It is an eye opener to how technology is now and how it will be in the future. No, I do not think Ash2 will ever be an actual option to choose when a loved one dies, but we are definitely headed in that direction. People talk about how everything we do online will always be online even if we delete it. A digital you does exist. Which is actually pretty scary if you think about it. Ash1 was constantly on the phone and active on social media. Which is much like our generation today. He displayed everything about his life and then some. Which is why I think Ash2 was scary similar. The more scientists play with technology, who knows what will be invented and what we think is impossible, will become possible.
As for me, I am not sure if I would ever use this type of technology. Recently, my grandmother has passed away and I am not positive I would not activate Grandma2 (lol). But then again, I know Grandma2 would not be real. It is impossible to mourn and recover from a death if you are still pretending they are alive. Nor is it healthy, normal, or sane. One day will it be normal to have a Ash2, Grandma2, etc?
In the Uncanny Valley diagram we discussed in class, we all agreed the more actual human like it was, the creepier we rated it. If I were to make this chart, Ash2 would be at the uncanny valley for me. I am not sure how much more human like technology could get. The flaws of Ash2 are definitely there. For example, when Martha tells him to jump off the cliff and he has no recollection of how he would have acted before and can only act the way Martha tells him to. That was almost a relief to me because that proved he was not one hundred percent human.
My closing thoughts are, technology will always be advancing. To have a loved one activated and to pretend to be an "Ash2" or "Grandma2" might be the new norm in years to come. As technology evolves, people will have to evolve with it.
2 comments:
Sierra, I like how you referenced Frankenstein, a relevant literary work, to the Uncanny Valley topic. I never noticed it until you brought it up. It just doesn't seem right to "reanimate" a deceased person by a robot or with a collection of body parts in Frankenstein's case. It was also good that you included the Uncanny Valley diagram as a visual aid. I really like how you added a personal touch to make the concept more relatable. Good job!
An interesting parallel. The only difference is that older technology of the time considered biological factors, rather than machines. Bringing back someone dead is indeed a much further stretch than trying to create an intelligence (at least morally) and would seem as an empty or incomplete shell to others. This type would lie near the bottom of the uncanny valley.
Post a Comment