Man or Machine? The Metaphysics of AI in "Be Right Back"

        Probably one of the most disconcerting issues with the development of artificial intelligence is our fundamental inability to understand what is considered foreign. It is difficult to understand Ash 2.0 in the same sense that it is difficult to understand the motives and reasoning of a psychopathic serial killer. Despite obvious deviations from human behavior, we still regard most psychopaths as human and give them rights as such, yet we have issues with ascribing human status to Ash 2.0. Why? Because it's uncanny. A human should not have to "act" like a human, nor should he/she be able to function without eating or sleeping. But is it really this simple? After all, Aristotle said that reason is what separates humans from other things, and Ash 2.0 clearly shows reason in the adjustments of his behavior. Let's look at this from Ash 2.0's perspective.
        In order to try and understand Ash 2.0, it is important to consider what I will refer to as his "role," that is, to be a replica of Ash. He was made by a company in order to mimic Ash's personality as closely as possible, but this process requires him to learn and adapt based on new information presented to him. Throughout the episode, we see Ash 2.0 adjust his personality and behavioral traits as he learns, such as incorporating the phrase "throwing a jib" into his speech. We can never say that Ash 2.0 is really Ash because this is a futile effort; Ash 2.0 will always learn and imitate as new information arises, but he can never fully mimic Ash's personality because he will always be lacking some information. This basic flaw is what causes conflict with Martha because she wants Ash 2.0 to be the real Ash, which is an unattainable dream.
        Now, imagine that you are asked to assume the identity of a person that you do not know anything about; let's call him Bob. You can mimic Bob's appearance, but the only way to take on his personality is to mimic what you can find out about him based on his online presence: his Facebook, emails, texts, etc. You study for weeks and learn all his speaking patterns, you meet his friends and colleagues while in disguise, and you eventually pick up on all his mannerisms as well, completely indistinguishable from the real person. After years of the farce, you forget who the real you was, what you were like, and what your name even was. Now, are you Bob? "Don't be ridiculous," you would say, "just because I imitate someone does not make me that person." Well, you now have no identity of your own, so I might say that if you are not Bob, then you couldn't possibly be human. This is the fundamental problem with calling Ash 2.0 a human. His role eliminates any possibility of being human because it is contradictory: If he could somehow become the real Ash (which is impossible), then he would be human, and if he developed his own personality, then he might be called human if we consider Aristotle's definition of humanity. However, Ash 2.0 is in the in-between, never fully becoming Ash, but never deviating from him either. Still need convincing? Look at this handsome face:

        The 1999 Warner Bros. film The Iron Giant features an AI-controlled character with a much more robotic visage than Ash 2.0. Of course, we could easily attribute our fondness of him to the uncanny valley, but I believe that most of us who remember this film would agree that the Giant is human by the end of the story (at least by using Aristotle's definition). Why? Because he chooses forsake his role of a weapon and instead strives to become human, using Superman as a model of behavior. This goal is something that Ash 2.0 cannot possibly achieve since his very role denies him that choice, much like how the Giant would never have had a choice had he not bumped his head at the beginning of the movie. Thus, Ash 2.0 cannot be called human because he is neither Ash nor is he a being for himself. "You are who you choose to be." If choosing is not an option, then who are we?