Imagine the human consciousness trapped in the processor. In the real world, a push of a button can give him a sentence of thousands of years, and he has no hands or feet, and no way to resist.
Some have been forced to be trained into service programs, which is worse than the house elves (male protagonist A is a full-time training copy). Those who fail to train will be sent to the game world as cannon fodder NPC.
The interrogated copy of the original crime is even more bleak, and its encounter is simply an excellent model for a horror story.
Here comes the question: [In the future, should the copy of consciousness enjoy human rights? There
are many discussions about consciousness copies in science fiction novels. I clearly remember the first story about consciousness copies I came across: in the
future, human beings can upload self-consciousness into the machine body. The "you" in the new body can live far beyond the life span of ordinary humans, never get tired, don't need sleep, and can live without forgetting and have super intelligence.
It sounds wonderful.
But the problem is that the "you" in the human body is still alive.
It is undoubtedly a hell-like enjoyment to dispose of the garbage left in the orphanage as alive.
After reading that story, I was extremely horrified and entangled for a long, long time, and was extremely impressed by the consciousness copy. I accidentally watched the Black Mirror Christmas article today, and successfully rekindled my sense of fear at that time.
But this time it was the opposite angle: the consciousness copy was the one to be disposed of at will.
(If you want to read some stories about consciousness copy, I recommend "Tao Ou" and "Copy" that have been published in the sci-fi translation version.
In addition to "conscious copy", another point of this story is the powerful "smart eye", two The source of the tragedy of the hero.
Let me talk about the hero A first.
Imagine you connect (or hack into) another person's "smart eye", every detail in his life will be unobstructed, without privacy at all. This is undoubtedly the greatest disaster for privacy. In the Christmas article, this kind of voyeurism seems to be classified as a very serious crime. Although the hero A is kind to help (not sure), he has already crossed the line. As a result, he was accidentally involved in a poisonous murder and was caught by his wife. His luck was too bad.
Followed by the male protagonist B.
It is hard to imagine that such a brutal shielding function in the drama will really be allowed to appear in reality.
The girl uses shielding to escape male protagonist B, who loses access to the truth.
After waiting for years to learn that he had been brutally defeated by ntr, it became a tragedy in a rage.
In this controversy, the execution of male protagonist A was simply inhumane. With the support of the terrible blocking function, what is the difference between this and the death penalty? Silence for the uncle.
(Brain hole time: If the smart eye comes with the function of data storage, it will be quite convenient to find the murderer ==, but based on the "privacy disaster" mentioned above, this rough investigation method is estimated not to be allowed )
(in fact, one can see intelligent eyes set thought they had seen everything possible to 'have a problem' - perhaps all the virtual world but did not think the writers take a direct copy of the male B fuss consciousness)
then the problem and Coming:
[Can I be disturbed by smart eyes? 】
Even if the world of the Christmas article does not force citizens to install smart eyes, when most people use smart eyes, people who don’t have it will encounter a lot of trouble...Imagine you don’t have your own smart phone: you can’t swipe the QR code, You can’t use WeChat, you can’t access QQ anytime, you can’t shop on your mobile phone... The final result is that most people are driven by the trend of technology.
Just like the genetically modified race, about the mad rush of science and technology, I still have the same sentence:
this race, you have to participate if you don't participate. As for the end, we don't know yet.
PS: The
shielding function not only shields images but also isolates sound, which shows that the fusion of machines and human brains in this story is not limited to smart eyes.
------------------------------------------ In the
white snow, purple clothes little girl.
There is nowhere to go and nowhere to escape.
This is a Christmas of one minute and one thousand years.
No one knew it, and no one saw it.
An untouchable white world.
Enjoy this cheerful singing.
In this real intertwined virtual edge.
gg.
------------------------------------------
New Brain Hole No. 20:
Look Many people directly treat the copy of consciousness in the story as real consciousness. I think of the story of "Chinese House".
The question is: [Is it possible for strong artificial intelligence to exist? ] The
derivative is: [How to identify strong artificial intelligence? ]
Then it is: [Should strong artificial intelligence (such as copies) enjoy human rights? 】
If the first two questions are not answered, then the last question will not be discussed.
Many people will condemn the police and the protagonist A for their indiscretion and coldness in treating cookies because of the tragic experience of the copy of consciousness in the film. But don’t forget that they don’t have an audience perspective—they don’t know.
The Christmas article has always hinted at us outside the story: the consciousness copy is really'conscious'.
In other words, it is truly strong artificial intelligence.
But the people in the story don't all view it that way.
After all, how to identify strong artificial intelligence is not conclusive.
For example, the professional male protagonist A said: "It's not really true, so it's not really cruel."
Perhaps in his opinion, these copies of consciousness are "Chinese rooms". They faithfully record the body's hobby emotional memory and will react like the body, but no matter how lifelike these responses are and how humans are, they have no real feelings. . (Similar thoughts are reflected in the first episode of the second season)
As for the male policeman, his inspiration for modifying the time to torture the copy comes from the male lead A's explanation of the copy. He himself neither understands the principle of the copy, nor does he care whether the copy is strong artificial intelligence. (Of course I have no doubt that he has no sympathy for the prisoner, let alone a virtual abstract copy.) The
only one who showed direct sympathy for the copy is the copy of the male protagonist B, but don’t forget that this copy is not the same as his body. To understand the relevant knowledge of the copy, just listen to the male lead A said a few words. His sympathy for the consciousness copy is very simple. (Besides, is that'really' sympathy? I think the hero A must think it is not.)
The copy in the Christmas article behaves the same as the main body (it can definitely pass the Turing test). If you know that the copy has real perception, Such cruel treatment is indeed a very serious moral problem. But the dilemma is that no one can see through the "Chinese Room", and no one knows whether the code in a processor running under a mechanism completely different from that of the human brain actually makes the copy'perceptual'.
The male protagonist A rationally said that it was not true, and the camera repeatedly told us that he was wrong. The tragic end of the male protagonist B's copy was a warning: "What if it is a strong artificial intelligence? In case we made a cruel mistake. Not knowing it?"
I think we can only be sure when we understand the true source of self-awareness.
View more about White Christmas reviews
