Media
Asimov, Isaac. 2004 (1950). “Runaround” and “Reason” in I, Robot. New York: Bantam Dell.
Fritz Lang. (1927). Metropolis. New York, NY: Kino International. (Available through NYU Kanopy)
Geek of the Week
- Cellarius, “Darwin Among the Machines [To the Editor of the Press, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13 June, 1863.]” (Valeria)
- Alex Garland, Ex Machina (A24, 2015). (Available at Avery Fisher) (Netflix, Amazon, iTunes) (Jessica)
- Specifically, the dance scene: starts at 50m37sec and ends at 48m40sec or the full clip is available on YouTube.
Theory and Commentary
Battaglia, Debbora. 2001. Multiplicities: An Anthropologist’s Thoughts on Replicants and Clones in Popular Film. Critical Inquiry 27(3): 493-514.
Gray, C. H., ed. 1995. Part 4: In the Imagination. In The Cyborg Handbook. New York: Routledge.
Assignments
Essay 2 Due
Assimov’s “Reason” ultimately ends on a relatively comic note which undermines the feelings of dread that the story initially provokes. Powell and Donovan can laugh at their situation with Cutie precisely because they come to realize that–despite his awesome cognitive powers–he’s still subject to the three laws of robotics. How do you make sense of this ending? And what does the dramatic shift in tone, from dread to comic relief, convey to the reader?
In her essay “Death Is Irrelevant,” Fuchs begins with an analysis of Stark Trek, particularly the episode when Captain Picard is abducted and assimilated into the Borg collective hive-mind. In her analysis, what does our revulsion to the Borg collective signify, and why?
In the essay “Multiplicities,” Battaglia highlights the “replication problematic” which she characterizes as follows: what happens when a human being doubles by design and the self presents itself as supplement to the self. At base here is a notion of supplement as something that supplies, or makes apparent, insufficiencies. Based on the rest of the reading, what kinds of insufficiencies does the supplement make apparent?
Cellarius extends beyond the evolutionary context of humanity and explores the kingdom of machinery. It is stressed that the machines are dependent on humanity for existence. How would this evolutionary kingdom of machines appear should they be self-sustaining?
Isaac Asimov’s “Runaround” identifies the three rules of robotics. Supposedly, these fundamental laws are programmed into the robot’s positronic brain. However, is it possible for there to be a flaw in their code? Can these rules be broken in a faulty robot? Speedy seems to run back to Rule 3 and jump forward to Rule 2 which leads to the runaround. Furthermore, what if more rules were imposed?
The Cyborg Handbook tests what constitutes as a cyborg. For instance, Cyborgs in Comic Books need not necessarily be a robot/human hybrid. Wolverine is categorized as a controller/implant cyborg in which his body consist of surgically attached metal. With these different categories of cyborgs, does this place them beyond conceivable human law? What would cyborg law look like?
Is it possible to question the theme of “nature vs. nurture” in a film such as Ex Machina? Although AVA constitutes as artificial intelligence, her isolated surroundings and “father” must surely impact her behavior?
We know that Ava was manipulating Caleb into empathizing with her, and that he chose to side with her over Nathan and help her escape. What does Ava leaving Caleb behind say about her level of humanity? Is able to synthesize empathy, but not feel it? Does she think that, even though he was willing to help her escape, he would reveal what she was if he was allowed to leave the compound? Was it a calculated survival mechanism or did she essentially forget about Caleb as soon as she obtained her objective?
In I, Robot, Cutie states that humans are “makeshift” while he, on the other hand, is “a finished product.” He states how he is the superior being which “smashes [the humans] silly hypothesis” that a human, being inferior, could never create something superior to itself. The humans know for a fact they created Cutie, but Cutie knows for a fact that this is impossible, and presents logic to the point where Donovan voices doubts and asks if Cutie might be right after all – a moment which reminds me of, in Ex Machina, when Caleb starts to question if he is even human and slices his skin open. If Caleb begins to doubt his humanity, but believes in Ava’s, does it make him less human and her more? Cutie, meanwhile, recognizes himself as another being entirely, but causes the humans to doubt the validity of their own understanding. From the reactions of Donovan and Caleb, and the assurances of Cutie (and, by extension, Ava), how do we negotiate what is true when beings exist who can be manufactured into consciousness?
In Darwin Among the Machines, Cellarius remarks that while organic life grows larger to reach full development which contrasts against “a diminution in the size of machines” to reach their peak level of progress. Where would sentient machines fall along these lines? Would they organize in the manner of organic beings, or become smaller and more streamlined in the manner of machinery? Is there an ideal evolutionary path for the artificially intelligent life form?
