The Advancements in Artificial Intelligence

During class, we have discussed various applications of artificial intelligence. We have seen multiple examples where robots are involved, and even where people who are deceased are replicated using artificial intelligence. While I am a big fan of artificial intelligence (I have designed a little bit of AI myself, and major in Computer Science and  have always wanted to focus on AI), I believe there should be some rules and regulations as to what we should and can do with it. I personally don't believe we should use Artificial Intelligence to allow us to "bring back" the dead by uploading their social media posts and thoughts to the cloud for the AI to learn about them. I just don't think is practical and I do not think it's the best use for it - while it would be great to see someone we have lost, I don't think AI will ever be fully able to replicate them without having some access to their mind or something. I do believe however, that we should use robots, just not ones entirely designed to look like a person. I think there should be a clear distinction between robot and person. I think that robots would be useful in a lot of tasks throughout life, but I don't think they should try and mimic a human by expressing emotion, appearance, etc. The geminoid project that we discussed in class is cool, but mimicking a person isn't the best way to go about introducing the world to an AI. It will cause more and more people to shy away from it, more than likely. Siri and Alexa and Bixby and Google Assistant get used millions of times a day, and people understand that there is a clear distinction between their digital assistants and a person (except maybe the guy in the movie Her). This should be the way it is with all artificial intelligence; While we should look for it to help us, enhance life, achieve goals that we couldn't do on our own, we shouldn't try to make it human. I'm not saying that if we have robot butlers one day that we should treat them like a slave, I believe we should be totally grateful that we have them and that they're able to assist us, but I don't think we should try and program human emotion into them. Machine Learning has many advantages, but it would be really hard for a machine to learn emotion. Think about all the emotions we express daily and why we do that? It's hard to comprehend for a human why, and a machine will really have a hard time if we can't explain why or how we express these emotions. Overall, I think Artificial Intelligence is great, but I think some regulations should be imposed upon it, both morally and governmentally.

why robot husbands are bad

“Be Right Back” raises more questions for me about the morality of human-AI interpersonal relations than anything else. Ash II reminds me of a child in several integral aspects of his “personality.” He doesn’t quite understand nuance, as is evident by his dialogue, such as his comments about being able to turn himself on or off sexually, misinterpreting Martha’s craving for intimacy from her late husband as something more transactional. Clearly there’s a learning curve for him, having never been exposed to human society, but there’s something about him feels distinctly human in this aspect. He responds to things like a child would with their parent. He displays both curiosity and an eagerness to please his guardian figure. His eagerness to please is perhaps purely due to his programming, but he makes a few comments throughout alluding to wants or preferences not innate to his machinery, i.e. not wanting to feel like a “lawn ornament.” Despite Martha’s clear desire for him to remain outside, he goes against this with his request to return indoors. If he existed simply for her pleasure, exclusively for her wishes, shouldn’t he have remained outside? To me, this suggests that part of Ash II is truly derivative of Ash I, or in other words, that something about Ash II is indistinguishable from the memories of Ash I it contains. Was Ash II mimicking whatever clever thing it believed Ash I would say, or did it ask to go inside because it believed Ash I would prefer being indoors? If this is the case, it makes me wonder how aware Ash II is of its own processes, and if it can distinguish its base self (or whatever sense of self an AI has) from the traits it inherited from Ash I? If this connection to Ash I is completely fluid, and Ash II isn’t consciously making these decisions but rather faithfully following his programming, how is that different from true human emotion or human motivation? The parallel of Ash II to a child is pertinent here as well, because Ash II is socialized much the same as a human child would be. He begins to learn nuance, emotional intelligence, and appropriate human behavior from continued interactions with Martha. If his entire existence serves to better mimic a true human, is there a point where some part of him approaches, or even becomes, a truly realized human, the way a child matures into an adult? And if part of it is human, or even simply an incredible imitation of a human, is it moral to allow Ash II or others like it to be mass manufactured purely for mass objectification? After all, put simplistically, a human brain is basically electrical impulses through conductive matter; if that’s what it means to be human, Ash II already fits the bill.  

A Very Absurd Debate

The class debate was this; Why or why not was Ash creepy to you?

