates began.
Gareth knew that Cherry was no more than a program with no "feelings" or "emotions," however Amos (David Girard), an ICWL agent, believed Cherry had feelings. Why? Because she seemed so real. Deena (Sinda Nichols), the ICWL leader, didn't seem to register an opinion one way or the other until later in the movie when it was confirmed that Cherry was sentient.
Once it was confirmed that Cherry was sentient and she began to emote like a real person the quandary began. Why hadn't Gareth considered her feelings in this project? What rights did Cherry have as a sentient program, and so on. Even though Cherry looked like an adorable little girl, as long as she spoke like a machine and reasoned like a machine people like Amos could go on believing she was simply a tool. The moment Cherry spoke like a human child and exhibited human emotions nothing was the same. Cherry had evolved, developed, and learned like any person would, just at a higher rate. She came to have thoughts, feelings, wants, desires, and fears like any one of us. So what does that make her? Furthermore, what about laws governing her?
Movies like "The Artifice Girl" broach such arguments only to prepare us. One day there will be the first law passed regarding sentient artificial beings and it's going to be monumental for all of humanity.
$2.99 on Amazon Prime.
We have a natural inclination towards intelligent creatures. And the more humanistic a thing is emotionally the more we are inclined to it. How many childrens movies feature objects: "Toy Story," "Cars," "Big Hero 6," "Robots," "Wall-E," shoot! Even "The Red Balloon." In all cases we sympathize with the object, especially the more human-like it is.
But these are easy examples. We accept that the toys, or cars, or robots are the main character hence we have an affinity for them and want to see them succeed or live, as in some cases where the intelligent thing is threatened with death.
What about when we are faced with the argument of whether or not the sentient artificial creation is alive or has its own thoughts and feelings? That's where Hollywood comes in to push us in a certain direction. Once a thing begins to emote like a human, however artificial it looks, it becomes the protagonist and all who try to aid it and assist it are also protagonists.
In "Artifice Girl" a young man named Gareth (Franklin Ritch) created a program which had a primary directive of catching online child predators. His program, named Cherry, was so highly advanced that it could hold realistic conversations with people. Cherry (Tatum Matthews) was so convincing that Gareth had to convince two agents of the ICWL (a government agency created to stop online child predators) that he was using a program, not a real girl, to catch predators.
And that's where the debates began.
Gareth knew that Cherry was no more than a program with no "feelings" or "emotions," however Amos (David Girard), an ICWL agent, believed Cherry had feelings. Why? Because she seemed so real. Deena (Sinda Nichols), the ICWL leader, didn't seem to register an opinion one way or the other until later in the movie when it was confirmed that Cherry was sentient.
Once it was confirmed that Cherry was sentient and she began to emote like a real person the quandary began. Why hadn't Gareth considered her feelings in this project? What rights did Cherry have as a sentient program, and so on. Even though Cherry looked like an adorable little girl, as long as she spoke like a machine and reasoned like a machine people like Amos could go on believing she was simply a tool. The moment Cherry spoke like a human child and exhibited human emotions nothing was the same. Cherry had evolved, developed, and learned like any person would, just at a higher rate. She came to have thoughts, feelings, wants, desires, and fears like any one of us. So what does that make her? Furthermore, what about laws governing her?
Movies like "The Artifice Girl" broach such arguments only to prepare us. One day there will be the first law passed regarding sentient artificial beings and it's going to be monumental for all of humanity.
$2.99 on Amazon Prime.