Hubris is usually used as a synonym for an arrogance which unleashes an irrational and destructive impulse. Its original meaning, however, is much more limited: hubris is concerned with the transgression of limits imposed to men by Gods. It is clear that the term now, after breaking the confines of Greek tragedy, found a cozy home in Science Fiction narrative. Science and technology have, little by little solved problems that we didn’t deemed possible to be solved: diseases have been completely eradicated, communication is possible between any two pints in the world, life expectancy has almost tripled etc. For thousands of years, men, armed with reason, have been confronting nature (God?) and receding its limits while expanding their own. There are certain boundaries, still, that we can’t overcome: death, teleportation, producing life artificially, etc. Since science won’t help us transgress them, Science Fiction sets do it for us: Frankenstein, The Fly, Ex-Machina, or Reason, all portray scientist(s) “playing to be God”. The use of this well-trodden phrase reminds us not that there are limits which we shouldn’t cross, but that there are limits that we still haven’t. God’s existence has become a matter of choice, and our every-day lives are primarily based on scientific and social principles. At least collectively we are long past believing in the soul and yet, we can’t help but be creep out by artificial life. Isn’t it weird is that in this contemporary world we still consider that there are limits that shouldn’t be transgressed? Or is it that we are defending certain boundaries only out of the threat posed over our humanity?
10-Although remarkably interesting and innovative (even for today’s audience) to explore cyborg sexuality -gendered, transgendered- from feminist approaches, I wonder if a cyborg is not precisely the opposite? Are cyborgs a state of human existence void, precisely of our sexuality?
11-I wonder about what makes a machine a machine and the difference between cyborgs and androids. While Cyborgs have an element of the human organism, mainly and sometimes necessarily its brain, androids do not. Does this make them completely separate from us? Is belonging to the gene pool truly the necessary condition? Then what about organism in other pars of the galaxy/universe that evolved from entirely different gene pools?
12-Cellaarius’s extrapolation regarding the human fondness to mechanistic creation and slavery seem to be related in many ways to the fear of technology and the latter misunderstanding of what makes a human human. In his own words “…our servitued has commenced in good earnest…” Is it really fair to describe a personal, even fetishistic relation with machines a form of enslavement? As with the readings in The Cyborg Handbook, I find most relations of human integration with the machine )though very interesting and eye-opening regarding the mediums explored) far fetched and disjointed from many other, perhaps more intersting analysis regarding cyborgs. I wonder if the drive to create dubious and forced analytical connection between humans and machines a response to our fear of the unknown?
Well, I must say I really like Cutie in the novel I, Robot by Isaac Asimov. It is quite impressive when people create a robot like that. If we still in the Middle Ages, I believe Cutie will be the best priest in the Church. Cutie sees himself as a God. He saw his creator, Powell, and Donovan, as a lower-level creature. Two poor men try their best to reason with Cutie but fail. However, Cutie does a great job to prevent the Earth from the dangerous but still hold his opinion. So how do the next groups of people deal with Cutie and how can they convince the machines with its intelligence?
In “Runaround,” Asimov shows how people handle the robot when they go wrong. The “Three Laws of Robotics” protect people but sometimes hurt people in a ridiculous way. When Powell and Donovan manage to make the robot speedy back to work, the old machine they used nearly make them into trouble. Does it bring the problem of how people can handle the bug on their system?
In “Multiplicities: An Anthropologist’s Thoughts on Replicants and Clones in Popular Film,” Debbora told about the problems of Clones in the film and extended to future human society. It is interesting the film has five Doug, and each one performs different side of Doug. Debbora discusses the moral problem which not appeared in the movie. So in what circumstances can people accept the human right of the Colonies?
A great deal of our sources this week deal with some iteration of the “mechanized mistress”, as Gonzalez details in her work from The Cyborg Handbook. I find it inextricably tied up in the creator/created relationship, which can be likened to parent/child (as Oscar Isaac did in Ex Machina) which adds a Freudian and somewhat disgusting lens to the phenomena. Why, in a postmodern age, does this comparison of creation and woman continue in fiction? Will it ever change?
In Metropolis, one of the images that struck me was the inclusion of Rotwang’s pentagram during the scene where the robot is unveiled. This reference to the occult is associated with giving life, often overtaking the “scientific” in SF; this is historically seen in Frankenstein, as well, as Victor pulls farther and farther away from known science. Where does this association come from, and does it make room for the occult or supernatural in science fiction? What does this do to the (very blurry) line between fantasy and science fiction?
In the “Multiplicities: An Anthropologist’s Thoughts on Replicants and Clones in Popular Film” resource, there is a section on replicants and racialization. Racialization was also referenced in The Cyborg Handbook, from Gonzalez’s work on imagining the cyborg body. This made me think about Guaytri Spivak’s work on the subaltern, and the question of active voice. If the traumas of brown and black bodies are being used as symbols in SF works, then is there any space in the field for brown and black authors to tell stories of their own? Are cultures still seen as symbolically silenced relegated to an actual silencing in reality?