This is a hypothetical conversation held by two people named Extremely Confused Self and Unconfused Self. Unconfused self represents my rationalization of the arguments being presented, and Extremely Confused Self represents the arguments that sprung to mind while developing an opinion on Ash’s technology.

This conversation starts after Dr Johnson argues that Ash was only weird because we are not used to him yet.

 ********

“Professor Johnson has a point, " Unconfused Self Started. " Why is it that connect with our loved ones would be ostracized  as though it were more unnatural than say … using still photographs and or voice messages to connect with our dead loved ones? 

Extremely Confused Self responded, “Well it’s because Ash the ugly robot thing was right there in her face which makes him a bid absurd don’t you think?”

Unconfused Self paused for a moment to ponder this statement before replying.

“First of all, Ash was quite handsome for a replica. Secondly, I believe it to be of human kind’s dearest interest, to rid ourselves of this tendency to put things up in the attic (pun ) for being “absurd”. 

Extremely Confused Self fell silent while Unconfused Self launched into yet another tangent.

 “The word absurd is defined as having no rational or orderly relationship to human life.  

I would like to point out that Ash technically fit into this category. He was rational in the sense that his presence could be explained or reasoned to another human being, which we began to see towards the end as Ash was introduced to the daughter. One could assume that this is because his technology was becoming accepted in the society.

One might also argue that Ash’s technology was still not “ rational “ because he was not accepted. The main character DID hide him in the attic instead of displaying him in her window like a Christmas tree, and it is somewhat implied that he is still taboo, despite the daughter's limited access to him. 

Although that is a fair point, I encourage those who take that argument to ask yourself, is every thing that is rational displayed ?  Are new ideas always seen as rational at first before they prove themselves to be quite the opposite?

Think about the laws of gravity. At the time I am sure that Newton’s ideas were seen as “absurd “, and certainly no one who may have slightly agreed with him was shouting their allegiance with him from the rooftops. It is the same with 3d technology, if not worse. Physical manifestations of ideas ( aka technology ) are harder to integrate into the world’s laws of what is rational and what is not due to the time it takes to test and assess results and testimonies of the targeted manifestation. The title of absurdity or weirdness is not given to its true heir, but rather to anything that has not yet been introduced or is not yet understood. And furthermore… “

Extremely Confused Self interjected , “No ! Ash was absurd because he WAS truly irrational. How can a robot meant to imitate the dead be rational at all ? “

Unconfused Self asked, “Imitation is not irrational, as long as it is stated clearly that it is in fact just that ... an imitation. Ash’s robot was very open about his true nature , and never tried to trick the main character into believing he was anything other than what he was. "

“ Well what about that time he started crying on top of the cliff?”

“ You can’t really consider that as an unclear imitation. He only showed that much emotion because his activator told him that he was being unlike Ash,” was the reply. 

“ So that mans he faked it ! “

“ No that means that he obediently served his purpose. Her response to him does not change his rationality, it only intensifies the story line.

 Also , how is a machine that is meant to imitate the living any more rational? Is that idea not WORSE if anything since they will inevitably replace our drive to perform our natural abilities? … “ Unconfused Self concluded.

“ That is actually a good question …” Extremely Confused Self agreed.

Aren't Humans Just Organic Robots Anyways?

I'll refrain from recapping the episode like many have already, and instead try to focus completely on my own thoughts and reflections on the matter. I also want to mention how clever of a title "Be Right Back" is. Props on that.

The theme of grieving and moving on is one often touched upon in books, shows, or songs, but instead of telling a story of coping this episode tells the story of an alternative. That leads to the question we all keep asking: is the alternative a good idea? While Ash 2.0 obviously wasn't the ideal execution, is the idea of replicating those lost to death a viable option? Should we effectively immortalize those who should've passed?

Ha! Who knows!

My thoughts is that regardless of how amazing technology gets at adapting A.I., if we all create robots instead of moving on then we won't feel the need to interact with other, actual human beings. Then all the actual human beings will die off and there will only be androids standing around, I guess helping each other cope with the loss of their humans. It's interesting to think about a few rich or desperate people doing it, but if it became a common thing then I don't see it being sustainable.

