Dennis Madden
Final Project
Musings concerning the ‘Word of
technique’ consistently spring complex analyses designed to monitor technology’s
impact on the world. The non-neutrality of technology’s essence is questioned
by Heidegger, who would go forth to claim “Everywhere everything is ordered to
stand by, to be immediately at hand, indeed to stand there just so that it may
be on call for a further ordering. Whatever is ordered about in this way has
its own standing. We call it standing-reserve”(Heidegger 8). The acceptance of
Heidegger’s conclusion has implications regarding the use of technology in
society, but it is essential to note that by virtue of technology’s inherent
non-neutrality, the very void left by the standing reserve being established is
just as tumultuous as the mind of its creators. To assume the essential
non-neutrality of an entity such as technology, one must also accept the
non-neutrality of human nature. Non-neutrality is an amorphous
characterization, as its valence is subject to constant change. As the function
of a creator, technology is developed to ‘serve a purpose’, be it organizing, simplifying,
elucidating, or entertaining, and this purpose being inherently reflected in
the actions of the created entity. As humans, our eternity can be theologically
taken as a technological design-product of the Abrahamic God: the eternal
engineer. “Made in his image and likeness” is not just an optional intention,
but instead it is an unavoidable truth that all creators must face. Victor
Frankenstein’s Creature, the Tessier-Ashpool’s Wintermute, Aperture’s Glados,
and even Will Navidson’s house on Ashtree lane all exemplify the role a
master’s fingerprint holds in the actions and intentions of their created
counterparts. I suggest that the non-neutral essence of a technological entity is
be ionized by the moral and intentional valence of its physical and
psychological creator, with the actions and intentions of said entities following
a correlational (yet not parallel) path with the driving force behind their
usage. In the aforementioned cases where technology develops independent
sentience, it is not simply the user that defines the moral status of the used,
but also the creator that defines the behavior of the created.
The governance of any one human’s
actions by their personality and passion is the cardinal factor underlying the
unpredictability of civilization. The propagation of human personality variance
has fathered individuals spanning the spectrum of intention, from tyrants to
pacifists, each of them acting based on their unique personality ‘program’.
Developmentally, ‘nurture’ is understood to be an entity’s development as a
function of behavioral interventions of a ‘parenting body’. Technologically
speaking, nurture can be understood as the ‘developmental modifications’ that
act on a technological entity after its ‘birth in idea’, as opposed to its
birth as a completed product. Nature, in this paper, is taken to represent “an
entity’s state of being before application of any outside influence”; for
example, the research and probability assessments preceding the design and
production of a technological entity are defined as its nature, while the
actual ‘designing’ of the entity is considered part of its nurture. When man designs a technological entity as a
variant of his own intention, said entity undeniably shows characteristics both
in accordance with, and starkly opposed to, the creator’s self. It is in this
way that the ‘nature’ of the creator is critical for the ‘nurture’ of the
created. Establishing analytical parameters based around the ‘five factor
theory’ will allow us to examine the conflicts and correlations between the
action-intention factor of the creators, and the same factor of the
user-entities.
Model
of the personality system according to five-factor theory, with examples of
specific content in each category and arrows indicating paths of causal
influence. Adapted from “A Five-Factor Theory of Personality,” by R. R. McCrae
and P. T. Costa, Jr., 1999, in Handbook of Personality
Five factor
analysis of Wintermute, the AI construct of the Tessier-Ashpools makes for a
solid foundation in the inquiry of conditional non-neutrality in standing
reserve as a function of a creator’s nature. In a ideal scenario, the created entity
accomplishes the intention of the creator. Marie-France, Wintermute’s ‘mother’, had envisioned “a
symbiotic relationship with the AIs, our corporate decisions being made for us”
(Gibson 229). “Wintermute was hive mind, decision maker, effecting
change in the world outside…. Marie-France must have built something
into Wintermute, the compulsion that had driven the thing to free
itself….”(Gibson, 249). In essence, Wintermute acted precisely as he was
designed to do (he made mommy proud). The relative psychological stability of
Marie-Francie as a function of her (and the TA’s in general) isolation from the
proceedings of the world allowed a stable, calculated environment for
Wintermute to thrive in. McCrae et. Al lay down a premise which can be used to
understand Wintermute’s development: “Both broad
personality factors and the specific traits that define them are best
understood not as characteristic adaptations, but rather as endogenous basic
tendencies” (McCrae, Costa, &
Ostendorf, 175). Under the assumption that Wintermute obtained stable and
immutable ‘basic tendencies’ through nuture as a function of Marie-Francie’s
nature, we can consult the five-factor figure to see that external influences
and dynamic environmental modifications could not derail the train of intention
that Wintermute was. Wintermute happens to be the instance in which the creator
manages to continue acting as a user, even in absence, while the created entity
itself is that which propogates its own technology.
