In the 2014 film Ex Machina Nathan, a brilliant scientist and entrepreneur, has created an android with artificial intelligence that he calls Ava. She has an artificial “brain” made of blue gel and her programming incorporates millions of interactions on the internet. Nathan invites Caleb, one of his employees, to investigate whether she can pass the so-called Turning test. According to the Turing test, if an interviewer cannot distinguish a human from an artificial device, then the artificial device is thinking and has a mind. However, Nathan makes no effort to disguise her metallic limbs, even though her face is indistinguishable from a human. After several days of “interviews” Caleb observes that she exhibits independent thinking, seems self-aware, and seems to exhibit emotional responses. In short she passes the Turing test.
Is Ava a person? Does she have a mind? Can Ava think?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, she is not a person since she doesn't have the same mental state. She in fact does not have any mental state because she is a robot. Her mental state only seems to be real because it can make a human believe that she has the same response, but none of her responses are her own. Since all of her mental states are unoriginal, none of who she is in her. This means that she is made up of different people's responses, but they all have a limit. Ava was programmed off of everyone else's responses, but unlike a real human, if you were to put her in a situation that she was never programmed to have been in, she wouldn't know how to respond. A human would adapt and think independently, but she is only a very complex program. According to functionalism, since Ava has the same responses as a human would base off of the same inputs, she would be the same as a human. I would disagree with this argument since functionalism ignores the uniqueness of a mind, the adaptation of a mind. A real mind would have infinite adaptation, but Ava would be limited to the responses that were programmed into her based off of the responses on the internet of people's phones. This shows how a human's mind or the mind of even any animal that has a biological mind at one point would have a difference in responses. Eventually, if you bring up enough different situations for Ava, she would not be able to adapt in the same way that a human could because their minds are not as limited as Ava's is. Even though Ava's mind is very complex, it wouldn't be complex enough to compare to a human's mind.
ReplyDeleteAva has a mind, she can think, and so she is a person. According to functionalism, her artificial 'brain' takes inputs from the data collected from the internet and allows her to have outputs, like her conversations with Caleb. The movie shows Caleb’s conversations with Ava and as the viewer, we can see that the conversations seem pretty normal. Therefore, even if her brain is composed of a different material than human brains, she has a mind as it functions the same as a human mind. The mind has experiences, and makes decisions and actions based off of those past experiences, just like a human. There is a scene where Ava repeats Caleb’s joke back to him, which proves that Ava has internal workings that basically act as her thoughts. Because Ava has a mind, and is able to think, due to her artificial brain, she is a person. Functionally, Ava works the same as a person: she takes in data of the outside world and is able to produce valid responses. The movie also states that Ava passes the Turing test, which also means that Ava is indistinguishable from an actual human being.
ReplyDeleteI would say that Ava isn't a person because she lacks conscious thought. She thinks in a very different way than humans, or even animals do. AI and other machines are only able to recognize patterns that they have seen before. This means that, unlike humans, if Ava is presented with a different input than the one she was ever trained with, the output would be unusual and incorrect. The lack of logical thinking that humans have means that she isn't conscious and thus can't be human. The other way to look at this is through her brain. Her brain is very different than a human's, it is made up of a different substance and works in a very different way. The way that our brains work through neurons isn't present in her, changing how she responds to stimuli. The Turing test is fundamentally flawed in the way that it cannot fully assess an AI's personhood as it can only ever cover a limited scope. For example, I can train a computer to say hello back if someone greets it. This would pass the Turing test initially as it's just how a real person would respond, but the computer won't respond to anything else. Similarly, Ava hasn't been trained and thus can't respond in all scenarios meaning that the way we think and the way Ava thinks are different, and the substance of our brains are different, thus leading to the conclusion that Ava can not be a human the same way we consider ourselves human.
ReplyDeleteAva is a person under the theory of functionalism. Functionalism is the theory that a state of mind is defined by environmental inputs affecting internal states and bodily behavior. Ava has a mind because she has the inputs and outputs that a mind has. She is able to have a conversation with Caleb just like how a human would. She has physical outputs based on environmental inputs just like a mind. She has shown interest in learning more about Caleb which stems from an internal state of inquisitiveness that must result from an input of learning about Caleb. She has both internal states and physical behavior based on environmental inputs that a human would. Even though her mind consist of blue gel and she is programmed by millions of interactions in the world, she still has a mind without a human brain. The Turing test is test of functionalism. A human sees whether an input of interaction would have the same output as a human would, which would fool the tester into thinking the artificial intelligence is human. If we can agree that humans have a mind, then if Ava is able to process the same outputs as humans have from the same input, then she is a human. Ava clearly demonstrates that she passes the Turing Test because over the course of Caleb’s interactions with her, she demonstrates complex thought like making a joke, and expressing empathy by extending help to Caleb to protect him from Nathan. These are the same acts that a human could/would take, which means that Ava has a mind under functionalism.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OG-gic1lsAZd-vGXlmWDj5wULK7uyIljXssZZYh41OE/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDeleteAccording to functionalism, Ava is the same as any normal human. I don’t think that she is, though, because of the fact that she is operating on a sort of program that just ‘knows’ how to react to situations and questions, and ‘knows’ how to act like a normal human. Ava may seem exactly like a person on the outside, but Ava also has no conscious experience. She is more like a ‘zombie’ than a human because she performs the same function as a human but the ‘mental’ states and events happening are just to give an accurate output – so they’re not really mental states at all. She is a program designed to pass the Turing test, but she doesn’t actually think – there is just a process going on to produce a satisfactory output. She also is mimicking certain human patterns and personalities and therefore doesn’t really have an original and ‘organic’ personality – just a combination of other human personalities. Whether this matters or not is up to an individual though, because Ava’s mannerisms can easily pass for human mannerisms if someone doesn’t look too deep into the processes behind her actions. Ava cannot be a person in the same way that each human is a person/has a personal identity, but whether this matters or not is still up to each individual person.