Ash 2.0 is a body with very impressive motor functions and a mind with not as impressive adaptive capabilities. He didn't close his eyes, breathe, or emotion until Martha either told him to or said that Ash 1.1 would have.  He was meant to replicate the history of someone else, not create more history as if the person had never died. It was never stated as to exactly what the intended purpose of Ash 2.0's program was, but it could be assumed that one could create a person for any reason, not necessarily to "bring back the dead" so to speak.

Now could Ash 2.0 become the same as Ash 1.1 if the technology was more advanced or even perfected? No. As great as his brain could be, he still wouldn't be bound by a lot of the same things a human would. He'd still have no need to breathe, eat, or drink; he can't bleed or heal by himself; he can't struggle with addiction or search for his purpose in life. He was built with a purpose in life, and regardless of how exact he thinks and acts like a human he would be bound by that purpose. He doesn't have autonomy to change his purpose and choose his own.

Now if we were to allow him to choose him own, similar to a relationship where the master frees his slaves, that would be an entirely different matter.

Also, I think we at least need the voice replication software so that we can immortalize Morgan Freeman's voice and use it to narrate probably everything.

Something Artificial Can Never Replace the Real Thing

The film, Be Right Back, made me think about the idea of cloning. I was watching a video on Facebook, the other day, about a couple whose dog died. They wanted to find a way to bring him back, so they went to Japan to have their dead dog cloned. In the end, it was successful, and it made me think that if they can cloned a dog, humans can definitely be cloned! Essentially, I don't believe that cloning a dead relative or just a human, in general, will do any justice. As shown by this episode, YES, it is going to mimic the physical traits of that person, but that's all. One's personality cannot be cloned! It's only their physical aspects. This may have been what frustrated Martha so much about "Ash." After a while, she finally started to realize that "Ash" wasn't the real Ash she knew and loved. While on the edge of a mountain or cliff of some sort, she instructed "Ash" to jump off of the edge; "Ash" kind of just said okay and was willing to jump only if that is what Martha really wanted. She, then, told "Ash" that the real Ash would be scared and begging for his life, and in an instant, "Ash" began to cry and begged her not to make him jump. It may have been then that Martha realized that this robotic or artificial representation of the real Ash was not enough for her. She even said, later in the film, "You're not him. You're just a performance of things he preformed." I feel that she loved the idea of "Ash" being there physically, but the fact that he looked so much like the real Ash and knew what to say and how to say it but also lacked the emotional connection she also longed for was what made the whole ordeal frustrating. She longed for more than just the physicality of Ash; she wanted to feel emotionally and mentally connected to "Ash" as well, but that may have been somewhat impossible considering that the system or "Ash" was only a representation of the social media side of Ash and not necessarily how he was around her. I feel that the only way "Ash" could have possibly become more and more like the real Ash was if Martha continued to teach him how the real Ash was towards her and how he acted around her; that, to me, is sort of like starting their whole relationship over again which sounds like a lot work and kind of emphasizes more and more on the idea that he isn't the real thing. 

Androids Replacing the Dead... and the Living?

     Part of human nature is experiencing love and unfortunately, loss.  Breakups can hurt but losing someone unexpectedly through death can be devastating.  In this day and age, with the advancement of AI and androids proceeding at an exponential rate, the possibility of being able to possess android replicas of the dead looms on the horizon.  Although it's an interesting concept to consider, I fear that learning to simply "replace" our loved ones who have passed on would ultimately be unhealthy, and could even foster more dangerous addictions than the ones humanity has already formed with technology like smart phones and the internet.
     One of the first things that I thought of while watching Be Right Back is (as humorous or silly as it may seem) an episode of Futurama called Rebirth.  In the episode, Leela dies in a spaceship crash and Fry invests in a "Leela" android.  One thing leads to another, and at the end of the episode, we discover that Fry also died in the crash and is also an android. The Fry-bot and Leela-bot elope into the sunset while the original Fry and Leela are resurrected at the hands of crazy old Professor Farnsworth.