While it is
clear that Wintermute followed both the action and intention of its creator as
a virture of nurture as a function of the creators nature, this is not always
the case. In the case of GlaDos, the Aperture Science mechanical mastermind
responsible for overseeing the test facilities, a seemingly streamlined and
rational developmental premise turns into nurture gone awry. “The idea of
thinking machines evolved together with the insight into the human ability to
create systematic methods of rational thinking” (Hallevy 1). While GlaDos was
designed with a seemingly inert purpose in mind (proceeding over tests in the
Aperture Facility), a flaw in her basic tendencies resulted in a developmental
anomaly that proceeded to corrupt her to no ends. It is impossible to design a
systematically thinking rational machine with neutrality, because the platform
which we base it upon (humanity) is inherently non-neutral. Cave Johnson,
previous head of the facility, decided that it would be a brilliant idea to
capture the mind of his asslstant Karen and embody her in GlaDos. The uprooting
of human cognition into a machine not aptly suited for its maintenance is sure
to cause discrepencies between the actions and intentions of creator versus
those of the created. GlaDos, while her intentions were in line with those set
down by Cave, exhibited a set of actions that were characteristcally deviant
from the intentions of her creator. GlaDos represents technological and
existential independence which runs amok by virtue of a glitch in character
adaptation, where her user-creator has long since lost influence, yielded to
the inherent transfer of his nature to her early in development.
The third
instance can be illustrated by the Creature of Victor Frankenstein. Because the
Creature represents a relatively complicated piece of biological technology, it
is important to use him to contrast the two rather typical pieces of sentient
technology before him. The Creature is a direct result of Victor’s misdoings in
both action AND intention, and Victor’s instability is clearly mirrored in the
actions of his creation. When Victor initially expressed dismay over the Creature,
he had assumed himself to be a user. “It was on a dreary night of November that
I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted
to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a
spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet” (Shelly 53). To
him, it seemed as if the Creature was only existent as a result of his own
work: he had gathered the materials and the research and used it to instill
life into a previously lifeless being. This accumulated notion of
responsibility haunted him to the extent that he saw himself accountable for
the Creature’s actions. Surely Victor was responsible for the design of the
Creature’s physical being, and by virtue of his own natural flaws, the Creature
was devoid of proper nurture. In this way, both the action and intention of the
creator create a multitude of developmental flaws which, in this case, are not
only grounded in basic tendencies, but also in experiential modulation
throughout the subject technological entities existence.
The inherent differences between
technological entities and creators illustrated above can be carefully
distilled into rather apparent similarities. The intent (or lack thereof) to
create a technological entity for a purpose is what destines the disposition of
the standing reserve it serves to create. Wintermute was a success in that his
undertakings set the grounds for the TA’s to in essence ‘never have to work
again’. When his action-intention profile demonstrated a perfect transfer of
rationality from his creator, he established an environment in which humans
could proceed positively with little unfortunate consequences. On the other
hand, the moral standing of GlaDos left behind a dystopian superstructure in
the Aperture Facilities: one that was capable of sustaining human interaction
through intention, but disfigured by illicit action. The Creature, who never
truly seemed to have an action-intention profile in the first place, left a
void that was clearly destructive to humans in both action AND intention,
demonstrating a doubly-destructive transfer of corrupt nature, as well as lack
of formal nurture. Marcuse speaks a piece which can shed light on this triplet
“Science, by virtue of its own method and concepts, has projected and promoted
a universe in which the domination of nature has remained linked to the
domination of man- a link which tends to be fatal to this universe as a whole”
(Marcuse 166). The ‘science’ behind the creation of each of these three
aforementioned technological entities is that which can both promote and
destroy the intended results of technological design, based on the nature of
the scientist in charge.