In the film Ex Machina, we are expected to believe that Nathan created all of these A.I. prototypes, including Ava, all alone in his tucked-away mansion. But this would require PhD level knowledge in the following fields of study:
1) Robotics, including formal training in:
computer science, algorithmic math, algorithmic data structures and storage, electrical engineering, machine learning and manufacturing
2) Human Biology, including formal training in:
biomechanics, biomedical engineering, biochemistry, physiology and anatomy
3) Psychology, including formal training in:
behavioral, developmental, and cognitive psychology
4) Neuroscience (particularly cognitive neuroscience)
5) Neural Network Engineering, which isn’t even a real thing yet
This lone wolf / “rogue genius scientist” is the worst trope imaginable, applied to an otherwise fantastic story. What purpose is served by using it?
Is it even possible for humans to evaluate the consciousness of another sentient being outside a philosophical context? Wouldn’t we simply be forced to compare its level of consciousness with our own, due to innate bias?
Do we need to create a government division / ethics framework to regulate A.I. so that we can ensure its safety, similar to Asimov’s 3 Laws of Robotics?
All my questions this week are going to be about Ex Machina, because boy, I’d forgotten how much I loved Ex Machina. (I remember seeing this in the theater the summer it came out, and then, a year later, agreeing with all my friends that Alica Vikander may have won the Oscar for The Danish Girl but she really won it for this) Onward!
1. In “Darwin Among The Machines,” I was struck by this particular passage: Inferior in power, inferior in that moral quality of self-control, we shall look up to them as the acme of all that the best and wisest man can ever dare to aim at. No evil passions, no jealousy, no avarice, no impure desires will disturb the serene might of those glorious creatures. Sin, shame, and sorrow will have no place among them. Their minds will be in a state of perpetual calm, the contentment of a spirit that knows no wants, is disturbed by no regrets. Ambition will never torture them. Ingratitude will never cause them the uneasiness of a moment. The guilty conscience, the hope deferred, the pains of exile, the insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes these will be entirely unknown to them. It seems to me that this is an excellent description of Ava and the other machines in Ex Machina, particularly the end, where Caleb realizes whatever feelings he has developed for Ava have not been reciprocated. What does this say about Garland’s conception of robot/artificial intelligence? And how much of Ava’s creation comes from the fact that she was created by Nathan, who has similar qualities with regards to his intelligence and conception of the world – in that he seems to see himself above it?
2. With that in mind – what do we think the ending, where Ava blends into the crowd after escaping the compound? I’ve always wondered if Garland is saying something about the ultimately minuscule differences between humanity and intelligent robots, and that what defines us, what defines intelligence, is our desire and hunger to survive, to escape, to live. But it’s also felt ominous to me, almost a prelude to the rise of machines as the dominant species on the planet.
3. How does Garland’s portrayal of the robots in Ex Machina compare to Asimov’s? In the Asimov stories, while the robots may have human qualities, they are obviously not human – they are more machine than human. But in Ex Machina, Ava and Kyoko are perhaps more human than machine – despite their clearly mechanical appearance. Is this perhaps a result of the time the stories were written in (Asimov writing the stories in I, Robot between 1940 and 1950, at the period between the age of diesel and the age of the atom; the two stories we read were written in 1941-42) versus our contemporary notions of what robots can look like? How does this affect the narrative – are we more invested in Ava’s story because she looks human, whereas the robots in Asimov are less so?
p.s. if you enjoyed EX MACHINA, I recommend the movie SPRING, by Benson & Moorhead. It’s got a similar vibe and came out the same year as Ex Machina, though the tone is more horror/ancient creatures than sci-fi. I describe it as BEFORE SUNSET meets H.P. Lovecraft (minus the racism).
Something I’ve been fascinated with for almost a year is what makes a consciousness a singular and unique entity. I did a reading for a different science fiction class last year that was an in depth philosophical discussion about multiplicity, and really specifically about if you split a brain in half and two separate bodies each got one part, which would have the original “self,” if either. Not to bring up Star Trek as I always tend to, but an episode that really got me thinking about it at the time was the episode where they find a second Riker created by a transporter accident (Riker’s data had both beamed through the interference AND reflected back to its origin point on the planet). It’s rather like the idea of parallel universes where you made a different choice, and the horrors of being confronted with a copy of you that has suffered and knowing it just as easily could have been you.