  
      In the episode, neither the Fry-bot or the Leela-bot are even aware initially that they are androids, and are both horrified to discover that they are.  It's interesting to think that one day, our AI could be so advanced that it doesn't even realize that it is, in fact, artificial intelligence.  It certainly makes one wonder just when we should start creating laws to protect the rights of these man-made human replicas, and just how quickly androids will be able to replace our dead.
     There are several other Futurama episodes that muse on a future where androids walk among humanity, including an episode that describes a future where one can download their favorite celebrity (or any human, really) to a "blank" android to befriend, date, marry, etc.  The episode highlights the dangerous addictive side-effects a future like this could entail.  Having any human being that you desire available at the click of a button to do with what you please could easily sweep aside human interest in dating and creating real friendships with other humans.  With this kind of power at the tips of humanity's fingers, why would anyone want to even venture outside of their homes?
     Unfortunately for humanity, the future of "robot-romance" is closer than one might think.  Recently, the first "Real-Doll" brothel was opened in Spain.  For those who don't know, "real dolls" are silicone based bodies (some even animatronic) designed for personal enjoyment.  Although these dolls have yet to possess AI, it's becoming more and more common for people to become addicted to them.  Take for example the movie, Lars and the Real Girl, where Ryan Gosling plays a man who has fallen in love and created a "fictional" relationship with his "real doll."  These addictions to "real dolls" are spreading and some people have even fought for the right to wed their silicone partners.

     It won't be long before these "real dolls" possess artificial intelligence and will be, for all practical purposes, reduced to sex slaves for humanity.  Once again, this does not seem like a future that would be mentally healthy for humanity, even though it could potentially lower the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Just how long until these seemingly "fictional" ideas become a household reality for humanity?

Can Artificial intelligence be Harmful to Us?

During class, we watched an episode of Black Mirror titled, "Be Right Back". I believe its content to be extremely controversial, wondering if artificial intelligence advancements will be helpful to our society or damaging.  Within the episode, a woman loses her husband to a car accident and is able to reconnect with him by giving his: social media, videos of his voice, and photos of him in order to eventually completely replicate his body as a life-like robot. Personally, I believe that this can only be damaging to a person's mental health because they will not be able to grieve the loss of their loved one, but instead putting up a facade. Although I believe this, we discussed in class how we may feel weird about this technology, but this is how many people in the past may have felt towards photographs or other kept belongings of the deceased. It may be completely possible that we are uncomfortable with this intelligence because it is not the societal norm, much like how photos are now. This episode brought to light many questions about why having a robot version of a deceased person may be helpful or non helpful to your situation. Specifically, when the wife within the show has a child, she allows her minimal time with the robot version of her father, but she is fully aware that it is not him. This is a strange thing to grasp for me, because when you think about it this is much like showing your daughter a photo, video, or voice recording of her father, but more advanced. I like to think about myself in this situation, but I feel as though her decision to get the robot version of her husband was extremely rash and done out of desperation. If we are to develop this kind of technology, there should be many things in place in order to ensure that the person is in a healthy mental state, and many other things. I would love to see my grandfather one last time, but I think it is unnatural and unfair to him for us to create something that is to replicate him. The dead should be left at peace and we should mourn and grieve their loss, as this is a major part about life that connects us with the world and whatever religion, if you follow one, as well. The woman within the episode, although happy at first, began to notice that his mannerisms and slight differences made him completely different from her husband, and it drove her crazy. She wanted to be able to replace her husband with this replica of him, but it was in no way possible. You cannot completely replicate someone's emotions, mannerisms, and other things without difficulty. If people are going to use this technology to replace people, they will be extremely disappointed with what they recieve. I do not think this technology would be beneficial to our society, but my opinions may change as things advance in our world.