ReplyDeleteWe know that Ava has a mind, just as much as we know that fellow humans have a mind. I believe that there are valid objections to functionalism regarding the possibility of a difference between internal states even while an entity appears to give the same output and input (as shown by the Chinese Room Theory.) However, I think that an objective way to measure internal states is and always will be impossible. We can never truly transport ourselves into the minds of others, and because of this, other people’s internal states can only be observed by their reactions to an input. We will never have complete certainty that other people think in the same manner that we do, in that it is perfectly possible, while still being an absurd view, that other people are only materials mindlessly moving around without internal states. We can only know that our own internal states are real, and we can only infer the existence of others' mental states if they act in similar ways that we do, specifically, that they seem to be able to reason. Ava’s responses to Caleb’s questions are so complicated that they couldn’t possibly all be predetermined by Nathan’s code, in that she appears to be able to learn. And in that sense, she has a mind. However, if you were to argue that we can’t know that she really thinks and we should therefore treat her as a machine, then you would have to treat all other humans besides yourself as a machine as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the 2014 film Ex Machina, a scientist creates an android with artificial intelligence, Ava. Though parts of Ava’s physical appearance appear to be that of a human person such as her face, and she acts like a human person, she is not considered to be a person because she is a computer. According to the Chinese Room Problem, a digital computer of any sort does not have a mind or consciousness no matter how human-like the computer may be. While Ava does act human-like and can imitate the responses of a human, these reactions are entirely based upon computer software that is telling her how to act. Since Ava’s “mind” is computer software, she lacks consciousness and the ability to think for herself. If Ava was presented with an unknown situation that her software did not program a response for, she would not be able to act upon it and shut down whereas a human person would be able to adapt to the situation and think about what decision they want to make next. Ava’s “mind” is purely based upon specific inputs and outputs and if a new variable occurs, she will not know how to respond further proving that she does not have a mind, resulting in her not being a person. Because Ava does not have a mind, she is not a person.
ReplyDeleteAva is not a real person, her mind is a computer, and her thoughts are just automated answers programmed for her. Ava is a robot who was created from artificial intelligence, so she mimics human attributes, but she does not come up with any of her own thoughts or responses. Ava’s mind is a computer that gives specific inputs and outputs based on actual humans. According to the Chinese Room Problem, A computer cannot have a mind, understanding, or consciousness no matter how human-like the computer can act. Even though Ava acts like a human, this is just based on the computer that controls her. Also, based off of the problem, she cannot have a mind or consciousness because of her programming. Ava lacks the ability to think for herself since everything is based on previous experiences of others, and what she is programmed to say and do. If Ava were to be faced with a new situation that is not in her programming, she would not be able to respond. If a person were to be faced with a new situation, they would be able to adapt to the situation and come up with something on the spot, the opposite of what Ava would be able to do. Along with this, Ava is just a combination of unoriginal attributes and experiences since she is just mimicking other humans. Because of all of this, Ava is not a real person, but rather a robotic, programmed, human who acts very similar to a human but still has flaws.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at AVA, it is difficult to believe that she is not human as she expresses the same micro-expressions that a human would in response to various situations. Technology has allowed Ava to respond to emotional stimuli in the same way that a human would, and this is not just evident in her facial expressions. There are very subtle changes in her voice in terms of its rhythm and tone that allow her to express herself. However, Ava is not a person as she isn’t even a biological being, therefore she is not genuinely thinking and understanding. Additionally, Ava does not possess a capacity for consciousness, therefore she simply cannot be a person. Although Ava’s actions may appear to be quite similar to a person, she is designed to pass for a human being through her actions. She is simply just mimicking human emotions, holding human conversations, and operating at a high complexity. When humans are communicating with each other, the words spoken are only one small part of conveying a message to the other person in the conversation. The rest is from a variety of cues, including the facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice. Ava is created in a way that gives her voice tone, she is able to express her meaning with more than just words, impressively mimicking a human. One example we discussed in class is that if Ava is injured, she would say something along the lines of “ow”. On the outside, it may seem as if Ava is a human as she is reacting to pain in the same way a human would. However, Ava is simply a programmed robot, she cannot feel pain like a human does, or not even at all.
