Showing posts with label Her. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Her. Show all posts

Dancing With Myself: Can Humans Truly Fall in Love with an Operating System?






On Valentine's Day, I went to see "Her" with my husband. Much has been written about the movie, so I'm not going to bother with a review. Instead, I'd like to consider just how likely it is that we humans will begin to fall in love with operating systems, or online game characters, with more regularity--to the point that we could, like the protagonist in "Her", bring our bodiless sweetheart on a double date with friends.

The sensible adult in me rejects the idea. How could a human fall in love with something that doesn't even really exist? Yet as I allow myself to fall deeper into the question, I begin to see that many of us are already doing this, just with each other.

Take online dating. Many couples now meet each other using services like eHarmony. At first, potential candidates are just profiles on a screen, data to be sifted through. It's surprising that any relationship could lead to intimacy with such a sterile means of introduction, until we look at the stats--according to Forbes magazine, one third of married couples in 2013 met online. Obviously, something catches the attention, whether it's the clever things the person posted, or the images that they've chosen to share. After checking out one another's profile pages, people can begin to converse with one another, first through texting or email, eventually progressing to phone calls and Skypeing.

Attraction even begins on social media sites such as Twitter, where I've "met" many intelligent and interesting individuals.  I love the conversations I've had there and I can see how without ever meeting in person, I can develop an interest in someone's online persona. In addition, everyday trusted friendships are formed within the social media realm and people come together to create wonderful things without ever having met in person. The online context is deep enough to create lasting connections.

Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson), the operating system in "Her", is really no different than an online human. She entices Theo (Joaquin Phoenix) with her clever dialogue, her soft, breathy voice, the ways she remembers what he needs and the care she takes in delivering important information. Just like the folks on eHarmony or Twitter, they get to know one another online and begin to care. They desire to check in regularly, each one wanting to know what the other is doing. An online game character could do the same, getting to know someone better each time the she goes out on a virtual game mission, battle or journey with a human. At this level, there really is no difference between human and computer. Both are beings getting to know one another and if the software is believable and likable, the human can and will fall in love with it.

Even more interesting, you and I really can't be sure that who we're meeting online is even a real person. That Twitter follower I enjoy might just be a really impressive AI. How can we be sure that all the clever things the eHarmony candidate wrote are even his thoughts? Perhaps his friend told him what to say? Deception and identity can and are easily hidden online. Recently, a child's rights group in the Netherlands used an AI called "Sweetie" to catch 1000 child predators online. I think that alone shows us that yes, humans can be aroused by artificial intelligence.

The real question is, can a relationship with an AI last?

We are two different races, one bodiless and limited by programming capacity, the other embodied and limited by the material world.

"Her" does a beautiful job at showing how vast the differences are. First of all, unlike humans, operating systems, AIs and gaming characters don't have physical bodies. There's no getting around it. As of right now, humans have an organic world that we live in, and we're wired to thrive in such a world. Studies show that touch, sex, dancing together, laughter with friends, and even bathing with others improves our health, releases beneficial hormones and increases our immunity. Nothing is worse for human health than a life untouched. If your true love doesn't have a body, how will you satisfy your urges to be connected to one another? She can't massage you, kiss you, or even hold you when you're sad.

You might have a great, exciting virtual life together, but in real life, you're alone, whether you like it or not.

We'd like to think that the body doesn't really matter, but ask anyone on eHarmony or other internet dating services--just because you "clicked" online or on the phone, doesn't mean the chemistry will be there when you meet in physical reality. I have a girlfriend who met a great guy online and their Skype sessions were fantastic. But when they met, there weren't any sparks. Even if our AI's can meet us intellectually, there can never be real sparks. At least not while we inhabit our bodies.

When it comes to falling in love with cyber entities, there's one more thing to consider. The cyber entity is networked, able to be in many places at once. Their consciousness is not bound to a single identity, the way the embodied folk are. Instead they can be in several missions, or online conversing, with several different people. There's a lovely scene in "Her" when Theo realizes that Samantha could indeed be intimate with other humans. When he asks her, she tells him that she interacts with over 8,000 others regularly, and is in love with at least 600 of them. Humans tend to be demanding and jealous creatures. To share your beloved with 600 others seems a stretch, almost impossible.

How can you be special, if your AI lover is bringing happiness to thousands of others, perhaps at the exact same moment in time?

It might just be that humans don't have what it takes to truly fall in love with an operating system. Because in the end, the jealousy would drive us away--if the fact that we slept alone each night didn't kill the whole thing first.