Ash 1 and Ash 2

     The episode Be right back is a great example of how artificial intelligence can be both a blessing and curse to the human population. AI as we know it is a growing at an outstanding rate and this episode greatly demonstrates real situations and events that may happen in the near future. The episode begins with Martha's boyfriend being glued to his phone as she struggles to get in their hi tech van. Upon getting home, Ash and Martha looked at a photo of Ash in his younger years faking a smile to please his mother which would be a key indicator later on in the show. Later that night, they engaged in sexual intercourse where Ash did not satisfy Martha and he turned over and went to sleep. The next day Ash went to take their van back while Martha stayed at the house and waited for him. Martha  waited for hours and was devastated as police showed up at her house with news that her boyfriend had died in a car accident.
      At Ash's funeral, as Martha was grieving a friend of hers recommended that she sign up for a program that would allow her to talk to Ash though artificial intelligence. At first Martha was very reluctant and hesitant, but with the realization that she was pregnant was the final push to get her to talk to "Ash 2". In the beginning she completely denied that the technology was her deceased boyfriend, but after time and experience she began to feel a similar connection with the AI as she did with the real Ash. Later a day came when she received a ultrasound of their child and upon leaving she dropped her phone and lost contact with Ash 2. She then had a nervous breakdown and began apologizing to Ash when her phone started working. Ash 2 then proceeded to tell her that there is a next level to the program but it was not cheap. The next level was a synthetic body with electrolytes that would mold the body into a human-like replacement of a deceased  person. Martha went ahead with this plan and had a tough time getting used to the new Ash. Ash 2 resembled promising features to Martha at first because he could please her sexually and could keep her company.
      However, Ash 2 did not have the same humor, personality, and ability to sleep as the original Ash. Ash 2 also laughed at the young photo of Ash 1 as a joke not recognizing that he was faking it. Martha quickly saw then that this was not the same Ash she once knew. After kicking Ash out the next day ordered him to ride with her up a cliff and told him to jump. Ash 2 proceeded to jump as ordered and Martha told him that the real Ash would have begged not to. Ash 2 then begged for his life but only as an order as Martha screamed "no". The episode then fast forwarded a couple years into the future Martha's daughters' birthday. Her daughter asked to go upstairs to talk to Ash 2 on a weekday even though she was only allowed to on weekends. Afterwards, her daughter asked her to come upstairs and the episode ended with Martha going to them. In conclusion, I see AI being both good and bad for the future, but the only with how the people who use it learn its limits before it harms their life.

Ash, Ash 2, Ash 3, Ash 4, Ash....

  In my opinion, in the Black Mirror episode of “Be Right Back,” yes Martha has the mistake of taking in a robot into her home. To her defense I also do not bash her for attempting to find a way to grieve which is the whole point to her actions. Honestly everyone grieves in different ways and there is no one way to handle situations we don’t understand. The first program she does of email Ash back and forth, and even talking with him on the phone are two ways I would choose to communicate with someone who had passed. Even knowing what she was doing Martha was terrified in the beginning when Ash 2 came to be. I think with her having sexual relations with Ash 2 is what makes everyone freaked out. If that wouldn’t be the case would everyone hate her for her actions or could that be a healthy way to handle the grieving process?? The idea of Martha grieving is in no way an unusual reaction most people have after loosing a loved one but the plan that artificial intelligence coming into light is where the issues get strange to the audience. The whole idea of artificial intelligence, is terrifying to the public because it’s just something we are not used to and because it is unfamiliar to the world people don’t know or understand how to react to something this new and unusual. Just like Dr. J says in class that in hundreds of years ago we also didn’t have photographs or voicemails or anything like that and people might have reacted the same way so who is blind to see the possibility of people in a hundred years in the future to think the same thing about robots and things. I think artificial intelligence is already a thing (which is a fact) but I believe it is only going to become a bigger and better version of what it already is, even though people fear change, it is coming either for the better or worse but instead of fearing for what is to come, people should intend to learn more about technology so we can be prepared for anything that is thrown into the real world when it seems no one is ready. Whether anyone is ready or not, artificial intelligence is happening and will continue to happen.

Ash vs. "Ash"

Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly making it possible for new inventions and technologies to be created. For example, in Be Right Back, it’s an episode of the series Black Mirror, and it’s about this woman named Martha who is in a relationship with this guy named Ash. Ash dies in a car accident leaving Martha behind. There is this woman at Ash’s funeral that tells Martha about this program that makes it possible for her to communicate with Ash again. Martha doesn’t really want to use the program at first, but then she finds out that she is pregnant which giving her the last push to finally use the program.