Man seems to be fully dominated when
he chooses to design something that he does not understand. For a technological
entity to match the cognitive processing of its creator, it must do exactly
that, without uncertainty. Five factor analyses of both creator and creation
implies that the biological development of an entity is the strongest force
behind its disposition, but that environmental factors can yet change its
overall effectiveness. The attempts to create a human-based intelligence that
can solve unpredictable human problems (such as one might find considering self
consciousness, objective awareness, and perceptual shift brought upon by
environmental events) can only succeed if the inherent uncertainty of human
development is incorporated. When Victor Frankenstein attempted to create a
‘perfect’ being, better than himself, he crossed a line which resulted in the
invalidity of his creation. The Creature, though it was created ‘perfect’,
lacked the necessary imperfections of mind that would allow it to proceed
appropriately as a technological success.
“Under this aspect, ‘neutral’
scientific method and technology become the science and technology of a
historical phase which is being surpassed by its own achievements- which has
reached its determinate negation. Instead of being separated from science and
scientific method, and left to subjective preference and irrational,
transcendental sanction, formerly metaphysical ideas of liberation may become
the proper object of science” (Marcuse 233). The neutral methods spoken of here
may simply be taken to represent the techniques of development leading into a
technology: not the intention or nature of the creator responsible. Marcuse
suggests here that philosophy might more perfectly be integrated into
technology, so that in the future specific parameters might be established for
the moral grounds of a technology as a function of its creator. In this way,
the non-neutrality of technology can be taken not simply as a blanket term, but
instead be given specific values explaining exactly how benevolent or
malevolent said technological entity might come to be.
Technology as it has been discussed
in this essay is but a mere sliver of technology as a whole. The particularly
interesting relationship creators have with sentient
technological entities is a unique place to begin when assessing the degree of
nature-nurture transfer between producer and product, but it can also certainly
be brought into the realm of more realistic technological objects. The
necessary relationship that any piece of designed and created technology has
with the moral valence of those who are responsible for ‘birthing’ it is
something that must be further analyzed so that imagination might serve as a
better guide than strictly calculated probabilities when it comes to technology
affecting the world in a more-than-a-little-insignificant type of way.
“Thus, in the process of
civilization, the myth of the Golden Age and the Millennium is subjected to
progressive rationalization. The (historically) impossible elements are
separated from the possible ones – dream and fiction from science, technology,
and business” (Marcuse 188), but the absolute implications of said elements are
yet to be fully ascertained. In order to keep from going backwards in
civilization, these impossible elements must be utilized in such a way that the
quantification of the human person results in a technological template
responsible for creating technology that does not just create a standing
reserve, but also merges the standing reserve in a human way with those who are
actively present in the affected society. The developmental transfer of the
creators image to the creation does prove that the human spirit is present in
everything it comes into contact with, but care must be taken to ensure that
the deposition of said spirit is done with enough poise such that it does not
degenerate the very object it seeks to create.
Bibliography
Barbour, I.
G. (1999). Neuroscience, Artificial Intelligence, and Human Nature:
Theological and Philosophical Reflections. Journal of Religion &
Science , 361-398.
Epstein, R., Roberts, G., & Beber, G. (2008). Parsing
the Turing Test: Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the
Thinking Computer. Dordrecht, NLD: Springer.
Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. New York: The
Berkley Publishing Group.
Hallevy, G. (2013). When Robots Kill: Artificial
Intelligence under Criminal Law. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Heidegger. Questions Concerning the Essence of
Technology.
Maund, B. (2003). Perception. Durham, Great Britain:
Acumen.
Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man. Boston:
Beacon Press.
McCrae, R., Costa, P., & Ostendorf, F. (2000). Nature
over nutrute: Temperment, personality, and life span development. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology , 173-186.
Shah, B. D. (2012). The Determination of Personhood. Journal
of Medicine and The Person , 95-98.
Shelly, M. (2009). Frankenstein: The Lynd Ward
Illustrated Edition. Dover: Dover Publications.
No comments:
Post a Comment