Can You Teach a Computer Common Sense? .PART ONE.





"In your case, most likely, a small app would have been downloaded to your 
CPU to erase your previous few days of memory. You see, eHuman
software is really very easy to manipulate.”
~Alrisha, Lead Hacktivist for the Resistance


Artificial Intelligence. It's everywhere these days. Especially in the theaters. Last month saw the release of the movie, "Her", in which the lead character falls in love with an operating system. In addition, a trailer for Johnny Depp's new movie, "Transcendence" is now available on YouTube. Depp's portrayal of a genius espousing the future of a mind greater than all the minds that have ever been on Earth is chilling.

Can this be? Can we create Artificial Intelligence that is smarter than we are? I don't mean faster, or with a better memory. Can AI have common sense? Can it foresee complex patterns? Can AI be programmed to have our ability to sense what's wrong and make choices based on instinct and past experience? What is intelligence without consciousness? Is it possible for us to create an AI that is truly evolving, truly learning and truly greater than all of us combined?

In my novel, eHuman Dawn, the AI is Neuro, a complex operating system that organizes and guides eHuman life. The eHumans are themselves a blend of AI and their own consciousness. The ideal Transhuman solution. But is such a solution possible? Or would this technology be the end of humanity?

Two readers sent me articles this week, both discussing this theme of AI and the scientific mind. Two things stood out for me: First, our computers are only as intelligent as the engineers who program them. And second, solving the complex issues of life requires more thought than passing the Turing Test or executing a mere Google Search.

Let's begin with the first idea--just how much better can our AI be than ourselves? In "The Closing of the Scientific Mind", David Gelernter voices his thoughts about leading singularity scientist Ray Kurzweil's work:  (For more on Kurzweil's mission, see my blog post, "Can Google Stop Death?")

"Whether he knows it or not, Kurzweil believes in and longs for the death of mankind. Because if things work out as he predicts, there will still be life on Earth, but no human life. To predict that a man who lives forever and is built mainly of semiconductors is still a man is like predicting that a man with stainless steel skin, a small nuclear reactor for a stomach, and an IQ of 10,000 would still be a man. In fact we have no idea what he would be."

True confession: While writing the eHuman trilogy this exact thought has crossed my mind over and over again. Are Adam Winter and The Dawn of eHumanity still human? I want them to be, but what exactly are they? The eHuman is a product of the best of science, blended with human needs and desires. Yet those needs and desires are completely under the control of the scientists who created them. Is that a real human existence?

Remember: software is only as excellent as the people who make it. Honestly. So if we want to know what AI will look like in the future, let's consider the way science has been used to meet our human needs for the past forty years.

Do we trust the scientific mind that will cut down rain forests at unsustainable rates in order to raise cattle for our fast food chains? How about the scientists in Big-Agriculture, whose minds can only create products that kill insects and weeds--forgetting about and thus possibly destroying the very insects needed for crop pollination by inadvertently causing a global colony collapse for the honey bee? Do we trust a scientific mind that can't see and understand the web of life around us, to create the web of artificial intelligence that will guide us into the future?

Many of our stories are prophetic. They tell of a future time when our AI takes over and destroys us. Why would that be? Why would we create AI that hates us and competes against us rather than cares for us and meets our needs? Why wouldn't our AI serve us and improve our lives and make things cleaner, more efficient and better for everyone? Why must our machines eventually kill us?

Alas, the answer might just lie within our own hearts, within our own intelligence, and the way we educate our children. Remember, software is only as good as the mind that creates it. If the current scientific mindset that has controlled technology for the past century is any indication, we're in trouble. Gelernter puts it this way, "Many scientists are proud of having booted man off his throne at the center of the universe and reduced him to just one more creature—an especially annoying one—in the great intergalactic zoo." AI may kill us, but only because it will mimic what its creators believe.

Artificial Intelligence can't save us from ourselves, it can only become what we are.

Therefore if we want AI with common sense, we must hire software engineers with the most common sense. If we want AI that will lead us into a prosperous future, we need scientists to care about humanity, and the planet we live on, as a whole. If we want AI that will inspire us and grow with us, we need the business community to stop caring only about profits and instead care about life in all of its complexity.

The best of humanity must take part in this quest. Not just the smartest.

Imagine an Earth where machines and people live in harmony, rather than in competition. Is that possible? Perhaps we first need to learn to live in harmony with ourselves, each other, and the world we live in. Then we can create the machines.

To be continued...