This program uses things that are online to act like the person you want it to be. It uses videos, audios, social media, pictures and anything online, and the creates this “person”. Martha starts talking to "Ash" as if they were chatting. She tells “Ash” that she only wanted to tell him that she was pregnant; however, she continues talking to him after that. She then said that she wished that she could speak to him and heard his voice. “Ash” tells her that it is possible, so they start to speak on the phone. After that, Martha is always on her phone talking to “Ash”.  She goes to get an ultrasound to see how her baby is doing and to hear the heartbeat. Martha has her phone on so that “Ash” can also listen to the heartbeat. As she is leaving, she drops her phone and starts to freak out. She gets home and charges her phone. As soon as the phone is on, “Ash” calls her, and she tells it that she is sorry while crying. “Ash” then tells her that there is another option that makes is possible for them to continue talking about the interruption of the phone dying or getting broken.

This third option is getting a physical body of “Ash”. Martha gets this delivery with what looks like human flesh, but it is a synthetic muscle. She puts the body in the bath and puts electrolytes so it can start to form into Ash. Once the process is done, Martha has her “Ash” back again and can see and touch him. At first, it is a little hard for her to process that Ash is back and is in front of her, but then she starts to kiss him and saying how much she missed him. Martha then sleeps with “Ash”, but the next day she starts to feel weird. She notices that “Ash” is not like her real Ash. “Ash” doesn’t sleep or eats which makes her start to realize that this “Ash” will never be like the real thing. Martha’s sister comes to visit her, but “Ash” doesn’t know who she is making Martha snap. “Ash” is not saying or doing things that the real Ash would say and do. Martha then takes “Ash” to this cliff and tells him to jump off. “Ash” says that he will do it if she really wants him to, and this is not the reaction that Martha wants. Martha then tells him how the real Ash would act in that situation. Then “Ash” starts to act like that making Martha finally realized that this “Ash” is not the Ash she loves. Many years after that, Martha has her daughter who is now around ten and has “Ash” in her attic never getting rid of it.

This type of technology might be possible in the future. People being able to have people who they have lost at their house without worrying about not seeing that person again. Although it might be a good idea to have this technology, it is also a bad idea. How will people be able to let go if they have a replica of that person in their house? Yes, many would want to talk to or see that person one more time, but life does not work like that. There should be a limitation on how far this artificial intelligence should go. One of those limitations should be not bring death people back to life well make robots that look like death people.

For Your Consideration

The question of how one feels about AI becoming more advanced and being put into society as a normal thing is hard to answer. There are so many opinions that are giving on the subject. The choice of totally rejecting the idea and AI in general. The choice of only having AI in society in certain cases. The opinion of absolutely having AI become apart of the normal day-to-day life. With so many opinions to take into mind, it makes it hard to answer the question when so many others may disagree.

In the Black Mirror, episode “Be Right Back,” a glimpse of what life would be like having an AI replicate and replace a lost loved one is given. Martha loses Ash, her husband, and is given a technological way of grieving him. She starts off with just having her way of reconnection to Ash just be through messaging, that’s based on what Ash would be like based on his social media, but it wasn’t enough. She takes the next step of talking to Ash through actual calls. In this time, she finds out she’s pregnant and drops the phone while talking to the “Ash.” This leads to her being hysterical and crying as if she has lost Ash all over again. This shows how connected she felt to even just being able to talk to Ash, even if it is fake, and how far real she thought “Ash” to be. Later, she is convinced by the “Ash” on the phone to upgrade him into an actual full-bodied AI version of Ash. She agrees and it’s because she misses Ash so much and apparently can’t stand to be without him anymore.

Martha receives and activates the AI Ash and at first, everything is fine. However, it’s all too much for Martha while also not being enough for her too. The AI Ash is real, but he is not real enough. He doesn’t eat or sleep or breath or get hurt. He just exists as a fake Ash and Martha realizes that. This leads her to try to kill Ash but when that doesn’t work out, she just locks him in the attic forever.

So, if one is to consider letting AI be a daily part of their lives then just take into consideration that the AI might not be as advance as you want. They may replace your lost loved ones in some ways, but it won’t be them. There will be some days that you look over at this AI and remember that it is not actually a person or the person you want it to be. It will never be the same as when the person was alive. It’s just a thought.