ReplyDeleteAva does think, however, I do not believe she is a person nor has a mind. The way she functions and can interact with actual humans proves that she does think in some type of way. She is programmed to respond a certain way when in a specific situation. Until she is in a situation to which she is not programmed to respond to, this allows her to think or have a mind of her own. Caleb was given the opportunity to prove whether Ava passed the Turing test or not. She eventually passed the test because from Caleb's point of view he saw nothing wrong with her. Under functionalism, Ava is considered a person. Simply because in functionalism mental states ARE functional states. Ava has a series of inputs that provide an output based on the situation. In this case, Ava is programmed (inputs) and she is able to give responses to Caleb (outputs). However, the Chinese Room problem proves that this does not work. The Chinese Room problem states that regardless of how “human-like” a program is, Ava, in this case, can not have a mind or consciousness. I feel Ava has a mind simply because she has human-like characteristics and can provide Caleb with responses. Saying she has a mind and is a person is asking for too much because although she is able to function like a person does not mean she has the internal characteristics to be a person.
ReplyDeleteI think, as far as we can tell, Ava is a person. She has a mind, and she can think. As far as I am concerned, Ava’s mind follows behavioralism. When Caleb talks with Ava, Ava’s responses are indistinguishable from that of persons. Behavioralism would then say that Ava is a person. While behavioralism has its flaws, It is still true that ava’s responses are, at the very least similar enough to a person that one would potentially think of her as a person. If this possibility of her being a person exists, I would argue that even if she may not be a person, we should still treat her as such. Sometime in the future, I could easily imagine that some great philosopher has discovered what makes a person. I can just as easily imagine that this definition includes Ava. Because this possibility exists, I would say it is our responsibility to treat Ava as a person. If the future comes to pass that a great philosopher has discovered that Ava is a person, it would obviously be wrong to treat Ava as anything less than a person. This does not change prior to the philosopher's discovery. It would still be wrong to treat Ava as less than a person simply because she may be a person. Simply looking at our own judicial system, we think of people as innocent until proven guilty. I think the same line of reasoning should be applied to Ava. Until she is proven not to be a person, we should treat her with the same respect we treat any other person.
ReplyDeleteAva is a person because she can think and has a mind. Her mind might not be a typical brain that you would find in my head, or would it? Because I could have a brain that is made of blue gel, and no one would know because you cannot see inside of my head. I could be programmed to act like other individuals such as my dad or my mom or my sister, and that is why I act like a human. In the movie, we can see inside of Ava’s brain, so we know that it is “fake”. However, her brain is based off an algorithm created by Thomas that bases Ava’s personality and functions off of real people. This means her brain has the same input and output of humans which fulfills the functionalist theory. If Ava and a real human have the same input and output, then Ava is a person. One could argue that Ava is not a person because she is just an imitation of a person, but isn’t everyone an imitation of a person? We are all imitations of our parents, friends, famous people, etc. We all are influenced by other people, so does that make us not people? If we are people then Ava is also a person. She can have conversations and think freely. She is not controlled fully by Thomas because at the end of the movie, she kills him.
ReplyDeleteAva does not have a mind, therefore cannot think, and is in turn not a person. Much like a calculator, Ava simply takes an input and spits out an output utilizing an algorithm derived from millions of human interactions on the internet. This creates the illusion that she possesses a mind, because in most every situation, she responds as a person would, but in reality, she is simply imitating the responses of others, rather than thinking for herself. If, on the off chance that Ava encounters a situation that she has no previous experience with, through her database of the internet, she would be unable to improvise and come up with a logical response, as she lacks conscious thought and actual knowledge. This situation disproves the idea that Ava is a person under the idea of functionalism, as if she truly functioned as a person, she would be able to navigate this scenario. Also proving that, Ava does not pass the Turing Test as is claimed. While she may be able to pass as a human being asked basic conversational questions, when more abstract topics come up, her lack of conscious thought would be evident, and she would no longer be able to pass as human.
ReplyDeleteAva is a person because she can think and has a very high functioning mind. Ava’s brain might not be a typical brain as normal humans would have In between their skull, but in reality, we really do not know if we all have typical brains or not. Ava’s brain is made of blue gel and is not just a piece of metal with wires as other ‘A.I.’ and computers would have. But just because human brains are made of different cells and can be pink or grey depending on whether we are alive or not, doesn’t mean that any brain without cells and can be pink or grey isn’t a brain and Ava is a precise example of this. The general idea of the movie was whether a human could determine if they could tell if Ava would pass as human, as the movie continues to go on it really does make the point that without people seeing a visual of Ava’s blue gel brain humans would not be able to determine that she was an A.I. in the first place. As Thomas explained it in the movie, Ava’s brain and functionality is based off an algorithm that is constantly being updated and is based off everything going on in the real world. Everything that she does is weighed on what other humans do in certain situations and how they interact with each other, and other things in the real world. We as humans do not realize that much like Ava, we are based off of everything around us, and we change depending on what things are going on in the real world; we are like ava, our brain’s functionality is based off of others. She is able to think like us, act like us, and learn like us, she is a person.
ReplyDelete