The overall premise of the AI program in the episode "Be Right Back" extends Martha's grieving process by allowing her to become emotionally attached to Ash 2.0. The episode pushes the viewer to question whether Martha's telling Ash 2.0 to commit suicide is moral, but it also raises the question of the program's morality. The narrative includes one overt reference to Asimov's first rule of robotics, wherein Ash 2.0 refuses to hit Martha as a robot cannot injure or allow injury to befall a human. His follow-up solution is offering to insult her verbally, which he obviously does not consider a violation of that rule. This absence in Ash 2.0's programming indicates that his developers did not take into consideration, or ignored, the range of injuries that fall under psychological harm.
Obviously, the program developers are going to be invested in having their clients purchase increasingly expensive upgrades. This corporate agenda colors all of Ash 2.0's actions. Ash 2.0's response to Martha's distress when her phone is damaged is encouraging Martha to become more dependent on him by purchasing the android body. When she tries to get rid of him, as at this point keeping him around is obviously bad for her mental health, Ash 2.0 does not remove himself farther from the house. Finally, he uses Martha's grief to keep himself alive by pleading with her, despite it being evident that his existence is doing her injury. This could be considered a violation of the third law of robotics, as Ash 2.0 is prioritizing his own existence over doing no further harm to Martha. Whether or not this program is good for Martha is not something Ash 2.0 is programmed to consider.
Is the company responsible for Martha's mental wellbeing? It is reasonable to conclude that Martha's grieving process carried on due to Ash 2.0's presence in the house. I would argue that society cannot expect corporations to have clients' best interests in mind, and to program their robots to do the same, when their motivation is obviously financial. There seems to be a grief counseling benefit to the program, as Sarah, as far as we know, used it for her husband's death for a shorter period of time and did not get the full android upgrade. Is there a way for this program to be used responsibly, or does it inherently inflict psychological injury on its users?
Obviously, the program developers are going to be invested in having their clients purchase increasingly expensive upgrades. This corporate agenda colors all of Ash 2.0's actions. Ash 2.0's response to Martha's distress when her phone is damaged is encouraging Martha to become more dependent on him by purchasing the android body. When she tries to get rid of him, as at this point keeping him around is obviously bad for her mental health, Ash 2.0 does not remove himself farther from the house. Finally, he uses Martha's grief to keep himself alive by pleading with her, despite it being evident that his existence is doing her injury. This could be considered a violation of the third law of robotics, as Ash 2.0 is prioritizing his own existence over doing no further harm to Martha. Whether or not this program is good for Martha is not something Ash 2.0 is programmed to consider.
Is the company responsible for Martha's mental wellbeing? It is reasonable to conclude that Martha's grieving process carried on due to Ash 2.0's presence in the house. I would argue that society cannot expect corporations to have clients' best interests in mind, and to program their robots to do the same, when their motivation is obviously financial. There seems to be a grief counseling benefit to the program, as Sarah, as far as we know, used it for her husband's death for a shorter period of time and did not get the full android upgrade. Is there a way for this program to be used responsibly, or does it inherently inflict psychological injury on its users?
2 comments:
To some extent, companies should be held accountable for their actions. It is morally wrong for companies to abuse their customers, but there are already many examples of such abuse happening. Funeral services and arrangements for burials are grossly overpriced, and this industry takes advantage of people being vulnerable. Throughout the episode, the artificial intelligence pushed Martha to get the upgrades to the software until she ultimately bought Ash 2.0. Martha wants her life to be the way it was when the original Ash was alive. However, is she not lying to herself when she keeps Ash 2.0 around. She knows Ash is dead, but she has become too emotionally attached to let him go. This addiction tactic has been used by tobacco companies many times to get new customers. The episode just reflects how companies are efficient in using tactics to get customers and profit.
I think its crazy how the first law of robotics states that the robot cannot harm an individual, but in this case Ash 2.0 is willing to insult Martha. This only justifies the fact that Ash 2.0 does not posses emotion because he is willing to insult Martha and won't even feel bad about it.
Also I think, their might be a way to use this program to help you with grieving process without hurting your psychological stability. Instead of injuring your state of mind, I think this program could give a person closure. It can help an individual, but at the same time it can be harmful. If a person is stuck in the denial stage of grief, then this technology can be harmful to the mind's stability because it may cause the person to remain in denial their whole life. An individual may never be able to move on because they might not be able to accept that they have lost something. Martha in some sense is stuck in this stage because even after her daughter is born, she isn't able to say goodbye to Robo. Ash. Instead she puts him in her attic and brings him out when she needs comfort.
Post a Comment