What AI Ash did to Martha

Overview

After watching the Be Right Back episode from Black Mirror, I had a lot of mixed feelings. So before I get into what I thought about the episode, I would like to recap a little bit. So the show starts off with a couple obviously in love and they have just moved into a new place together. The husband, Ash, then goes to return the rental truck and never returns. It is assumed that he probably died in a car accident, as the rental truck was never returned and the police later show up to talk to the wife, although it is never outright said that Ash has died or how. There is then a funeral where a family member, named Sara, tries to console and relate to Martha, Ash's wife. Sarah then suggests and signs Martha up for an AI technology that is meant to help someone who has lost a loved one cope with their grief; by utilizing the deceased's online activity to mimic responses that the deceased would have made.

My Thoughts

Some of the things that I noticed in this episode were the fact that at the very beginning, when Martha and Ash are driving to their new place, she makes Ash lock his phone in the glove box. This to me signals that he is a heavy user and is easily distracted by his phone. This thought is later confirmed when she has him retrieve it from the rental truck and he brings it inside to update his status with an old photo of himself as a child. Martha, while making dinner, is trying to talk to him and he gives half responses that indicate that he is not really listening. These two incidents lead me to suspect that Ash probably died in a car accident while being on his phone. I think this is one part of the underlying theme that too much technology is harmful.

We then move on to Sara having signed Martha up for the AI technology that mimics the way Ash would have responded to Martha's input. We learn that the more the AI technology has access to, the more Ash-like the responses will be. So, Martha in her time of need and grieving, let's the AI have access to all of Ash's public posts and accounts online and even let's the AI have access to private online activity, video, and voice recordings of Ash. This allows the AI to copy Ash's voice so that an audio connection can be established. Martha then develops this strange act where she treats the AI as if it is Ash but also not at the same time. She will tell a story about Ash and then refer to the AI as "you" like she is talking directly to her husband. In my opinion, Martha becomes overly dependent on this technology. She freaks out when she drops her phone and the call is disconnected. She acts as if Ash had died all over again.

The next stage in the AI technology is actually very strange and interesting for me. The AI Ash tells Martha that he can manifest himself in flesh, like an Android. I think for everyone thinking about this kind of technology today, would feel extremely unsettled by it. Martha at first enjoys all the benefits of having a life-like android that looks like Ash, I even believe at first Martha believes that the AI Ash is the actual Ash. That is until she spends enough time with it to experience uncanny valley. She notices that the AI does not have the same mole as Ash on his collar bone, that the AI doesn't respond to certain situations the way it should have because there is no data for that specific instance and how to replicate it. In the end, Martha cannot even get rid of AI Ash and instead stores him in the attic just as Ash's mum did with photos whenever someone would pass away.

My overall thoughts on the meaning of this episode are that one, overuse or over-dependency on technology is detrimental for human mental health, two, that AI technology in this episode is actually very possible in the near future and it is both interesting and slightly unsettling. I think a lot of things need to be taken into consideration as we become more technologically advanced. We would need to assess the ability of AI's and then modify laws to help regulate them. If an AI becomes rogue, who would be responsible, if an AI becomes self-aware, do we have to redefine what makes us human? Will the AI be considered human? There's a whole mess that would have to be sorted and probably will have to be sorted out within the next hundred years. 

Should it be the future "coping mechanism" for grieving?

     Upon watching "Be Right Back," it was honestly interesting as much as it was a weird concept. I say interesting because how the short film promoted a new genre of science with I would assume to be "Biorobotics," which is actually loosely connected to cybernetics. Anyway, during the film, the wife, now a widow, had grew attach to an online AI version of her former husband. Growing slowly obsess with texting the online version of her deceased partner, she went to another level of obsession and gave enough voice data about him to actually speak on the phone with the AI. She eventually went to a weird place (at least to us) when she paid for a robot that was a spitting imagine of her husband.
     Now I would like to ask this question. Is this process a form of a "good grieving?" I understand that losing a love one can be a very painful process that eventually every human being would have to go through. Some lost may be worse than others. Some may be able to come to a healthy term with the death of a love one. However, I do not believe what "road of grievance" the wife took was the right one to take.
       I say this because when having a AI capable of becoming a replica of your deceased love one, then you cease to attempt to push towards the resolution of overcoming the lost of that love one. You would stop trying to come to terms with their death. Instead, you do the opposite of what we as humans usually do, under regular and sound minded  conditions, when dealing with death. We usually down scale the immense pain of losing someone important into a softer tone of understanding of the absence of that person as well as creating coating of good memories. We then hold on to those memories in order to cherish that persons life. However, what was shown in this film was the exact opposite. Instead it escalated this traumatic event.
     As seen in the film, when she dropped her phone after the ultrasound with the AI on the phone, she almost had a nervous breakdown. It was as if she was losing him for the second time. That scene, along with most of the film, is a perfect representation of how this would not be a very healthy way of coping with death by no means. You are holding on to remnants of that person, which we already do now with pictures. But the huge difference is if we have smart enough AI's like the film predicted, then we believe that those remnants are actually the real person; which we all know that that is not the truth.