What DOES make me “me”? How would tweaks in my upbringing change the way I think about myself, and would that other me be essentially the same person? The question that really haunts me is who I’d be if I weren’t a lesbian, because my connection to the LGBT community and the way I process my gender and gender expression through my attraction is so central to my identity. I’m not sure I’d even be a woman if I weren’t a lesbian. I’m a butch lesbian, so how could someone not attracted to women possibly be me?
Would a machine with organic material (cyborg) be capable of muscle memory?
Is the moving expression of a cyborg or android artistic or artificial?
Could a humanoid machine invent their own artistic language and style?
How does the adult birth as an origin story for machines resemble various creation myths for humanity?
Are we instigating fear and promoting panic when works of SF include scenes of hysterical and violent reactions towards machines?
How can the gendered machine created by a man be reimagined in future works of SF?
How does the path of controlled evolution through perfection in constructed machines contrast Darwin’s view of natural evolution through random acts and mistakes?
What distinguishes sentience and essence in cyborgs or androids?
In “Darwin Among the Machines,” Cellarius writes that machinery will replace human beings and treat them as we treat animals; but it seems like the writer is still making the presumption that the machinery will think and behave like human beings, just without the physical body, blood and flesh as we are. What if machines (or AI) don’t think like the human at all? What if they develop a whole different kind of ideas? or no idea or thoughts at all?
In “I, Robot,” Reason, it is so interesting to read that Cutie managed to learn everything in a week and developed his own set of belief and theory–reason. In the story he didn’t break the first rule, but what if someday the robots can “think of” some kind of logic that surpasses the three rules that designers create? When will they arrive at the stage of being unleashed from human control? I find it very intriguing to think about their potentialities and possibilities.
In “Runaround,” Powell decided to risk his own life to drag (attract) Speedy back, which seems to be a very human-ish act. Would robots sacrifice themselves and violating the third rule? Will they have (or develop) such a notion as self-sacrifice in the future?
The ethics of cloning (and production of other man-like machines) has been at the forefront of controversies both in science fiction and real life. Considering Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go, Battaglia’s thesis on cloning fantasy/ies, and the numerous visual and written texts on the topic, how do we make sense of the divide between the human and the nonhuman? Where does the line lie once clones, replicants, and others have developed the same (or probably more) “humanity” in both the emotive and intellectual sense?
In Metropolis, Wells’ Time Machine, Huxley’s Brave New World (among others), the issue of class (consciousness, divide) is highlighted/made worse in their imagined worlds. The same can be said for ecological dystopias, and even more racist/sexist futures. The imagined futures are given to be great arena for projecting present concerns in greater proportion. What links these futures with the advancement of technology and what is it about technology that is able to nurture/strengthen such hegemonic structures?
Man’s inferiority when compared to his creation is highlighted in both “Darwin Among the Machines” and Ex Machina. Asimov’s “Reason” also toys with the purported impossibility of man being able to create something inferior hence the reference to the “Master”. Similar to the question I posted last week, does the repeated use of the “playing god” (and failing) theme do more to weaken than strengthen the agency and ability of man?
1. Thinking about agency in relation to visuality, who has the agency in Metroplis compared to Ex Machina? Is there more agency in Ex Machina because of when it was made culturally/historically?
2. Is technology/machinery advancing humanity at the same time it is setting us back? I’m thinking specifically of several companies that are working on in-the-moment translators that someone can talk into in one language, and the device will translate their speech into another language of your choosing. While this would help to improve international relations and make global tourism easier/more appealing to people, it may also cause people to feel like they don’t need to study foreign languages anymore, which could have a negative affect on people’s cognitive skills.
3. Continuing a discussion that was started in class: does a robot need to identify as a specific gender? It may be programmed to identify as male or female, but having access to all of the knowledge on the internet, wouldn’t a robot know that it is unnecessary to identify as either/or?
A video I thought my get people in the mood regarding the topic. I posted it about a week ago but for some reason it logged out and I didn’t realise. Any way, even though we’re off the subject perhaps some may enjoy.
Best wishes,
Watching “Metropolis” is always an uncomfortable experience for me. So much of it feels like “oh but it’s a classic, it was groundbreaking at the time,” but there are very specific places where we will put up with that shit. The dance sequence – the black bodies, the only appearance of anyone who didn’t look absolutely ghost white in the entire film – was abhorrent and violent and if it was meant to be critique then it didn’t land because it just felt like black bodies heaving and throbbing as organs in a machine. The same “but it’s a classic” bullshit doesn’t protect “The Birth of The Nation” AKA “The Clansman” from being shit on universally – why is “Metropolis” still a classic? Why is any problematic narrative that objectifies women and commodifies Blackness still viewed as acceptable? Because a white man made it.
On the flip-side, the anime remake of “Metropolis” is just fun and a great watch.