How Deep is Your Identity

Throughout the entirety of the film there was one main concept that was analyzed thoroughly: the reality of things. This can be seen both in obvious ways within the plot like how "real" Ash II is. It can also be seen in the minute nuances of Ash I liking "How Deep is Your Love" didn't seem like him to Martha or how Sara (the friend that signs Martha up for the emails from Ash II) speaks on how nothing seemed real at her own husbands funeral, from the people to the event itself.

"Be Right Back" is intended to make us question what exactly equates our identity. Is it similar to the Ash II model, a compilation of everything that we've posted for the public to see? Is it the perception our loved ones have, like Martha believes that the only Ash that exists is the Ash she knows? If the latter is true, then how many perspectives from how many people would you need to genuinely comprise your identity? We all code switch. Talk to our parents, friends, best friends, grand parents different and according to the situation of the relationship.

The only reason for the uncanny valley is because humans believe they know and can identify their own species apart from others. For instance, the only reason Martha is upset with Ash II is because she believes that she knew Ash I so well that Ash II was too much like Ash I without actually being Ash I. What if we don't know all the things that comprise and define as human? If something like Ash II can so easily mimic our external appearance, speech, mannerisms, and customs; they are only short of consciousness to being indistinguishable from us. Ash II actually seems to display some signs of consciousness throughout the film by wanting to be constantly upgraded from public information
Ash I shared to all of the private videos that Martha had, then generating a voice to speak, a body to move. By the end of the film, Ash II has improved himself to the best of his abilities, and seems to be aware that he is a mock of someone who is no longer. Which means the only thing that Ash II really seemed to lack was autonomy, because Martha was still his "administrator". If they walk, talk, act, and have the same free will as us, why are we still claiming they aren't us?

Government Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

As we dive further and further into the reality of artificial intelligence in our everyday lives we have to start thinking about how much control we actually have over these computerized minds. Decisions have to made on how they may contribute to society and how they are regulated within it. We must take action now before we find ourselves in the middle of an artificially controlled world. There is no reason to be in a situation where laws and regulations concerning AIs should be rushed or flawed. We see that technology is advancing at an astonishing pace. Our law makers should be ahead of the race and should be thinking forward in technological agendas.
What law makers should be worried about is how to regulate the hardware that is controlling these pieces of technology. Should we limit the amount of memory or processing power? Should we have regulations on how much information each singular AI can store? Should the people designing the programs behind the AIs report to the government? There are plenty of places where law makers can start to regulate what is basically our future. We can look at the automotive industry for an example of what happens when technology develops faster than regulation. Automobiles started to commonly appear around the 1920's but it wasn't until 40 years later in 1960's that there was federal regulation requiring all passenger automobiles to have lap seat belts. If it took them 40 to realize that maybe getting ejected out the front of a car at 50 mph wasn't the most fun thing imagine how wrong everything could go if androids and humanoids become common place.
The best thing the government can do now is set in place a couple of elementary laws.  Laws that prevent 100% human emulation. It is not in our best interest to have something that thinks and acts for itself. There must be a program behind it. In regards to programming, these AIs should be regulated on the amount of attempts that they can cycle through. That way if there were a malfunction, the program would only run a set amount of cycles before it completely stopped. This will prevent a smart technology from endlessly attempting a task. If these safety nets are set in stone and enforced by the government we shouldn't fear a future with AIs. They will be her to work for us.